Connect with us

Features

Difficult Dealings with Strong Political Personalities

Published

on

(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Pieris, Secretary to the Prime Minister)

Senior public officials have often to act as buffers between ministers, other important political actors, and other stakeholders in society. On many occasions, one had to absorb a significant degree of shock and act as a facilitator, mediator or referee. A rousing example of this side of one’s responsibilities came by courtesy of Mrs. Vivienne Goonewardene, the LSSP Member of Parliament for Dehiwela-Galkissa and wife of Mr. Leslie Goonewardene, Minister of Communications.

Mrs. Goonewardene was well known for her intrepidity, straight frank discourse and a degree of rebelliousness. She rang me one day. The prime minister had apparently “interfered,” in some matter pertaining to her electorate. I received a characteristic barrage aimed at the prime minister. “Tell that woman, just because she is prime minister, she has no business to interfere in my electorate. Tell her that I am not afraid of her, and I will know what to do if she tries her nonsense with me. Now, I want you to tell her what I told you in exactly the same words,” insisted Mrs. Goonewardene.

I listened to this tirade with a degree of amusement. This was vintage Vivienne. I said “Madam, you meet the Prime Minister in Parliament. Why don’t you tell all this to her yourself’.?” This time it was my turn to get blasted. “That is none of your business. You do what is told. This is a formal request,” she replied. I then told her “Madam, if you want to use your own words, you will have to deliver them yourself. I will however, tell the prime minister that you spoke to me and that your were deeply upset about what you reported she had done in your electorate, and that as an MP you were unwilling to accept it.”

Mrs. Goonewardene was not pleased. She said, “All right, if you don’t have the guts to tell her what I have said, do it your way!” And that is what I did. I did not think it my function as a public servant to promote disharmony and spread ill will. What was relevant was that an MP was upset at a purported action of the prime minister, which it was important to bring to her attention in a suitable manner so that the issue could be addressed. Aggression and abuse would not have been helpful.

Sometimes, it becomes one’s unpleasant duty to clash with ministers, and it occasionally happens. I was Acting Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs. Mr. WT Jayasinghe and the PM were abroad. There occurred an assault on a doctor in the South, by a police constable. The doctors were naturally up in arms and wanted the constable interdicted immediately. The Inspector General of Police, Mr. Stanley Senanayake came to see me personally, and stated that there was a long standing problem between this doctor and some members of the public; that there were complaints made regarding this doctor’s behaviour in the past; that he had been rude to police officers; and that there was also some personal enmity between this doctor and the police constable.

He reported that the police were seething and did not want the constable interdicted without a full preliminary inquiry, at which they were confident the doctor’s behaviour would come to light. The IGP said that the situation was so bad, that if the constable was interdicted due to the pressure of the doctors, he might have a strike by the police of that range on his hands. I told the IGP, that if there was prima facie evidence, no matter what the reason, the constable struck the doctor, things could not be left as they were, pending a full investigation which was going to take time.

I said that at the least, the constable should be sent on compulsory leave and a full inquiry begun immediately. I also told him that there should not be any postponements and that the inquiry should be continued until it was over. I also said that in view of the high feelings on both sides, a retired judge should conduct the inquiry. The IGP agreed with some reluctance, to these instructions of mine given in my capacity as Acting Secretary, Defence.

The doctors were not happy. They were not prepared to settle for anything short of interdiction. They began to canvass Ministers, and amongst others went to Minister Felix R. Dias Bandaranaike, who, without checking with the IGP or me, and not knowing the background or the serious implications on the police side had agreed that the constable should be interdicted. The minister rang me, and in a rather peremptory tone said, “I want that policeman interdicted.” I said “I am sorry, I won’t be able to do that,” and explained the complications, and how I had already taken steps to remove the constable from the scene, by sending him on compulsory leave, in spite of the opposition of the IGP.

I also informed him that the inquiry was starting immediately. But the minister was not satisfied. He had committed himself to the doctors. He said, “All that is well and good, but unless the police officer is interdicted, you will have a doctors’ strike on your hands, and you will be responsible.” I replied that “If I order interdiction there will be a police strike on my hands, for which too I would be held responsible.” I concluded by saying that as Acting Secretary, Defence & Foreign Affairs, I had also to be concerned with the morale of the police, and that what had been worked out was a fair compromise.

The minister was not pleased. “Then, you do any bloody thing you want,” he said and slammed the phone down. Curiously, virtually these same words were used on me by a few other ministers on some future occasions, and my left ear received significant training in coping with banging telephones. Fortunately, wiser counsel prevailed and a strike either by the doctors or the police was averted. The immediate commencement of the inquiry helped.

When the PM returned to the island, I briefed her on what had happened. She backed me fully, and said that the minister had no business to get involved in an issue, which was not within his area of responsibility. In the future too, she wanted me to use my own independent judgment, on any issue which concerned her responsibilities. This was one of the main reasons why it was easy to work with Mrs. Bandaranaike. She trusted you, and backed fully whatever decision you took. She was interested in hindsight only to the extent that its contemplation could improve the quality of foresight in the future, and not to find fault.

Another strong quality of the Prime Minister was her ability to listen to a strong dissenting view, without losing her temper or later holding it against you. In any case, as far as I was concerned, I had cleared this question the first day she came to office after having been sworn in as Prime Minister, as I had related earlier in these memoirs. We had a relationship built on frank and sincere talk and discussion. I never felt inhibited to speak out when I thought it was necessary. Although I did not get involved in political comment, sometimes the sheer sycophancy one saw around provoked one to say something.

For instance, on one occasion, when the ruling SLFP had lost a by-election fairly badly, there was a political figure trying to put a gloss on it in order to please the PM. I happened to be there, and in my presence he said “But Madam, there is nothing to worry. Over 12,000 progressives voted for us. That is a great victory.” I was so irritated that I shot back, that on this calculus of the “progressive” vote for the government, it would lose every seat at the next general election. The PM, surprised, looked hard at me, and then said, “quite right.” In fact, unfortunately for the government, the next general election, illustrated my point all too comprehensively. I did not realize at the time, that what I uttered was prophetic.

The case of Mr. R. Paskaralingam

An example of the PM, and her attitude towards dissenting views, was the case of Mr. R. Paskaralingam. Mr. Paskaralingam was a colleague, in the Civil Service, senior to me in the service, and at the time Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Education. He was an experienced, unruffled and a sound administrator who bore the brunt of the general administration in a large and difficult Ministry, thus freeing the Secretary, Dr. Udagama, a distinguished educationist, to address the quality, content and scope of education at the various levels.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Paskaralingam, during this period, he had approved an officer of the Ministry going to London on a scholarship, and the officer did not return. The Minister of Public Administration, Mr. Felix Dias Bandaranaike took a dim view of this, and wrote a letter to the Prime Minister expressing extremely critical views of Mr. Paskaralingam’s negligence in permitting this officer to go.

The charge was that he was not diligent enough in checking all aspects before he gave permission.

This was also a time of stringent exchange controls, where a system of exit permits existed without which no one could travel abroad. Particularly in the climate of the time, the charge against a senior public servant of Mr. Paskaralingam’s position was serious.

I held quite a different view and I expressed it to the Prime Minister. I said that all of us in the public service work on a basis of trust as far as our colleagues are concerned. There was no way that you could look into every representation made to you by a fellow public servant. The whole administration would grind to a halt if you spent your time investigating every assertion or statement made to you. It was just not practical and I explained to the Prime Minister that Mr. Paskaralingam, who was a very busy person would have had to take his Assistant Secretary’s word in this instance. I told her that I would have done exactly the same thing.

That passed. But shortly thereafter the issue of acting arrangements in the Ministry of Education came up, since Dr. Udagama was due to go abroad. Mr. Paskaralingam was the next senior officer. The period involved was about 10 days. I therefore prepared as is customary, a letter from the Prime Minister to the President recommending his appointment as Acting Secretary. Secretaries even then were appointed by the President, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. When I took the letter for signature, the Prime Minister said, “No, I can’t have him act. We will get a Secretary from another Ministry to act.”

I asked what the problem was. She said that some members of Parliament had made complaints to her about various transfers and so on made by him. I asked whether any of these complaints were inquired into. She said “No,” but she would have problems with the MPs, if Mr. Paskaralingam acted. I told the Prime Minister that Mr. Paskaralingam was one of the hardest worked officers. He was in office by 7.30 in the morning and on most days left after 7.30 in the night. He carried a tremendous burden of administration and was the second most senior officer in the Ministry. Acting for the Secretary, was not a favour. It was but his due.

I said that a man was entitled to the “fruits” of his labours. I also said that as Prime Minister, she should not come to any conclusions, based on what some MPs may have said, without investigating the matter and establishing its truth or otherwise. But the Prime Minister was still not convinced. She said that she would have problems with the MPs. I then said, “Excuse me,” and started walking out of the room. “Where are you going?” inquired the Prime Minister. I said, I was going to bring the seniority list of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service. “What for?” asked the Prime Minister. I said, “Madam, the government cannot have it both ways. You cannot get work out of people and not give them their due.

If you believe what the MPs have stated without any inquiry, it is obvious that you yourself have lost confidence in the person. Such an official should not be No. 2 in a Ministry as important as the Ministry of Education. Please select someone else from the seniority list and we will move out Mr. Paskaralingam immediately.” “Sit down,” the Prime Minister ordered. Then she reflected. Put this way, the Prime Minister realized that acting on a vague impression created in her mind was not in order. She signed the letter, recommending Mr. Paskaralingam as Acting Secretary, Education. I thanked the Prime Minister and reminded her that she was free to make any investigations about complaints from MPs.

I also told her that this was only one specific case, and that it was important that certain fair norms be established in regard to the interaction between political authorities and the public service, and that these be visible to the public service. This was necessary, in order to obviate frustration and produce an efficient service, which was in the interests of both the government and the country.

Speaking of Dr. Udagama, it is worth relating an amusing incident that occurred around this time. One day, I was at Temple Trees working with the Prime Minister. The time was about 2.45 p.m. On a matter arising from some of the papers I was discussing with her, she wanted to speak with Dr. Udagama. The switchboard operator was instructed to get him on the line. The operator first trying his office and being told that he could be at home, had attempted to reach him there. Soon, a hesitant and somewhat embarrassed operator came up to the Prime Minister and informed her that Dr. Udagama was at home but was having a bath!

“What! having a bath at this time?” blurted out an incredulous Prime Minister. She had a sense of humour, and the next moment observed “what a strange man!” Evidently Dr. Udagama had come home for a late lunch, and decided to take a shower before getting back. I mentioned this episode to him. We had a good laugh. Even today we sometimes laugh about this when we meet. I however had told Dr. Udagama that I have no means of describing the look on the Prime Minister’s face when she was told that her Secretary, Ministry of Education was enjoying a bath at 3 o’clock in the afternoon on a working day.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Disaster-proofing paradise: Sri Lanka’s new path to global resilience

Published

on

iyadasa Advisor to the Ministry of Science & Technology and a Board of Directors of Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Regulatory Council A value chain management consultant to www.vivonta.lk

As climate shocks multiply worldwide from unseasonal droughts and flash floods to cyclones that now carry unpredictable fury Sri Lanka, long known for its lush biodiversity and heritage, stands at a crossroads. We can either remain locked in a reactive cycle of warnings and recovery, or boldly transform into the world’s first disaster-proof tropical nation — a secure haven for citizens and a trusted destination for global travelers.

The Presidential declaration to transition within one year from a limited, rainfall-and-cyclone-dependent warning system to a full-spectrum, science-enabled resilience model is not only historic — it’s urgent. This policy shift marks the beginning of a new era: one where nature, technology, ancient wisdom, and community preparedness work in harmony to protect every Sri Lankan village and every visiting tourist.

The Current System’s Fatal Gaps

Today, Sri Lanka’s disaster management system is dangerously underpowered for the accelerating climate era. Our primary reliance is on monsoon rainfall tracking and cyclone alerts — helpful, but inadequate in the face of multi-hazard threats such as flash floods, landslides, droughts, lightning storms, and urban inundation.

Institutions are fragmented; responsibilities crisscross between agencies, often with unclear mandates and slow decision cycles. Community-level preparedness is minimal — nearly half of households lack basic knowledge on what to do when a disaster strikes. Infrastructure in key regions is outdated, with urban drains, tank sluices, and bunds built for rainfall patterns of the 1960s, not today’s intense cloudbursts or sea-level rise.

Critically, Sri Lanka is not yet integrated with global planetary systems — solar winds, El Niño cycles, Indian Ocean Dipole shifts — despite clear evidence that these invisible climate forces shape our rainfall, storm intensity, and drought rhythms. Worse, we have lost touch with our ancestral systems of environmental management — from tank cascades to forest sanctuaries — that sustained this island for over two millennia.

This system, in short, is outdated, siloed, and reactive. And it must change.

A New Vision for Disaster-Proof Sri Lanka

Under the new policy shift, Sri Lanka will adopt a complete resilience architecture that transforms climate disaster prevention into a national development strategy. This system rests on five interlinked pillars:

Science and Predictive Intelligence

We will move beyond surface-level forecasting. A new national climate intelligence platform will integrate:

AI-driven pattern recognition of rainfall and flood events

Global data from solar activity, ocean oscillations (ENSO, MJO, IOD)

High-resolution digital twins of floodplains and cities

Real-time satellite feeds on cyclone trajectory and ocean heat

The adverse impacts of global warming—such as sea-level rise, the proliferation of pests and diseases affecting human health and food production, and the change of functionality of chlorophyll—must be systematically captured, rigorously analysed, and addressed through proactive, advance decision-making.

This fusion of local and global data will allow days to weeks of anticipatory action, rather than hours of late alerts.

Advanced Technology and Early Warning Infrastructure

Cell-broadcast alerts in all three national languages, expanded weather radar, flood-sensing drones, and tsunami-resilient siren networks will be deployed. Community-level sensors in key river basins and tanks will monitor and report in real-time. Infrastructure projects will now embed climate-risk metrics — from cyclone-proof buildings to sea-level-ready roads.

Governance Overhaul

A new centralised authority — Sri Lanka Climate & Earth Systems Resilience Authority — will consolidate environmental, meteorological, Geological, hydrological, and disaster functions. It will report directly to the Cabinet with a real-time national dashboard. District Disaster Units will be upgraded with GN-level digital coordination. Climate literacy will be declared a national priority.

People Power and Community Preparedness

We will train 25,000 village-level disaster wardens and first responders. Schools will run annual drills for floods, cyclones, tsunamis and landslides. Every community will map its local hazard zones and co-create its own resilience plan. A national climate citizenship programme will reward youth and civil organisations contributing to early warning systems, reforestation (riverbank, slopy land and catchment areas) , or tech solutions.

Reviving Ancient Ecological Wisdom

Sri Lanka’s ancestors engineered tank cascades that regulated floods, stored water, and cooled microclimates. Forest belts protected valleys; sacred groves were biodiversity reservoirs. This policy revives those systems:

Restoring 10,000 hectares of tank ecosystems

Conserving coastal mangroves and reintroducing stone spillways

Integrating traditional seasonal calendars with AI forecasts

Recognising Vedda knowledge of climate shifts as part of national risk strategy

Our past and future must align, or both will be lost.

A Global Destination for Resilient Tourism

Climate-conscious travelers increasingly seek safe, secure, and sustainable destinations. Under this policy, Sri Lanka will position itself as the world’s first “climate-safe sanctuary island” — a place where:

Resorts are cyclone- and tsunami-resilient

Tourists receive live hazard updates via mobile apps

World Heritage Sites are protected by environmental buffers

Visitors can witness tank restoration, ancient climate engineering, and modern AI in action

Sri Lanka will invite scientists, startups, and resilience investors to join our innovation ecosystem — building eco-tourism that’s disaster-proof by design.

Resilience as a National Identity

This shift is not just about floods or cyclones. It is about redefining our identity. To be Sri Lankan must mean to live in harmony with nature and to be ready for its changes. Our ancestors did it. The science now supports it. The time has come.

Let us turn Sri Lanka into the world’s first climate-resilient heritage island — where ancient wisdom meets cutting-edge science, and every citizen stands protected under one shield: a disaster-proof nation.

Continue Reading

Features

The minstrel monk and Rafiki the old mandrill in The Lion King – I

Published

on

Why is national identity so important for a people? AI provides us with an answer worth understanding critically (Caveat: Even AI wisdom should be subjected to the Buddha’s advice to the young Kalamas):

‘A strong sense of identity is crucial for a people as it fosters belonging, builds self-worth, guides behaviour, and provides resilience, allowing individuals to feel connected, make meaningful choices aligned with their values, and maintain mental well-being even amidst societal changes or challenges, acting as a foundation for individual and collective strength. It defines “who we are” culturally and personally, driving shared narratives, pride, political action, and healthier relationships by grounding people in common values, traditions, and a sense of purpose.’

Ethnic Sinhalese who form about 75% of the Sri Lankan population have such a unique identity secured by the binding medium of their Buddhist faith. It is significant that 93% of them still remain Buddhist (according to 2024 statistics/wikipedia), professing Theravada Buddhism, after four and a half centuries of coercive Christianising European occupation that ended in 1948. The Sinhalese are a unique ancient island people with a 2500 year long recorded history, their own language and country, and their deeply evolved Buddhist cultural identity.

Buddhism can be defined, rather paradoxically, as a non-religious religion, an eminently practical ethical-philosophy based on mind cultivation, wisdom and universal compassion. It is  an ethico-spiritual value system that prioritises human reason and unaided (i.e., unassisted by any divine or supernatural intervention) escape from suffering through self-realisation. Sri Lanka’s benignly dominant Buddhist socio-cultural background naturally allows unrestricted freedom of religion, belief or non-belief for all its citizens, and makes the country a safe spiritual haven for them. The island’s Buddha Sasana (Dispensation of the Buddha) is the inalienable civilisational treasure that our ancestors of two and a half millennia have bequeathed to us. It is this enduring basis of our identity as a nation which bestows on us the personal and societal benefits of inestimable value mentioned in the AI summary given at the beginning of  this essay.

It was this inherent national identity that the Sri Lankan contestant at the 72nd Miss World 2025 pageant held in Hyderabad, India, in May last year, Anudi Gunasekera, proudly showcased before the world, during her initial self-introduction. She started off with a verse from the Dhammapada (a Pali Buddhist text), which she explained as meaning “Refrain from all evil and cultivate good”. She declared, “And I believe that’s my purpose in life”. Anudi also mentioned that Sri Lanka had gone through a lot “from conflicts to natural disasters, pandemics, economic crises….”, adding, “and yet, my people remain hopeful, strong, and resilient….”.

 “Ayubowan! I am Anudi Gunasekera from Sri Lanka. It is with immense pride that I represent my Motherland, a nation of resilience, timeless beauty, and a proud history, Sri Lanka.

“I come from Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka’s first capital, and UNESCO World Heritage site, with its history and its legacy of sacred monuments and stupas…….”.

The “inspiring words” that Anudi quoted are from the Dhammapada (Verse 183), which runs, in English translation: “To avoid all evil/To cultivate good/and to cleanse one’s mind -/this is the teaching of the Buddhas”. That verse is so significant because it defines the basic ‘teaching of the Buddhas’ (i.e., Buddha Sasana; this is how Walpole Rahula Thera defines Buddha Sasana in his celebrated introduction to Buddhism ‘What the Buddha Taught’ first published in1959).

Twenty-five year old Anudi Gunasekera is an alumna of the University of Kelaniya, where she earned a bachelor’s degree in International Studies. She is planning to do a Master’s in the same field. Her ambition is to join the foreign service in Sri Lanka. Gen Z’er Anudi is already actively engaged in social service. The Saheli Foundation is her own initiative launched to address period poverty (i.e., lack of access to proper sanitation facilities, hygiene and health education, etc.) especially  among women and post-puberty girls of low-income classes in rural and urban Sri Lanka.

Young Anudi is primarily inspired by her patriotic devotion to ‘my Motherland, a nation of resilience, timeless beauty, and a proud history, Sri Lanka’. In post-independence Sri Lanka, thousands of young men and women of her age have constantly dedicated themselves, oftentimes making the supreme sacrifice, motivated by a sense of national identity, by the thought ‘This is our beloved Motherland, these are our beloved people’.

The rescue and recovery of Sri Lanka from the evil aftermath of a decade of subversive ‘Aragalaya’ mayhem is waiting to be achieved, in every sphere of national engagement, including, for example, economics, communications, culture and politics, by the enlightened Anudi Gunasekeras and their male counterparts of the Gen Z, but not by the demented old stragglers lingering in the political arena listening to the unnerving rattle of “Time’s winged chariot hurrying near”, nor by the baila blaring monks at propaganda rallies.

Politically active monks (Buddhist bhikkhus) are only a handful out of  the Maha Sangha (the general body of Buddhist bhikkhus) in Sri  Lanka, who numbered just over 42,000  in 2024. The vast majority of monks spend their time quietly attending to their monastic duties. Buddhism upholds social and emotional virtues such as universal compassion, empathy, tolerance and forgiveness that protect a society from the evils of tribalism, religious bigotry and death-dealing religious piety.

Not all monks who express or promote political opinions should be censured. I choose to condemn only those few monks who abuse the yellow robe as a shield in their narrow partisan politics. I cannot bring myself to disapprove of the many socially active monks, who are articulating the genuine problems that the Buddha Sasana is facing today. The two bhikkhus who are the most despised monks in the commercial media these days are Galaboda-aththe Gnanasara and Ampitiye Sumanaratana Theras.  They have a problem with their mood swings. They have long been whistleblowers trying to raise awareness respectively, about spreading religious fundamentalism, especially, violent Islamic Jihadism, in the country and about the vandalising of the Buddhist archaeological heritage sites of the north and east provinces. The two middle-aged monks (Gnanasara and Sumanaratana) belong to this respectable category. Though they are relentlessly attacked in the social media or hardly given any positive coverage of the service they are doing, they do nothing more than try to persuade the rulers to take appropriate action to resolve those problems while not trespassing on the rights of people of other faiths.

These monks have to rely on lay political leaders to do the needful, without themselves taking part in sectarian politics in the manner of ordinary members of the secular society. Their generally demonised social image is due, in my opinion, to  three main reasons among others: 1) spreading misinformation and disinformation about them by those who do not like what they are saying and doing, 2) their own lack of verbal restraint, and 3) their being virtually abandoned to the wolves by the temporal and spiritual authorities.

(To be continued)

By Rohana R. Wasala ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world

Published

on

An UN humanitarian mission in the Gaza. [File: Ashraf Amra/Anadolu Agency]

‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.

Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.

Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.

If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.

Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.

It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result of this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.

If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.

Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.

Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.

However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.

What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.

Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.

Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.

Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.

For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.

The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.

Continue Reading

Trending