Features
Ramifications of Kissinger’s Back Channels
A Balance Sheet for a Holocaust-Surviving Jewish Refugee Who Shaped the New World Order to ensure American Supremacy
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Henry Kissinger (1923-2023), architect of clandestine diplomacy, epitomized a life rich with profound lessons for humanity. As custodian of the United States’ archives, his influence extended beyond political realms, playing a pivotal role in orchestrating China’s rise in the Western economic landscape. Kissinger’s legacy is characterized by realist politics and an unwavering pursuit of a delicate balance of power. Unyielding in the face of criticism, Kissinger fearlessly wielded authority, leaving an indelible mark on global geopolitics. His passing creates a tapestry woven with both commendable and questionable actions, from reshaping the international order to navigating the complexities of realpolitik.
Born Heinz Kissinger in 1923 in Fürth, Bavaria, his family’s escape from the looming threat of Kristallnacht led them to New York. Rechristened Henry, his early aptitude for strategic thinking clashed with his initial leanings towards accountancy. Drafted into the U.S. Army in 1942, Kissinger’s formative years were shaped by German-American Fritz Kramer, whose mentorship warned against detached intellectualism.
In a 1958 interview, Kissinger unabashedly proclaimed, “A capitalist society, or, to me more interestingly, a free society, is a more revolutionary phenomenon than nineteenth-century socialism. I think we should go on the spiritual offensive.” This conviction, rooted in the unwavering belief in the American global mission, defines Kissinger’s controversial legacy. Among the immigrant influences shaping him, Hans Morgenthau, luminary of modern foreign policy realism, stood closest. Their professional rapport endured, but Morgenthau’s unwillingness to compromise realist principles for political gain became evident when dismissed from advising the Johnson administration over his opposition to the Vietnam War. Kissinger’s impact on global affairs, however, is marred by egregious actions—from the downfall of Chilean democracy to complicity in consolidating the Pinochet dictatorship, involvement in the Argentine military junta’s brutalities, betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds, and the extension of the Vietnam War to Laos and Cambodia—a portrait of a man entangled in a web of global suffering.
The epitaph of “war criminal” has been hurled at Kissinger, a label that gains credence in light of his involvement in heinous acts. Chef Anthony Bourdain’s visceral condemnation encapsulates the sentiment: “Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger barehanded… you’ll never understand why he’s not sitting in The Hague docks next to Milošević.” However, the distinction between political, moral, and historical responsibility for human suffering and strict legal culpability is a complex web. While it’s indisputable that Kissinger’s policies resulted in countless deaths, establishing legal responsibility is a nuanced challenge.
Consider the haunting case of East Timor, a canvas stained with the brushstrokes of Kissinger’s complicity. Post-Portuguese independence in 1975, Kissinger and President Ford granted Indonesian President Suharto a green light for invasion, a decision seemingly sealed during a Jakarta meeting. In this grim theatre of geopolitical maneuvering, Kissinger’s role as an architect of practical assistance becomes evident. The U.S., a ‘donor-client’ to Indonesia, supplied 90% of its military arsenal, reinforcing the umbilical tie between the two nations.
As the death toll in East Timor surged into the tens of thousands, Kissinger navigated legal loopholes with calculated finesse. Congressional constraints on weapons use against human rights violations became mere hurdles to sidestep. Kissinger’s actus reus was the practical assistance that fueled Indonesian crimes—a support system with a significant effect. The final report of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor labeled U.S. “political and military support” as fundamental to the invasion.
Unlike the case in Pakistan, concrete evidence of Kissinger’s real-time knowledge of ongoing atrocities remains elusive, a requirement to meet the mens rea standard. The isolation of East Timor, predicted by the CIA, facilitated Indonesia’s information blackout, shielding Kissinger from immediate knowledge. Yet, reports of looting, killing, and staggering death tolls reached the ears of diplomats, with testimonies from Indonesians. Whether Kissinger turned a blind eye or was deliberately kept in the dark remains an open question.
In dissecting Kissinger’s role, we confront a moral abyss where political expediency collided with human suffering. The legal intricacies may entangle us, but the undeniable reality persists—Kissinger’s hands bear the stain of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. The echoes of East Timor resonate as a damning testament to the geopolitical calculus that prioritized strategic interests over the sanctity of human life. The secret bombings of Laos, the controversial Operation Speedy Express in Vietnam, and the sinister orchestration of Operation Condor in South America all stand as potential cases that cry out for scrutiny. Yet, astonishingly, Kissinger has never faced the piercing questions of a court regarding these egregious actions. The question lingers: Was Kissinger a statesman or a silent accomplice to unspeakable atrocities? What similarities exist in the legal nature of Henry Kissinger’s actions and those of Adolf Eichmann from Nazi Germany, who was later prosecuted in Israel after being captured in Argentina?
In 2004, however, a U.S. federal court dismissed a civil suit against Kissinger, filed by the family of Chilean Army Chief General René Schneider, killed in an alleged failed kidnapping attempt involving Kissinger. Subsequent attempts to hold him accountable were thwarted by political machinations and evasive maneuvers. Judges in Argentina, Chile, France, and Spain sought his testimony on crimes committed by U.S. client regimes in South America, but Kissinger, till his death, was able remains an elusive figure, evading the specter of justice. Even in London, his temporary refuge in 2002, British activist Peter Tatchell’s attempt to arrest him for charges related to the Vietnam War proved unsuccessful.
The most damning chapter unfolds in 1971 during the massacres in what is now Bangladesh, then the eastern part of Pakistan. Kissinger staunchly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship, turning a blind eye to one of the Cold War’s worst atrocities. In the face of a “reign of terror,” Kissinger failed to intervene, neglecting to pressure Pakistani generals against shooting their own citizens or to advocate for power-sharing agreements. As Bengali nationalists won democratic elections and faced brutal repression, Kissinger chose not to employ U.S. influence to prevent the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe.
Ambassador Kenneth Keating’s warning of “almost entirely genocide” against Hindus fell on deaf ears, as Kissinger callously referred to the dying Bengalis with dismissive apathy in White House tapes. The genocide, a term he conveniently sidestepped, became an inconsequential detail in the grand theater of geopolitical maneuvering. His allegiance to Pakistani General Yahya Khan, manifested in jest about Hindu pogroms, laid bare the moral vacuum at the heart of Kissinger’s political calculus.
The scars of his decisions lingered as at least 200,000 lives were lost, and millions of Bengali refugees sought shelter in India, where disease ran rampant in overcrowded camps. As Pakistan attacked India in December 1971, the short but fierce war resulted in a humiliating defeat for Pakistan and the birth of an independent Bangladesh. The colossal failure of U.S. policy in the region during the Cold War was unmistakable.
Throughout the crisis, Kissinger’s disdain for the Indian people reached egregious heights. Condemning them as “trashy people” and blaming them for the refugee crisis, he wove a narrative of contempt that tainted his perception of an entire nation. His derogatory remarks on Indians, dripping with scorn, painted a picture of racial bias that contradicted the principles of diplomacy and international statesmanship.
Even as Kissinger berated Indians, his condescension extended to Pakistanis, branding them as “primitive” in their mental makeup. This sweeping judgment betrayed a deep-seated prejudice that transcended national boundaries, exposing a toxic mindset that permeated his decision-making.
In a disquieting psychological scrutiny, the looming specter of Hitler’s influence on Kissinger’s psyche surfaces. Without reducing his perspectives to mere trauma, stark parallels materialize in the Machiavellian stratagems employed by both titans, wielding power to subdue adversaries and sculpt political landscapes. Kissinger’s brazen proclamation, “the illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a bit longer,” stands as a chilling witness to the modus operandi that echoes the unrelenting ruthlessness of history’s darkest epochs.
In the twilight of his existence, however, Kissinger extensively delved into leadership strategies, compelling us to grapple with his “undeclared confessions” regarding his role in the missteps of his century. Reverberating the wisdom of the ancient Stoic philosopher Epictetus in his 2022 treatise on leadership, Kissinger reaffirmed, “We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them.” The mantle of leadership is to steer that choice, to kindle a collective response resonating with the indomitable spirit of a society poised to confront its challenges and carve its destiny.
Henry Kissinger, a figure both praised and critiqued, emerges from the annals of history as a complex architect of U.S. foreign policy. His legacy, sculpted in the crucible of geopolitical expediency, bears witness to a leader adept at navigating the intricate landscapes of power. The stark duality of Kissinger’s character is laid bare in his Machiavellian approach, where realpolitik trumped moral considerations. From his instrumental role in shaping China’s rise to his controversial stance during the South Asian crisis, Kissinger’s decisions, often veiled in secrecy, carried profound consequences.
In grappling with allegations of war crimes and ethical lapses, Kissinger’s legacy invites scrutiny, a cautionary tale of leadership that challenges the balance between strategic pragmatism and ethical responsibility. The echoes of his decisions reverberate as a nuanced portrait, forcing us to confront the moral complexities of a statesman whose actions unfolded in the shadows of history’s defining moments.
Features
NASA’s Epic Flight, Trump’s Epic Fumble and Asian Dilemmas
Three hours after the spectacular Artemis II flight launch in Florida, US President Donald Trump delivered a forlorn speech from Washington. Thirty three days after starting the war against Iran as Epic Fury, the President demonstrated on national and global televisions the Epic Fumble he has made out of his Middle East ‘excursion’. It was an April Fool’s Day speech, 20 minutes of incoherent rambling with the President looking bored, confused, disengaged and dispirited. He left no one wiser about what will come next, let alone what he might do next.
There was more to April Fool’s Day this year in that it brought out the nation’s good, bad and the ugly, all in a day’s swoop. The good was the Artemis II flight carrying astronauts farther from the Earth’s orbit and closer to the moon for the first time in over 50 years. The mission is a precursor for future flights and will test the performance of a new spacecraft, gather new understanding of human conditioning, and extend the boundaries of lunar science. It is a testament to humankind being able to make steady progress in science and technology at one end of a hopelessly uneven world, while poverty, bigotry and belligerence simmer violently at the other end.
Terrible Trump
The four Artemis II astronauts, three Americans, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, and one Canadian, Jeremy Hansen, are also symptomatic of the endurance of America’s inclusive goodness in spite of efforts by the Trump Administration to snuff the nation’s fledgling DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) ethos. To wit, of the four astronauts, Victor Glover, a Caribbean American, is the first person of colour, Christina Koch the first woman, and Jeremy Hansen of Canada the first non-American – to fly this far beyond the earth’s orbit. All in spite of Trump’s watch.
Yet Trump managed to showcase his commitment to America’s ugliness, on the same day, by presenting himself at the Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of his most abominable Executive Order – to stop the American tradition of birthright citizenship. He keeps posting that America is Stupid in being the only country in the world that grants citizenship at birth to everyone born in America, regardless of the status of their parents, except the children of foreign diplomats or members of an occupying enemy force. In fact, there are 32 other countries in the world that grant birthright citizenship, a majority of them in the Americas indicating the continent’s history as a magnet for migrants ever since Christopher Columbus discovered it for the rest of the world.
And birthright citizenship in the US is enshrined in the constitution by the 14th Amendment, supplemented by subsequent legislation and reinforced by a century and a half of case law. Trump wants to reverse that. Thus far and no further was the message from the court at the hearing. A decision is expected in June and the legal betting is whether it would be a 7-2 or 8-1 rebuke for Trump. In a telling exchange during the hearing, when the government’s Solicitor General John Sauer quite sillily dramatized that “we’re in new world now … where eight billion people are one plane ride way from having a child who’s a US citizen,” Chief Justice John Roberts quietly dismissed him: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution!”
Trump’s terrible ‘bad’ is of course the war that he started in the Middle East and doesn’t know how to end it. Margaret MacMillan, acclaimed World War I historian and a great grand daughter of World War I British Prime Minister Lloyd George from Wales, has compared Trump’s current war to the origins of the First World War. Just as in 1914, small Serbia had pulled the bigger Russia into a war that was not in Russia’s interest, so too have Netanyahu and Israel have pulled Trump and America into the current war against Iran. World War I that started in August, 2014 was expected to be over before Christmas, but it went on till November, 2018. Weak leaders start wars, says MacMillan, but “they don’t have a clear idea of how they are going to end.”
There are also geopolitical and national-political differences between the 1910s and 2020s. America’s traditional allies have steadfastly refused to join Trump’s war. And Trump is under immense pressure at home not to extend the war. This is one American war that has been unpopular from day one. The cost of military operations at as high as two billion dollars a day is anathema to the people who are aggravated by rising prices directly because of the war. Trump’s own mental acuity and the abilities of his cabinet Secretaries are openly under question. There are swirling allegations of military contract profiteering and selective defense investments – one involving Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
Trump’s Administration is coming apart with sharp internal divisions over the war and government paralysis on domestic matters. There are growing signs of disarray – with Trump firing his Attorney General for not being effective prosecuting his political enemies and Secretary Hegseth ordering early retirement for Army Chief of Staff Randy George. In America’s non-parliamentary presidential system, Trump is allowed to run his own forum where he lies daily without instant challenger or contradiction, and it is impossible to get rid of his government by that simple device called no confidence motion.
Asian Dilemmas
Howsoever the current will last or end, what is clear is that its economic consequences are not going to disappear soon. Iran’s choke on the Strait of Hormuz has affected not only the supply and prices of oil and natural gas but a family of other products from fertilizers to medicines to semiconductors. The barrel price of oil has risen from $70 before the war to over $100 now. After Trump’s speech on April 1, oil prices rose and stock prices fell. The higher prices have come to stay and even if they start going down they are not likely to go down to prewar levels.
There are warnings that with high prices, low growth and unemployment, the global economy is believed to be in for a stagflation shock like in the 1970s. Even if the war were to end sooner than a lot later, the economic setbacks will not be reversed easily or quickly. Supplies alone will take time to get back into routine, and it will even take longer time for production in the Gulf countries to get back to speed. Not only imports, but even export trading and exports to Middle East countries will be impacted. The future of South Asians employed in the Middle East is also at stake.
In 1980, President Carter floated the Carter Doctrine that the US would use military force to ensure the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is now upending that doctrine – first by misusing America’s military force against Iran and provoking the strait’s closure, and then claiming that keeping the strait open is not America’s business. Ever selfish and transactional, Trump’s argument is that America is now a net exporter of oil and is no longer dependent on Middle East oil.
To fill in the void, and perhaps responding to Trump’s call to “build up some delayed courage,” UK has hosted a virtual meeting of about 40 countries to discuss modalities for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. US was not one of them. While Downing Street has not released a full list of attendees, European countries, some Gulf countries, Canada, Australia, Japan and India reportedly attended the meeting. Which other Asian countries attended the meeting is not known.
British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has blamed Iran for “hijacking” an international shipping route to “hold the global economy hostage,” while insisting that the British initiative is “not based on any other country’s priority or anything in terms of the US or other countries”. French President Emmanuel Macron now visiting South Korea has emphasized any resolution “can only be done in concert with Iran. So, first and foremost, there must be a ceasefire and a resumption of negotiations.”
Prior to the British initiative focussed on the Strait of Hormuz, Egypt, Pakistan and Türkiye have been playing a backdoor intermediary role to facilitate communications between the US and Iran. Trump as usual magnified this backroom channel as serious talks initiated by Iran’s ‘new regime’, and Trump’s claims were promptly rejected by Iran. There were speculations that Pakistan would host a direct meeting between US Vice President JD Vance and an Iranian representative in Islamabad. So far, only the foreign ministers of Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have met in Islamabad, and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar flew to Beijing to brief his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, of Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts.
The Beijing visit produced a five-point initiative calling for a ceasefire, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and diplomacy instead of escalation. The five-point pathway seems a follow up to the 15-point demand that the US sent to Iran through the three Samaritan intermediaries which Iran rejected as they did not include any of Iran’s priorities. The state of these mediating efforts are now unclear after President Trump’s April Fool’s Day rambling. In fairness, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has announced that his country intends to keep ‘nudging’ the US and Iran towards resuming negotiations and ending the war.
While these efforts are welcome and deserve everyone’s best wishes, they have also led to what BBC has called the “chatter in Delhi” – “is India being sidelined” by Pakistan’s intermediary efforts? Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s rather undiplomatic characterization of Pakistan’s role as “dalali” (brokerage) provoked immediate denunciation in Islamabad, while Indian opposition parties are blaming the Modi Government’s foreign policy stances as an “embarrassment” to India’s stature.
The larger view is that while it is Asia that is most impacted by the closure of Hormuz, with Singapore’s Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan calling it an “Asian crisis”, Asia has no leverage in the matter and Asian countries have to make special arrangements with Iran to let their ships navigate through the Strait of Hormuz. There is no pathway for co-ordinated action. China is still significant but not consequentially effective. India’s all-alignment foreign policy has made it less significant and more vulnerable in the current crisis. And Pakistan has opened a third dimension to Asia’s dilemmas.
In the circumstances, it is fair to say that Sri Lanka is the most politically stable country among its South Asian neighbours. Put another way, Sri Lanka has a remarkably consensual and uncontentious government in comparison to the old governments in India and Pakistan, and even the new government in Bangladesh. But that may not be saying much unless the NPP government proves itself to be sufficiently competent, and uses the political stability and the general goodwill it is still enjoying, to put the country’s economic department in order. More on that later.
by Rajan Philips
Features
Ranjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
From Parliament to Fruit Grove:
After more than two decades in politics, rising to the positions of Cabinet Minister and Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ranjith Siyambalapitiya has turned his attention to a markedly different arena — one far removed from parliamentary debate and political intrigue.
Today, Siyambalapitiya spends much of his time tending to a sprawling 15-acre home garden at Vendala in Karawanella, near Ruwanwella, nurturing what has gradually evolved into one of the most remarkable private fruit collections in the country.
Situated in Sri Lanka’s Wet Zone Low Country agro-ecological region (WL2), Ruwanwella lies at an elevation of roughly 100–200 metres above sea level. Deep red-yellow podzolic soils, annual rainfall exceeding 2,500 millimetres, and a warm humid tropical climate combine to create conditions that make the region one of the richest areas in the island for fruit tree diversity.
Within this favourable ecological setting, Siyambalapitiya has become what may best be described as a custodian of a living collection—a fruit grove that now contains around 554 fruit trees and vines, many of them rare or seldom seen in contemporary agriculture.
Of these, 448 varieties have already been properly identified and documented with the assistance of agriculturist Dr. Suba Heenkenda, a retired expert of the Department of Agriculture. Together they have undertaken the painstaking task of cataloguing the plants by their botanical names, common Sinhala names, and the names used in ancient Ayurvedic and indigenous medical texts, assigning each species a unique identification number.
According to Siyambalapitiya, the Vendala estate is possibly the only single location in Sri Lanka where such a large number of fruit varieties—particularly rare and underutilized species—are maintained within one property.
“This garden came down to me through my grandfather, grandmother, mother and father,” he says. “It is a place shaped by three generations.”
The estate, he explains, began as a traditional home garden where crops such as tea, coconut and rubber were cultivated alongside fruit trees planted by family members over decades. Over time, however, it evolved into something much larger: a carefully nurtured grove preserving both common and obscure fruit species.
Siyambalapitiya recalls with affection one of the oldest trees in the garden—a honey-jack tree known locally as “Lokumänike’s Rata Kos Gaha.”
The story behind it has become part of family lore. According to village elders, his grandmother had brought home the sapling after visiting the Colombo Grand Exhibition in 1952 many decades ago and planted it near the house.
The tree soon gained fame in the village. Its tender jackfruit proved ideal for curry and mallum, while the ripe fruit was renowned for its sweetness.
“Ripe jackfruit from this tree tastes like honey itself,” Siyambalapitiya says. “Even the seeds are full of flour and can be eaten throughout the year.”
Yet age has not spared the venerable tree. It now shows signs of disease, and Siyambalapitiya and his staff have had to treat old wounds and monitor unusual bark damage.
“Once lightning struck it,” he recalls. “The largest branch began to die. Saving the tree required what I would call a kind of surgical operation.”
Such care, he says, reflects the deep attachment he feels toward the collection.
His fascination with fruit trees began in childhood. While attending Royal College in Colombo and living in a boarding house he disliked, Siyambalapitiya would insist that the family procure new fruit saplings for him to plant during his weekend visits home.
“That was the only ‘price’ I demanded for going to school,” he laughs.
Over the years the collection expanded steadily as he encountered new plants in forests, nurseries, and rural landscapes across the island.
The result today is a grove that includes traditional Sri Lankan fruit species, underutilized native varieties, forest fruits, and plants introduced from overseas.
Some species originate in Arabian deserts, while others thrive naturally in cooler climates such as Europe. Certain plants require greenhouse-like conditions, while others are hardy forest trees.
Managing such diversity is no easy task.
“One plant asks for rain, another asks for cold, and yet another prefers heat,” Siyambalapitiya explains. “Too much rain makes some sick, too much sun troubles others. The older trees overshadow the younger ones. You cannot feed or medicate them all in the same way.”
He compares the task to caring for a household filled with people from many nations and ages—each with different needs.
Despite the challenges, he believes the effort is worthwhile, particularly because many of the trees are native species that have become increasingly rare.
“If things continue as they are, some of these plants may disappear from our lives,” he warns.
To preserve knowledge about them, Siyambalapitiya is preparing to launch a book titled “Mage Vendala Palathuru Arana” (My Vendala Fruit Grove), which serves as an introductory guide to the collection.
The book, scheduled for release on April 18 at the Vendala estate, will be attended by Ven. Dr. Kirinde Assaji Thera, Chief Incumbent of Gangaramaya Temple,
Uruwarige Wannila Aththo, the leader of the Indigenous Vedda Community,
a long-serving former employee who helped maintain the plantation, and Sunday Dhamma school students from the region, who will participate as guests of honour.
The publication will also mark Siyambalapitiya’s eighth book. Previously he authored seven works and wrote more than 500 weekly newspaper columns offering commentary on politics and current affairs.
While working on the fruit catalogue, he is simultaneously writing another volume reflecting on his 25-year political career, including his tenure as Deputy Finance Minister during Sri Lanka’s most severe economic crisis.
For Siyambalapitiya, however, the fruit grove represents more than a hobby or academic exercise.
“The fruit we enjoy is the result of a tree’s effort to reproduce,” he says. “Nature has given fruits their taste, fragrance and colour to attract us. All the tree asks in return is that its seeds be carried to new places.”
That simple cycle of life, he believes, has continued for tens of thousands of years.
“And those who love trees,” he adds, “are guardians of the world’s survival.”
by Saman Indrajith
Pix by Tharanga Ratnaweera
- Four workers in charge of the four zones of the plantation
- Siyamabalapitiya explaning the evolution of plantation
- A foreign berry plant
- A Bakumba plant
- A rare jackfruit tree
- Siyambalapitiya pruning Pumkin Lemon plant
- Siyamabalapitiya explaning the evolution of plantation
Features
Smoke Free Sweden calls out to WHO not to suggest nicotine alternatives
It has been reported by the international advocacy initiative, ‘Smoke Free Sweden’ (‘SFS’) that many International health experts have begun criticizing the World Health Organization (WHO) for presenting safer nicotine alternatives rather than recognizing its role in accelerating decline in smoking.
As the world’s premier technical health agency, the WHO is empowered to support strategies that reduce morbidity and mortality even if they do not eliminate the underlying behaviour. Furthermore, it should base its guidance on evolving scientific knowledge, which includes comparative-risk assessments. Equating smoke-free nicotine alternatives with combustible cigarettes, is essentially putting lives at risk, according to the health experts contacted by SFS.
The warning follows recent WHO comments suggesting that vaping and other non-combustible nicotine products are driving tobacco use in Europe. This narrative ignores real-world evidence from countries like Sweden where access to safer alternatives has coincided with record low smoking rates.
A “Smoke-Free” status is defined as an adult daily smoking prevalence below 5% and Sweden is on the brink of officially achieving this milestone. This is clear proof that pragmatic harm-reduction policies work. Sweden’s success has been driven by adult smokers switching to lower-risk alternatives such as oral tobacco pouches (Snus), oral nicotine pouches and other non-combustible products.
“Vapes and pouches are helping to reduce risk, and Sweden’s smoke-free transition proves this,” said Dr Delon Human, leader of Smoke Free Sweden. “We should be celebrating policies that help smokers quit combustible tobacco, not spreading fear about the very tools that are accelerating the decline of cigarettes.”
It is further reported by health experts that conflating cigarettes with non-combustible alternatives risks deterring smokers from switching and could slow progress toward reducing tobacco-related disease.
Dr Human emphasized that youth protection and harm reduction are not mutually exclusive.
“It is critically important to safeguard against underage use, but this should be done by targeted, risk-proportionate regulation and proper enforcement, not by sacrificing the right of adults to access products that might save their lives,” he said.
Smoke Free Sweden is calling on global health authorities to adopt evidence-based policies that distinguish clearly between combustible tobacco – the primary cause of tobacco-related death – and lower-risk nicotine alternatives.
“Public health policy must be grounded in science and real-world outcomes,” Dr Human added. “Sweden’s experience shows that when adult smokers are given legal access to safer nicotine alternatives, smoking rates fall faster than almost anywhere else in the world.”
-
News4 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
News6 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
News7 days agoInquiry into female employee’s complaint: Retired HC Judge’s recommendations ignored
-
Features7 days agoNew arithmetic of conflict: How the drone revolution is inverting economics of war
-
Business5 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial4 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Sports7 days agoSri Lanka’s 1996 World Cup heroes to play exhibition match in Kuala Lumpur
-
Features6 days agoSeychelles … here we come











