Features
Sri Lanka and Palestine
By Uditha Devapriya
Sri Lankans are overwhelmingly standing with Palestine, and with much of the Global South which voted for a recent UN resolution, introduced by Russia, condemning Israeli atrocities in the Gaza Strip. There are deep historical reasons for this, not least of which is the Sri Lankan Left’s record of solidarity with Palestine. Both the government and the Opposition have condemned Israel, while Mahinda Rajapaksa, a longtime supporter of the Palestinian cause, has called for an end to the war. The latter has, for natural reasons, elicited support and criticism. Yet the underlying consensus is that, for the war to end, the Israeli State must end its campaign of aggression. In this almost all political parties are united.
Sri Lankans are voicing anger at these developments, as well as at the hypocrisy of the Western political and media establishment. From the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, from the US Congress to the House of Commons, the debates and discussions seem to be aimed not for, but against, the Palestinians. When the Israeli military drops a GPS-guided bomb on a hospital founded by the Anglican Church, killing more than 500, the Western media first fudges around with unhelpful obfuscations, then claims it was a rocket launched from Gaza that somehow, somehow, misfired.
It is unhelpful to talk about “just retaliation” when retaliation has been anything but just. The Israeli government and the Western media may peddle the narrative that Hamas fired the first shot. But the first shot was fired 56 years ago, in 1967, when Israel colonised the Gaza Strip. The Third World, so-called, is aware of history, though Western commentators choose not to see it. Sri Lankans, in that sense, have been able to pierce through the veil. They have been better than most. Unlike certain other countries in South Asia, they have identified oppressor and oppressed rather well. In this, I think, they have been helped by the solidarity of the Global South, which has unified itself on the issue.
It has also been helped by left wing groups. The Old Left, the New Left, trade unions, and activist groups have come together on a platform of solidarity. On Palestine, these groups have always been of one mind. That has been true regardless of the ethnic divisions which define Sri Lanka today. At the height of the separatist movement in Sri Lanka, before the rise of the LTTE, Tamil militant groups sided with Palestinians. Until the 1980s, the Sri Lankan government did the same. With the shift to the right in that decade, however, there came about a tendency to side with Israel, a tendency disrupted by the Premadasa government, but resumed by the Chandrika Kumaratunga government.
The UNP government of J. R. Jayewardene established links with Israel around the same time the LTTE embarked on its fratricidal wars against other separatist militant groups. In a bid to get Western support, the Jayewardene regime depicted the LTTE as a Marxist movement hell-bent on establishing a Marxist state. Yet there was hardly anything Marxist or left-wing about the LTTE. This was true particularly in its attitude to Palestine. Prabhakaran, we are told, liked Leon Uris’s Exodus, and was drawn to the Zionist ideal. He saw Eelam less as an autonomous secular State than as a Zionist fiefdom. From there to his descent to fascism and megalomania, it took only some years. The rest is history.
The Sinhala nationalist right’s response to Palestine has been less than clear-cut. On the one hand, they rightly condemn Western hypocrisy on Israeli aggression. On the other, they side with Israel, viewing it as an encircled State in need of defence. What is ironic is that Tamil separatists, including Diaspora supporters of the British Conservative Party, see Israel the same way: as a minority state which must be protected. In both cases the ideal remains that of a setter state excluding if not terminating the “Other.”
Confusing as it may be, there is a reason why nationalists and separatists have taken the same stance here. Both define themselves as a minority in some form: a global minority in the case of the Sinhalese, a local minority in the case of the Tamils. The Zionist ideal has been easy for right-wing Sinhala nationalists and LTTE supporters to embrace because both see themselves as an excluded group, but aspire to be an exclusionist class.
At one point, however, both Sinhala nationalism and Tamil separatism absorbed or borrowed the rhetoric of anti-imperialism. The Sri Lankan State, while standing against Tamil separatist elements, had no problem identifying itself with the Palestinian cause, given its support of the Arab world. Its support of the latter, in fact, helped the State curry favour with the Sri Lankan Muslim population, at a time when other minority groups, including Christians and particularly Tamil, saw themselves as besieged communities.
For close to a decade, Tamil militant groups like EROS championed the Palestinian cause while remaining in opposition to the Sri Lankan State. Yet seeing themselves as the Other in Sri Lanka, and seeing the Sinhala State’s turn to a hardline, chauvinist right in the 1980s, the Tamil militant struggle itself turned to the right. Meanwhile, the enthronement of the UNP and the regime’s openly pro-Israeli line contributed to a breakdown in relations between the State and the country’s Muslims, and following Sinhala nationalism’s embrace of the right, between Muslims and Sinhalese in general. That made Zionism the ideal to embrace among both hard-line Sinhala nationalists and Tamil secessionists.
The rightward tilt in these camps today have sadly led to an extermination of progressive, forward-thinking voices. Nowhere has that been more evident than in their attitude to the Palestinian struggle. That Mahinda Rajapaksa and Tamil militant groups could both see, and consider, the likes of the PLO as their ideological brethren speaks volumes about where we were and where we are. Today the Sinhala right peddles Israel’s narrative, framing violence as an inevitable consequence of Islamist violence. The Tamil right, on the other hand, sees Israel as a minority State in need of defence. The progressive potential of both has died. And there is no better sign of this decline than their position on Israel.
The writer is an international relations analyst, independent researcher, and freelance columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
Features
US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world
‘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 for 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.
Features
Egg white scene …
Hi! Great to be back after my Christmas break.
Thought of starting this week with egg white.
Yes, eggs are brimming with nutrients beneficial for your overall health and wellness, but did you know that eggs, especially the whites, are excellent for your complexion?
OK, if you have no idea about how to use egg whites for your face, read on.
Egg White, Lemon, Honey:
Separate the yolk from the egg white and add about a teaspoon of freshly squeezed lemon juice and about one and a half teaspoons of organic honey. Whisk all the ingredients together until they are mixed well.
Apply this mixture to your face and allow it to rest for about 15 minutes before cleansing your face with a gentle face wash.
Don’t forget to apply your favourite moisturiser, after using this face mask, to help seal in all the goodness.
Egg White, Avocado:
In a clean mixing bowl, start by mashing the avocado, until it turns into a soft, lump-free paste, and then add the whites of one egg, a teaspoon of yoghurt and mix everything together until it looks like a creamy paste.
Apply this mixture all over your face and neck area, and leave it on for about 20 to 30 minutes before washing it off with cold water and a gentle face wash.
Egg White, Cucumber, Yoghurt:
In a bowl, add one egg white, one teaspoon each of yoghurt, fresh cucumber juice and organic honey. Mix all the ingredients together until it forms a thick paste.
Apply this paste all over your face and neck area and leave it on for at least 20 minutes and then gently rinse off this face mask with lukewarm water and immediately follow it up with a gentle and nourishing moisturiser.
Egg White, Aloe Vera, Castor Oil:
To the egg white, add about a teaspoon each of aloe vera gel and castor oil and then mix all the ingredients together and apply it all over your face and neck area in a thin, even layer.
Leave it on for about 20 minutes and wash it off with a gentle face wash and some cold water. Follow it up with your favourite moisturiser.
Features
Confusion cropping up with Ne-Yo in the spotlight
Superlatives galore were used, especially on social media, to highlight R&B singer Ne-Yo’s trip to Sri Lanka: Global superstar Ne-Yo to perform live in Colombo this December; Ne-Yo concert puts Sri Lanka back on the global entertainment map; A global music sensation is coming to Sri Lanka … and there were lots more!
At an official press conference, held at a five-star venue, in Colombo, it was indicated that the gathering marked a defining moment for Sri Lanka’s entertainment industry as international R&B powerhouse and three-time Grammy Award winner Ne-Yo prepares to take the stage in Colombo this December.
What’s more, the occasion was graced by the presence of Sunil Kumara Gamage, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs of Sri Lanka, and Professor Ruwan Ranasinghe, Deputy Minister of Tourism, alongside distinguished dignitaries, sponsors, and members of the media.
According to reports, the concert had received the official endorsement of the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, recognising it as a flagship initiative in developing the country’s concert economy by attracting fans, and media, from all over South Asia.
However, I had that strange feeling that this concert would not become a reality, keeping in mind what happened to Nick Carter’s Colombo concert – cancelled at the very last moment.
Carter issued a video message announcing he had to return to the USA due to “unforeseen circumstances” and a “family emergency”.
Though “unforeseen circumstances” was the official reason provided by Carter and the local organisers, there was speculation that low ticket sales may also have been a factor in the cancellation.
Well, “Unforeseen Circumstances” has cropped up again!
In a brief statement, via social media, the organisers of the Ne-Yo concert said the decision was taken due to “unforeseen circumstances and factors beyond their control.”
Ne-Yo, too, subsequently made an announcement, citing “Unforeseen circumstances.”
The public has a right to know what these “unforeseen circumstances” are, and who is to be blamed – the organisers or Ne-Yo!
Ne-Yo’s management certainly need to come out with the truth.
However, those who are aware of some of the happenings in the setup here put it down to poor ticket sales, mentioning that the tickets for the concert, and a meet-and-greet event, were exorbitantly high, considering that Ne-Yo is not a current mega star.
We also had a cancellation coming our way from Shah Rukh Khan, who was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka for the City of Dreams resort launch, and then this was received: “Unfortunately due to unforeseen personal reasons beyond his control, Mr. Khan is no longer able to attend.”
Referring to this kind of mess up, a leading showbiz personality said that it will only make people reluctant to buy their tickets, online.
“Tickets will go mostly at the gate and it will be very bad for the industry,” he added.
-
News7 days agoStreet vendors banned from Kandy City
-
Sports4 days agoGurusinha’s Boxing Day hundred celebrated in Melbourne
-
News2 days agoLeading the Nation’s Connectivity Recovery Amid Unprecedented Challenges
-
News7 days agoLankan aircrew fly daring UN Medevac in hostile conditions in Africa
-
Sports5 days agoTime to close the Dickwella chapter
-
Features3 days agoIt’s all over for Maxi Rozairo
-
Features7 days agoRethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya
-
Opinion7 days agoAre we reading the sky wrong?



