Features
The death of a President and the Arrest Warrant for a Prime Minister
by Rajan Philips
Neither the tragic death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi nor the ICC Prosecutor’s request for an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to have any significant implications for the short term in either of the two countries or in the region. The Iranian regime’s standing in the short term is believed to be assured with the transfer of power already to Vice President Mohammad Mokhber and his likely endorsement in the national election scheduled for June 28.
The uncertainty and the speculation after President Raisi’s death are about the succession of the 85 year old Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The late President was widely expected to succeed Ali Khamenei and that would have ensured an almost seamless regime continuity. The search for an alternative successor will open opportunities both for internal power struggle in the regime and for regime opponents to take another crack at Iran’s hybrid state.
Equally, there will be no immediate change either in Israel or in Gaza arising from the bold and balanced decision of the Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, of the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in the Hague, Netherlands, to ask for arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu, his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas’s leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar and its political leader Ismail Haniyeh.
Mr. Netanyahu was already under pressure from his political rival and war cabinet minister Benny Gantz to come up with a postwar solution for Gaza immediately or to step down from office. Now Gantz and almost all of Israel are united in denouncing the decision of the ICC prosecutor. That lets Netanyahu off the hook for now but not for long.
Hamas too has denounced the prosecutor’s warrant application as an attempt “to equate the victim and the executioner.” Just like pro-Israeli denunciation of the warrant for allegedly drawing a false equivalence between a democratic state and a terrorist organization.” President Biden has called the arrest move “outrageous” and the Republicans in the US Congress are planning a bipartisan move to pass sanctions on Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan and other ICC officials to punish them for preparing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his defence minister.
Mixed Reactions
The Biden Administration would seem to be going along with it based on the nod to the legislators given by Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee the day after Khan’s warrant move. Imposing sanctions would be a repeat of the US sanctions during Trump presidency against Khan’s predecessor Fatou Bensouda when she opened investigations, in 2019, into alleged war crimes by the US in Afghanistan and by Israel in the Palestinian territories. So, Mr. Khan is not doing anything new, but the US Democrats at that time ridiculed Trump and the Republicans for imposing sanctions against ICC officials.
And within three months of replacing Trump, in April 2021, the Biden Administration lifted Trump’s sanctions against Ms. Bensouda. Secretary Blinken said at that time while the US continued to “disagree strongly with the ICC’s actions relating to the Afghanistan and Palestinian situations,” the approach of the Biden Administration would be to address its concerns “through engagement with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through the imposition of sanctions.” Now, the Secretary and the Administration are following the example of Trump and letting the Republicans lead the sanctions process.
Whatever might be the final outcome of Prosecutor Khan’s warrant application, it has already had the unintended but inevitable effect of exposing the growing division among western countries over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The same division that the world saw in the UN vote on granting Palestine a full member status is now being replayed over the actions of the ICC. The US and Israel are standing together and are standing isolated. They are joined by a few countries like Hungary. Hungary voted against the UN resolution on Palestinian status and its Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a long-time ally of Netanyahu, has now criticized the ICC warrant decision.
In Britain, where Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has called a snap election for July 4, which The Economist has described as “odd and illogical – much like him,” the two parties are divided on the ICC warrant matter. Although irrelevant, it is worth noting that ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan is a British Barrister born to Pakistani parents and raised in Scotland. Mr. Sunak has called the warrant application “a deeply unhelpful development.” The Labour Party, on the other hand, has indicated that the UK and all members of the ICC, “have a legal obligation” to comply with ICC warrants.
Mr. Khan’s warrant application is the first to target the leader of a ‘western country’, which Israel is considered to be. The warrant is subject to review by a panel of three ICC judges who can amend, reject, or approve it. If approved as requested, the onus will be on member countries to arrest Mr. Netanyahu if he were to visit any of them. There is an outstanding ICC arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin alleging unlawful transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia. The warrant was issued on March 17, 2023, the first against the leader of one of the five permanent member countries of the UN Security Council. The warrant against Putin was welcomed by Ukraine’s western allies including the US, and it has curtailed Mr. Putin’s overseas travel for fear of being arrested.
A majority of western countries have also expressed support for the ICC Prosecutor’s warrant applications for arresting Israeli and Hamas leaders. Ireland, Norway, and Spain have gone further and made a coordinated announcement recognizing Palestine as a state to standing ovations in their respective parliaments. They now join the more than 140 countries that have already recognized Palestinian statehood. None of this would bring about a foreseeable end to the continuing tragedy in Gaza or the continuation of Netanyahu as Prime Minister. There is still a long and tortuous road ahead. But the signposts to a future Palestinian state are ever so slightly getting clearer.
President Raisi’s Funeral
At the same time, the creation of a new Palestinian State is not going to be at the expense of the State of Israel. Hence the two state solution. The State of Israel is now recognized by 165 of the UN’s 193 member states. The 28 countries that have not recognized Israel are mostly Muslim countries, many of them members of the Arab League who were signatories to the celebrated 1967 Khartoum Resolution: The Three Noes of Khartoum – no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. That was in the wake of the Six Day Arab-Israeli war of 1967. A number of countries, including Sudan, have since gone past Khartoum and have recognized Israel and established diplomatic relations. The notable exception is Iran.
Even under the Shah, Iran voted against and opposed the partition plan and the admission of Israel as a UN Member. De facto (not de jure) relations with Israel were subsequently established, but everything was severed after the 1979 Iranian revolution. The official Iranian rhetoric has since been to call for the elimination of Israel, the same rhetoric as that of Hamas, and a mutually reinforcing counter to the Netanyahu rhetoric rejecting not only the two-state solution, but also the very concept of a Palestinian state.
There is not going to be any change in Iran’s rhetoric or its position against Israel in the aftermath of President Raisi’s death. But there could be a pause in the regional needling between the two countries as both Netanyahu in Israel and the regime in Iran will have their hands full attending to other pressures and priorities. President Raisi’s funeral in Tehran became a focal point for portraying Iran’s domestic politics and its external outreach.
The funeral may have provided the first occasion for the presence of foreign dignitaries in large numbers after Trump’s disastrous abrogation of the West’s nuclear deal with Iran that was signed during the Obama presidency. If the sanctions imposed by the Trump Administration were intended to turn Iran into a pariah state, that has not happened. The US sanctions have hurt Iran economically, but they have not weakened its influence not only regionally, but also globally.
The funeral provided the occasion for the Global South to mark its presence, and for the West its ‘unwelcomeness.’ Not to mention the ritual chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” The regional countries were fully represented, including foreign ministers from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the most significant attendee was Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, just two days after the ICC Prosecutor’s arrest warrant application. Others included Hezbollah’s deputy leader Naim Qassem and Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam Al Houthi.
At the same time, it would be a mistake to overstate the regional influence of Iran. In fact, one of the failed objectives of the 1979 Iranian revolution, at least as articulated by Ayatollah Khomeini, has been the failure of the intended ‘export’ of the revolution to Arab countries outside Iran and overwhelm their corrupt governments. Khomeini wanted to appeal to all Muslims, both Sunnis and Shiites, even as he was scornful of the idea of nationalism within the Islamic umma. The revolution entrenched Iran’s historic uniqueness in the region – its Persian roots and Shiite faith, but it could not purchase faithful followers beyond its borders. The only exception has been Syria that has allied with Iran, and in this century the accidental addition of Iraq – thanks to the ill-advised Bush-Blair misadventure in Iraq.
From a domestic standpoint, President Raisi’s funeral, in terms of attendance and public grief, reportedly fell far short of the 2020 funeral of Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian General who was assassinated on the orders of US President Trump. Notable absentees were Iran’s living past presidents, some of whom have been more effective in establishing relative presidential autonomy, unlike the late Ebrahim Raisi who was believed to be more of a fig leaf President to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Khamenei was Iran’s President under Ayatollah Khomeini’s, and became the Supreme Leader in 1989, following Khomeini’s death and allegedly thwarting the succession pursuit of Khomeini’s son. Now with President Raisi gone, there is speculation that Khamenei’s son Mojtaba Khamenei could be a potential contender to succeed his father as the next Supreme Leader. That would be filial succession and could be seen as a betrayal of the revolution that ended the Pahlavi Dynasty,
Features
Trump’s tariffs, AKD’s gazette and Sri Lanka’s diplomatic slumber
“We are rather respectable in Colombo. We go to bed fairly early, and we remain there till morning. “
According to Sri Lanka’s diplomatic folklore, the late S.W. R. D. Bandaranaike uttered these words while explaining the reasons for Sri Lanka’s abstention on the UN resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Apparently, SWRD’s foreign ministry officials were asleep at home when the diplomatic cable seeking instructions was received from New York. In those days, there were no cell phones, Internet, or even fax or telex machines. The diplomatic cables were sent through post offices. Decoding them was a slow and time-consuming process. Thus, the government could not provide appropriate instructions to our mission in New York in time, and the Sri Lankan delegation abstained on that sensitive UN vote.
Sri Lanka’s Absence from Section 301 Consultations
But then, how does one explain Sri Lanka’s absence from the crucial bilateral consultation held in Washington by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during March-April on “Forced Labour” under the Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974? Didn’t our foreign and trade ministries send appropriate instructions to Washington in time? Even if the instructions from the foreign ministry were transmitted to our embassy in Washington by pigeon carriers, there was enough time for Sri Lanka to participate in those meetings.
In March, the USTR initiated these 301 investigations on 60 trading partners, and invited all of them for confidential consultations. Out of the 60, 46 participated in these consultations. Sri Lanka was not one of them. Other countries that didn’t participate in these consultations included China, Russia, and Venezuela! In addition to that, the Section 301 Committee conducted a public hearing with interested parties on April 28 and 29. Washington-based diplomats, representatives from few trade ministries as well as representatives from many foreign trade associations and chambers participated in these hearings. Sri Lanka was once again conspicuously absent.
As a result, when the USTR published the proposed forced labour tariffs on June 2nd, Sri Lanka ended up with a 12.5% duty. Pakistani and Indonesian diplomats participated in these consultations and took appropriate follow-up measures, and managed to enter the 10% duty category. As even a threat of a modest tariff hike could disrupt supply chains and reduce competitiveness, particularly in an industry such as garments, I discussed this issue on 15 June and underscored the importance of Sri Lanka’s participation at the next hearing, which was scheduled to be held from July 7th .
Awakening from Diplomatic Slumber and AKD’s Gazette
Fortunately, Sri Lanka finally awoke from weeks of diplomatic slumber, and Ambassador Mahinda Samarasinghe participated in the public hearing on 9 July, and promised, “…. · We have agreed to the text in our negotiations with the USTR on forced labour, …. The gazette as we speak is being printed and I’m getting the gazette tomorrow morning, and the gazette will be shared with USTR as I get it“.
As promised, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake issued a gazette on 10 July banning the imports of goods produced by forced labour. These new regulations are very similar to what Pakistan and Indonesia enacted in April, after their consultations with USTR in March. Why couldn’t we do it in April? Why did we wait till the very last minute?
Challenges ahead
“War is too important to be left to generals alone,” is a famous saying attributed to former French Premier Georges Clemenceau. Similarly, monitoring our main markets is too important to be left to diplomats alone. The United States is the largest single-country market for Sri Lanka. Therefore, Sri Lankan trade chambers and associations should become more proactive in these markets and participate in these events. For example, the chairman of the Pakistani apparel exporters association participated in the April hearings. Similarly, representatives from the Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of Indian Industry, and Reliance Industries also participated in July hearings. At an event where each speaker is given only five minutes (strictly enforced), having a number of speakers from a country is an advantage. The presence of industry representatives in these kinds of events also help them understand the market dynamics and the future challenges. This is important, particularly because there will be many more challenges with Trump’s tariffs.
With the gazette issued on 10 July, Sri Lanka has imposed a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour. Now, the challenge will be to effectively enforce the prohibition. And what are the goods produced with forced labour? The USTR list only focuses on aluminum, cotton, electronics, lithium-ion batteries, rice, and tobacco. However, according to the U.S. Department of Labour, the list is much longer. Hence, this list may change continuously during the next two years and tariffs may fluctuate once again.
So, this is definitely not the time to slumber.
(The writer, a retired public servant, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)
by Gomi Senadhira ✍️
Features
Tales of Mystery and Suspense 10 Casino for Sale
After the overwhelming grotesquerie of J K Rowling’s latest Cormoran Strike novel (written, I should have noted, as the others were, under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith), I thought I should return to the world of fun, and also a much shorter description since this thriller moves quickly without the layers of detail that Rowling engages in.
I then move to the second comic thriller by Caryl Brahms and S J Simon. This, their second story to feature Vladimir Stroganoff and Adam Quill, was Casino for Sale, as lunatic a romp as the first, though without the emphasis on the ballet that characterized A Bullet in the Ballet.
This one begins with the impresario Stroganoff buying a casino cheap from Baron Sam de Rabinovich, only to find that it was a rundown place, not the grand casino of La Bazouche, a resort on the Frenc+h Riviera, as he had initially thought. The grand one belonged to Lord Buttonhooke, and Stroganoff could not compete, until he thought of bringing the Ballet Stroganoff to the casino – which of course leads to Buttonhooke deciding to have ballet performances in his Casino too.
Stroganoff invites Quill to visit him, which Quill decides to do since he has left Scotland Yard, having come into a legacy. No one believes this, and he has to face questions as to what he did to have been sacked, with sympathy for having been found out.
The day he arrives in La Bazouche there is a murder, of a vitriolic critic called Citrolo, in Stroganoff’s office. He had been going to write a damning review of the opening night of the ballet and Stroganoff, when he realizes Citrolo cannot be swayed, drugs him and dictates the review himself to the papers. He leaves Citrolo sleeping and finds him shot the next morning, whereupon he decides to muddy the waters and leave a suicide note and lots of other murder weapons. So much overkill, as it were, of course ensures that he is arrested.
But the excitable French detective who makes the arrest follows up his suggestion that Buttonhooke was also involved, and so the two casino owners find themselves in cells next door to each other, with the detective Gustave quite happy to provide creature comforts for a fee.
Quill decides he must investigate, and finds Gustave most cooperative, since he has a laid back attitude to work. So it is Quill that finds a notebook which makes it clear Citrolo is an accomplished blackmailer, and that there are lots of possible murderers, including Stroganoff’s croupier, who was crooked, Rabinovich, who was now working for Buttonhooke, a confidence trickster called Kurt Kukumber, whose prospectus for a dud gold mine was found in the office and Prince Alexis Artishok who was engaged in a deal to buy diamonds from the ballerina Dyra Dyrakova.
Stroganoff had been trying to get Dyrakova to dance for him, but having done so previously she had refused. But then to Stroganoff’s chagrin she agreed to dance for Buttonhooke. The clearly crooked Artishok had told Buttonhooke’s mistress Sadie Souse, who was not very bright, that Dyrakova possessed diamonds she was willing to sell cheap, and Sadie was determined to have them.
Quill meanwhile finds out that there was a secret passage to Stroganoff’s office, the obvious solution to what had begun as a locked room mystery, and that this was known by almost everyone apart from Stroganoff himself. And then Rabinovich is murdered, just after Gustave had released his two original suspects, leading him to blame Quill for having insisted on that and thus allowing them to kill again.
Soon afterwards Dyrakova arrives, and the town is full of posters announcing that she will appear in the casinos, elaborate posters for either one, since Stroganoff is determined that she will dance for him, and if she does not come willingly, he has devised a scheme to make her do so unwillingly. So, though Buttonhooke has her taken off to his yacht immediately she arrives at the station, Quill along with Arenskaya gets her into a launch and to Stroganoff’s casino, where she performs to tumultuous applause, not knowing for whom she is dancing.
When Quill asked her about the diamonds, she said she had sold them long ago, and that gave Quill the solution to the mystery. Rabinovich had known about this, and Artishok had killed him to prevent Sadie learning it from him, he had killed Citrolo who had recognized him for an accomplished card sharper, not a Russian prince at all. But before he is arrested, he gets away in a boat, and the police launch that pursues him is on the point of catching him up when it runs out of petrol.
Again, lots of excitement, and entertaining references – Gustave grows marrows – and if not quite as brilliant as its predecessor, Casino was certainly a delightful read.
Features
The challenge of being positive about SAARC
It was a few years back that a former President of Sri Lanka took it on himself to pronounce SAARC ‘dead’. Since then there have been other sections of Sri Lankan opinion that have joined the critics of SAARC and taken the solemn stance that SAARC has indeed died what may be called a natural death.
Their fatalism is understandable. SAARC has failed to meet at heads of government or state level for the past several years to take the SAARC process notably forward. Regional cooperation has more or less been only an appealing idea. No substantive concrete projects have taken off to make the idea a hard reality. ‘Inner paralysis’ seems to be SAARC’s lot. Hence the fatalism in these circles.
However, being one of the worst cash-strapped regions of the world and a teemingly populated one with people virtually left to their devices, what choices do the ‘SAARC Eight’ have other than to try their best to band together and continue with their cooperation efforts, however small they may be?
There is no escaping the mounting debt trap for many of these countries and bankrupt Sri Lanka is a glaring example, but ‘throwing in the towel’ and abandoning themselves entirely to the diktats of the strongest economies and their agencies will prove a ‘living death’ for many countries in the SAARC fold.
The gains may be meagre but giving-up on SAARC cooperation in full would prove self-defeating for the organization and South Asia. Right now, the collective intention ought to be to salvage what the region could from the tenuous cooperative efforts. Moreover, such initiatives could go some distance to generate a degree of goodwill among the Eight and help in sustaining a dialogue process.
Given this backdrop it proved ‘a stich in time’ for the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, to recently host the SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar to a round table discussion on the unifying potential of SAARC and its future possibilities, besides other related issue areas.
Held on June 24th and moderated by RCSS Executive Director and former ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the forum brought together a vibrant, wide ranging audience comprising academicians, diplomats, senior public servants, civil society activists and many others. Following the presentation by Ambassador Golam Sarwar titled, ‘Reigniting SAARC: Achievements, Challenges and the Way Ahead’, a lively Q&A followed.
The above forum could be described as an act of lighting the proverbial ‘candle’ rather than ‘cursing the darkness.’ It surely is a ‘darkness’ that could be seen as daunting considering that the region’s pivotal powers, India and Pakistan, are failing to act in a spirit of accord but are engaged in bitter finger-pointing on a number of questions of vital importance to SAARC.
On the other hand, what is the rest of the region doing to bring the above sides together? It is disappointing that to date the rest of SAARC has failed to launch a major diplomatic drive to bring peace between the feuding regional heavyweights. It needs to act without delay and establish its earnestness and this effort would need to prove SAARC’s staying power in the unfolding months and even years.
In assessing SAARC’s seeming failure local opinion in particular has failed to factor in what could be described as weak leadership. Since Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, the founding father of SAARC, the region has failed to produce a visionary leader who could advance the SAARC cause with charisma and drive.
Among other reasons, weak leadership accounts considerably for the faltering and stuttering status, as it were, of SAARC. Badly needed are leaders who could go the extra mile, think less of narrow national interests and work diligently towards the collective well being of the region but SAARC’s millions of ordinary people have been made to wait in vain for leaders of such stature. Instead, they have been burdened with politicians who seem to be relishing the apparently moribund state of SAARC.
Looking back, it could be said that it was the dynamic leadership factor that led to the launching of the Non-Aligned Movement and for its sustenance for a few decades. True, it could be seen in some quarters that NAM is no more, but as in the case of SAARC, the former too has been unfortunate to be burdened over the years with politicians who lack the vision and drive to unflaggingly advance the fortunes of the South. NAM and SAARC lack the dynamism and vision of leaders of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, to give them the required guidance and intellectual depth.
The reasons are complex for there not being among us currently political leaders with the vision and the steadfast commitment to advance the legitimate interests of the South. However, it could be stated with conviction that the majority of Southern leaders have too easily caved in to the demands of the global North and its financial agencies.
These leaders have failed to see, for instance, that the largely market economy oriented Northern governments would not view with favour a centrist economic model that attaches priority to the interests of the dis-empowered publics of the South. This realization ought to have dawned on the current government in Sri Lanka, for instance, some while ago but it has no choice but to abide by IMF dictates since economic survival at present is unthinkable without the latter’s succour.
Accordingly for SAARC this should be the time for some soul-searching. Priority needs to be attached to ending the feuding between India and Pakistan since at present the material fortunes of the region hinge largely on these regional giants giving peaceful relations among them a try. This is no easy challenge to meet but some daring, visionary diplomacy needs to take hold among the rest of SAARC.
There is some sense in SAARC bringing the peoples of the region together through programs that address their best collective interests. A meeting of minds among SAARC nations could enable SAARC and its agencies to build a region-wide people’s movement for progressive political and economic change that could in turn lead to the region’s political leaders sensitizing themselves more to the neglected needs of their publics.
However, the time is ‘now’ for the initiation of these progressive changes and the voice of SAARC well wishers would need to drown out those of their critics.
-
Features5 days agoPrison riots and politics: NPP’s biggest challenge and Sri Lanka’s biggest opportunity
-
Editorial6 days agoWhat’s the world coming to?
-
Features2 days agoDirty Money
-
Editorial5 days agoMuch ado about crime: Fish or cut bait
-
Features5 days agoMore on Saudi Arabia: ARAMCO and beyond
-
Latest News3 days agoOil prices hit 1-month high as US-Iran attacks dim Strait of Hormuz outlook
-
Midweek Review2 days agoThe sordid tale of theft and tragedy at Finance Ministry
-
Features4 days agoDeepening Democracy – Constitutions and Constitutionalism

