Features
The United States mourns the death of former President Jimmy Carter
by Vijaya Chandrasoma
An already dreadful year for the United States of America ended with more tragedy, with the death of one of the finest human beings ever to have adorned the White House. The 39th President James Earl (Jimmy) Carter Jr passed away peacefully at his home in Plains, Georgia on Sunday, December 29, surrounded by his family. He was 100-years old, the longest-lived president in US history.
Born and raised in the predominantly Republican state of Georgia, Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1946, and joined the Navy’s submarine service. At the end of his military service, he retuned to his home in Plains, Georgia, and revived his family’s peanut farm. He married Rosalynn Smith in 1946, with whom he enjoyed a blessed, loving union until her death, at age 96, last year.
A pious man and a lifelong Baptist, whose actions were invariably rooted in his religious faith, Carter left a legacy of fidelity, compassion and justice. Like all politicians, he did, on at least one occasion, betray his principles in the name of political expediency, though, in Carter’s case, this probably was the exception that proved the rule.
Carter was a true Democrat in a traditionally deep red, white supremacist state. Having grown up in the era of Jim Crow segregation laws, he abhorred all types of racism and was an ardent supporter of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He became a community leader, serving in various county boards of education and the hospital authority. He won election to the Georgia Senate in 1962, and entered the national political arena in 1966, when he ran for and lost the Georgia gubernatorial election in 1966. He ran again and won in 1970, when he was elected the 76th Governor of Georgia.
Despite his early stance on civil rights, Carter seemingly betrayed his principles by appealing to the racist majority in the electorate. He even criticized his Democratic Primary opponent, former Governor Carl Sanders, for supporting civil rights icon, Martin Luther King Jr. He understood, and took advantage of, the stark political fact that he had little chance of winning the election in Georgia without a seemingly conservative, even subtly racist stance. Perhaps the end justified the means.
And win he did. But a racist he wasn’t. He changed his tune immediately after he was sworn in as the Governor of Georgia in January 1971. In his inaugural speech, he declared that “the time for racial discrimination is over”. Carter’s liberal, anti-discriminatory policies and emphasis on a pollution-free environment formed the bases of his gubernatorial term. He also enacted legislation to remove racial barriers and established several key projects to develop the state’s economy.
In 1974, when the nation was recovering from the Watergate scandal and was ruled by the makeshift presidency of Gerald Ford, the only unelected president in the nation’s history, Carter declared his bid for the presidency. He was little known nationally; even the Atlanta newspapers carried the headline “Jimmy Who?” immediately after his announcement.
Carter won the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1976; the Democratic ticket of Carter/Mondale defeated Gerald Ford with a 51% majority in the popular vote and an Electoral College majority of 297 to 240. Carter was sworn in as the 39th President of the United States in January, 1977.
Jimmy Carter was a fine president, but a terrible politician. He was a champion of human rights; bolstered Social Security, added nearly eight million jobs and sought to improve the environment.
He negotiated a meeting with Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, ending with the Camp David Accords which led to peace between Israel and Egypt the following year.
Carter attended a summit meeting with Soviet Prime Minister, Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna in 1979, which led to the signing of the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) II. The Treaty basically established nuclear equality between the two nations; limiting the total of both nations’ nuclear forces to 2,250 delivery vehicles each, and placing a variety of other restrictions on deployed strategic nuclear forces.
He also established full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.
Carter was unsuccessful in a bid for a second term in 1980, when he was defeated by the political machinations of the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. Carter’s campaign was initially hurt when Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy decided to challenge Carter in the Democratic Primaries. Kennedy, an avowed liberal and a scion of the most famous political dynasty of the nation, was not happy with the right-wing trend of the incumbent, and ran a campaign to humiliate his opponent. Kennedy knew full well that his presidential aspirations were severely compromised after the tragedy at Chappaquiddick, when the then Massachusetts Senator drove his car, allegedly under the influence of liquor, off a narrow bridge, resulting in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a secretary and campaign worker in the ill-fated presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy. Carter finally clinched the nomination but emerged from the Primaries with a fractured Democratic base.
But the one issue that contributed to Carter’s defeat was the Iran hostage crisis. In November 1979, revolutionaries against the regime of the US-backed Shah Reza Pahlavi stormed the American Embassy in Teheran and took hostage 52 diplomats and civilian staff. The takeover happened months after the fall of the government of the Shah, who was living in exile in the US at the time.
The year-long crisis undermined Carter’s reputation, both at home and abroad. His popularity eroded further after a failed attempt to take back the embassy and rescue the hostages. Eight service members died in an accident during the attempt. Carter accepted the fact that his failure to rescue the hostages was the primary cause for his electoral defeat in 1980.
However, his defeat may have been caused by the traditional sinister political artifices of the Republican Party. A rumor, which has since been confirmed, emerged that Republican political operatives, led by William Casey, Reagan’s campaign manager, later appointed by Reagan as the head of the CIA (Central Information Agency, the nation’s leading espionage organization), played a major role in the delay of the release of the hostages. The New York Times reported in 2023 that Casey and Republican campaign officials traveled “to one Middle Eastern Capital after another that Summer (of 1980), meeting with a host of regional leaders to deliver a blunt message to be passed to Iran: Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal”.
The hostages were formally released into American custody just minutes after President Reagan was sworn into office.
And so began the Reagan regime, which initiated the process of dismantling a thriving middle class by cutting taxes to benefit the super-wealthy and the corporations, the infamous and debunked “Trickle Down Theory”, which Trump will fine-tune to perfection by the end of his second term, to an oligarchic kleptocracy.
According to the Logan Act, it is illegal for private citizens to negotiate with a foreign power to “defeat the measures of the United States”. A law that has been broken with impunity by the Trump Organization with their collusion with the Russian government in the US elections and other matters of national security before and during Trump’s first term. Who can forget Trump’s announcement at a pre-2016 election rally, when he shouted “RUSSIA, ARE YOU LISTENING?”, publicly seeking assistance from Russian intelligence in finding non-existent illegalities in Hillary Clinton’s emails in her private server. And even in his capacity of President, when he took Russian President Putin’s version of Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election, against all 17 US Intelligence Agencies. On the world stage at the Summit in Helsinki in 2018, an act of complicity bordering on treason.
But it really matters no longer. The majority of American voters have made their incredibly deplorable, dangerous choice in electing a caricature of a dictator. They have proven themselves immune to non-compliance of international and national laws, even war crimes. The next four years will be fraught with peril.
Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 “for his decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social welfare”. Twenty-five years too late.
Since 1984, Carter and his wife of nearly eight decades, Rosalynn, have been personally involved in building and renovating homes for the poor with Habitat for Humanity. He was actively engaged in the project till almost the day he died.
Jimmy Carter got the totally unjustified reputation of being an anti-Semite, when he wrote a bestselling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published in 2006. He likened the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories to Apartheid, the disgraced South African racial segregation laws, which were almost a carbon copy of the Jim Crow racial segregation laws which ruled the United States of America from 1877 to the mid-1960s, laws under which Carter was born and raised.
Political leaders in the USA lined up to denounce former President Carter, because of his seeming pro-Palestine cause. He was vilified as a “bigot”, who had a “Jewish problem.” He was accused of “facilitating those who pursue Israel’s annihilation” and “blinded by an anti-Israel animus”. Even Democratic leaders like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw Carter under the bus, stating that “Carter does not speak for the Democratic party on Israel”.
Nearly two decades later, these same critics are beginning to appreciate the prescience of Carter’s views, as they are now accusing Israel of imposing a form of Apartheid on the Palestinians in breach of international laws. Carter was not only way ahead of his time, he was also showing that brand of moral rectitude and courage, without fear of consequences, which has been the distinction of his entire public and private life.
Kai Bird, the author of a recent biography of Carter’s presidency, wrote in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, in 2021:
“The former president’s decision to use the word ‘Apartheid’ no longer seems a stretch; indeed, today it seems to describe the reality on the ground in the occupied West Bank. I don’t think Carter has a Jewish problem. It’s just the reverse. The American Jewish establishment has a Jimmy Carter problem”.
Public observances honoring President Carter’s legacy will start in Georgia. His body will lie in repose at the Carter Center in Atlanta, where the public can pay their respects till January 7. He will then lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington DC, which will be open to the public till the funeral at the Washington National Cathedral at 10 a.m. on Thursday, January 9.
Carter had requested President Biden, a close friend, to deliver the eulogy at the funeral, which Biden considered an honor and a privilege. Former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump are expected to be in attendance, along with their spouses.
Following the state funeral, the late president will be taken back to Georgia, to be buried at the Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, where he had taught Sunday School for decades, at the same location his wife, Rosalynn was buried following her death last year.
President Jimmy Carter was without doubt the greatest ex-President in the history of the USA.
I wish everyone a very happy and healthy 2025. Notwithstanding Trump.
Features
Addressing human rights needs multi-pronged approach
by Jehan Perera
The ongoing 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which runs from September 7 to October 7, 2026, in Geneva is important to Sri Lanka. Its outcome will send a signal to other international actors, including the European Union, as to whether Sri Lanka’s reform policy is on track. The written update on Sri Lanka, prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights under High Commissioner Volker Türk and presented by Deputy High Commissioner Nada Al-Nashif, has taken a more holistic approach to the government’s performance over the past year. It acknowledged the progress Sri Lanka has made under the NPP government in relation to accountability for financial fraud and other economic crimes. At the same time, the High Commissioner’s update made clear that progress in relation to economic crime cannot be equated with progress in relation to accountability for grave human rights violations committed during the armed conflict and in other periods of political violence.
The government may have felt sufficiently confident that its response to the High Commissioner’s update could be handled by its representative in Geneva and did not require the attendance of Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath. Sri Lanka’s representative Sumith Dassanayake called for a fundamental review of country-specific mandates within the UN Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka has been facing repeated scrutiny in the form of successive UNHRC resolutions from 2012 onwards. Ambassador Dassanayake argued that such mandates should not continue indefinitely and must be regularly assessed against measurable objectives and tangible outcomes. This may reflect confidence that its record of reform is beginning to receive recognition internationally. The reports and statements at the Human Rights Council acknowledged progress in the government’s efforts to address corruption and economic crime.
The government’s anti-corruption drive has included investigations into allegations involving individuals who held the highest political offices in the country. The arrest of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in connection with alleged misuse of public funds, and the investigation into the controversial SriLankan Airlines Airbus transaction involving former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s son, are examples of the reach of these investigations. The arrest of SLPP National Organiser and Member of Parliament Namal Rajapaksa in connection with allegations relating to the Airbus purchase scandal has also demonstrated that the government is willing to pursue cases involving politically powerful figures.
Wide Range
The ongoing investigations appear to encompass a wide range of parliamentarians and government members, both past and present. They suggest that accountability for corruption is not being confined to lower-level officials or to individuals who lack political influence. This is precisely the kind of accountability that the public has long demanded and that previous governments have too often failed to deliver. The government is also reaching into the upper levels of the military hierarchies of the past. The case in which 11 young men, most of them Tamil, disappeared after being abducted in Colombo between 2008 and 2009 involved allegations that some families were asked to pay ransoms. The investigation into this case has reached senior military figures. The willingness to pursue such cases is important because it challenges the assumption that those who exercised power during the war are beyond the reach of the law. Such cases would provide a practical test of whether the government’s commitment to accountability for economic crimes is part of a broader commitment to the rule of law.
Success in prosecuting corruption cannot substitute for justice for those who were unlawfully killed, disappeared, tortured or otherwise victimised. The UN report noted that there had been no recognition or accountability for crimes under international law, gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties during the war. The government has yet to establish a credible and effective process to address the many cases of enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing, torture and other serious violations. The government needs to take the international commitments it has inherited on human rights issues seriously. It needs to adopt a multi-pronged approach and go beyond focusing primarily on financial and corruption-related accountability.
Need Action
As a member of the international community, Sri Lanka has a responsibility to abide by the commitments it has made. It cannot selectively uphold international obligations postponing those that are politically difficult. Also, as a small country, Sri Lanka has a self-interest in ensuring the survival of international law, which is all that it has to protect it from the depredations of the bigger international actors. The erosion of international law by powerful states makes it all the more important that smaller states uphold the principles on which the international system is based. Sri Lanka cannot credibly appeal to international law when it is threatened from outside while disregarding its own obligations within. Sri Lanka also needs to win the confidence of its own population that it is committed to justice and equality for all. Public opinion polls and community-level research have disclosed that ethnic and religious minorities are appreciative of the sense of greater security they enjoy under the present government from ethnic or religious extremists.
But a sense of security is not the same as the fulfilment of rights. As far as the Tamil people are concerned, the government has yet to deliver on several of its specific promises. These include the long-standing problems of missing persons, the release of political prisoners who have been members of Tamil militant organisations, and the return of land taken over for military purposes during the war. The issue of Buddhist statues and archaeological sites found on their properties which are then taken from their control continue to trouble them especially as they see no signs of resolution of those disputes. The issue of pastureland in the east of the country in Mylathamadu is particularly concerning to them as they see orders by successive presidents, both President Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, being disregarded on the ground. The Mylathamadu pastureland dispute is where traditional Tamil dairy farmers have engaged in multi-year protests against the ongoing encroachment of their ancestral grazing lands by Sinhalese crop cultivators relocated under government development schemes.
The government’s failure to hold Provincial Council elections is particularly troubling. The provincial council system is the only one that can provide the Tamil people and other ethnic minorities the opportunity to wield political power and exercise a measure of self-determination in the areas in which they are the numerical majority. The continued postponement of Provincial Council elections therefore has consequences that go beyond an ordinary electoral delay. It deprives communities of an important constitutional avenue for democratic participation and power-sharing. The ethnic and religious minorities appreciate what the government is doing in the larger national interest, but they must not be made to feel that their special concerns are being ignored. The government cannot resolve Sri Lanka’s entire legacy of rights violations overnight. But it does need to demonstrate that it is willing to move forward on multiple fronts, not only on a few.
Features
The emptying university: why are academics leaving?
by Hasini Lecamwasam
Brain drain in Sri Lanka is at an all-time high. The latest Human Flight and Brain Drain Index for 2024 shows that we are 16th of 175 countries on this count, and first in South Asia. That this is a crisis goes without saying. Brain drain affects all sectors, and is a huge strain on the resources of a developing country. Particularly in Sri Lanka, where considerable public investment is made in the moulding of professionals through the system of free education, this amounts to transferring the resources of poorer countries to richer ones with top migration destinations. It is, therefore, important to consider the push and pull factors behind skilled outmigration, specifically from the public university system of Sri Lanka, a key focus of the Kuppi column.
From frustration to exit
Several bitter realities in our crumbling public university system act as push factors in the migration decisions of academics. Many essays on this column have, over several years, attempted to highlight numerous aspects of this erosion. Perhaps, primary among them is the lack of adequate funding, which has debilitating ramifications for the system: very little investment is made in the up-keep of infrastructure (and even less in its expansion), resulting in serious constraints in accommodating growing batches of students and the wellbeing of the staff (particularly in regional universities); research funding is negligible, severely curtailing academics’ ability to effectively discharge their primary duty of teaching which should ideally be informed by their research (and the research of others, access to which is also, unfortunately, mediated by funding); a funding crunch also means a slash in (or greater constraints on) recruitments, increasing the workloads of academics, currently in service, and eating into the quality of their teaching and research.
What recruitments are done frustrate those with any faith in merit. As many of our interventions in this column have shown, recruitment processes are characterised by archaic selection criteria that place very little weight on a candidate’s postgraduate growth and the advantages of interdisciplinary training. Added to this is the general preference for ‘culturally compliant’ candidates who would not rock the boat too much. The combined effect is that those with the capacity and spirit to try out innovations in education are discouraged from joining or staying on in the public university system. Some, or many, of them may instead seek appointments abroad.
A thread that binds all of these problems together is pervasive hierarchy which, again, many interventions on this column have sought to highlight. It is the interest in preserving hierarchy that leads to the preference for alumni in recruitment processes. Hierarchy within universities can be particularly frustrating for younger faculty and women, who typically have to bear the brunt of the workload of their senior, often male, colleagues. In a context of funding, and, therefore, recruitment, restrictions, this translates into a disproportionate burden being placed on junior (usually female) faculty, seriously hindering their prospects of growing into successful academics due to the time constraints within which they have to operate. Junior academics, therefore, are more likely to look to educational institutions abroad for what they hope would be a different work culture that respects them more.
Ideological ruses
On top of these structural frustrations are also the workings of neoliberal ideology. For one, the nature of relations between the global metropole and peripheral countries like Sri Lanka largely dictates what is desirable and what is not. The apparent lifestyles of Western countries – from food to clothing, housing, appliances, and so on – have continued to lure people from the periphery with the promise of a ‘better’ life, alongside better career advancement opportunities. This, of course, masks much of the struggle that goes on behind the scenes to survive in Western societies. For instance, in most cases highly attractive public infrastructure such as roads, public transport, clean air, quality control of food, and so on belie the astronomical privatised costs of healthcare and education. Health insurance is usually mandatory and steep in most high-income settings, while even subsidised education (for which eligibility criteria are strict) creates a serious dent in household earnings. Of course, the happy images of glossy trams and gleeful international travellers don’t convey this.
A second ideological ruse is the myth of greater opportunities and recognition abroad. While there is no denying that local skilled sectors – be it higher education, health, civil service, or private white-collar positions – are replete with issues that inhibit merit-based professional advancement, the notion that things are fundamentally different in Western countries stems from an uninformed optimism. As is now increasingly known and discussed, Western labour markets are notoriously racialised, and equivalent skills are rarely treated as such. Instead, it is usually demanded that skilled migrants clear certain formal examinations in their host countries. In fields like medicine, this is followed by an interview that may also be racially prejudiced. Once these initial steps are cleared, remuneration reverts to square one irrespective of experience accumulated abroad, not to mention the many subtle aggressions, rejections, and trials one has to go through in the negotiation of everyday life. In the many cases where professional qualifications are used as leverage for a move abroad, sights are set on a better future for one’s children, which again is informed by the misplaced faith in greater opportunities and a lack of awareness of the factors outlined above. Needless to say, in the global swing to the Right, things have become even more challenging. In such a context, considering the few rare cases where skilled migrants live extremely comfortable lives as the norm becomes a dangerous misconception.
The two ideological pull factors mentioned above are complemented by a push factor, which has to do with a highly classed understanding of what a white-collar professional is due in their society. Many of these aspirations are clearly articulated in academic trade union action demanding separate quotas for school entry, increased fuel allowances, winning back the presently stalled vehicle permit scheme, salary hikes, and so on. While working people have every right to agitate for better material conditions, insofar as it remains unconnected to a broader movement for improving the conditions of the lot of the working class, it remains self-serving and very much within the class logic of capitalist society. Since these demands are articulated as a means of maintaining distinction, it is clear that they are not envisaged as part of a class movement. The frustration of not having these needs for distinction satisfied may push some to seek greener pastures abroad, at least financially, (perhaps as a means of social mobility based on it), only to be disappointed on most occasions.
What is to be done?
Addressing the systemic push factors listed above requires, first and foremost, greater allocations for free public higher education. This would immediately translate into more recruitments and less work per academic, and better research and teaching in the long haul. An increase in funding would also ideally lead to greater infrastructural investments, especially including improving the living conditions of those who work in regional universities amid untold hardships. Next, fairer, more creative, and, therefore, more effective recruitment policies are badly needed to attract talented individuals to university positions. Rather than carving out a ‘special category’ for academics to achieve this purpose, which is informed by a classed logic, this needs to be done through fundamental reforms in recruitment processes. Third, a persistent attack on the entrenched hierarchy within universities through internal reform is much called for. Reforming recruitment practices will go a long way towards addressing this. Measures should also be taken to introduce more stringent policies against SGBV (not to mention ragging, even though it is not directly connected to brain drain). Such measures would create a safer, fairer, and more attractive workplace, which would give more reasons for people to stay.
On top of greater allocations, we also need a transformation of our aspirations themselves if this situation is to change. That necessitates a kind of education capable of questioning the ‘paradise’ conception of Western societies, and lays bare their colonial material and ideological dimensions, in both their historical and contemporary manifestations. These colonial understandings of the ‘good life’, moreover, have devastating ecological implications for the planet, not to mention social justice. An education with the ability to transform this mindset would hopefully prove to be more than a mere path to social mobility, rather being a tool of social emancipation that renders mobility moot.
(Hasini Lecamwasam is with the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
Features
Friends favourite Suzi Croner returns for Oktoberfest 2026
Charming audiences in Switzerland as Suzi Flückiger, Sri Lanka’s own Suzi Croner is coming home… for a very special occasion.
The bubbly former frontline vocalist of 90s band Friends will take the stage at a popular venue in Colombo for Oktoberfest 2026.
Known in Europe for her country and classic hits, Suzi has remained a much-loved name back home. This will be a rare chance for local fans to see her live and celebrate the voice behind so many Friends memories.
Oktoberfest 2026 in Colombo promises an evening of live music, traditional Bavarian food and beer, colourful dirndls and lederhosen, folk dancing, and plenty of community cheer.

Suzi Croner (Flückiger)
Against this lively backdrop, Suzi will take the stage for a special solo set, featuring her own pre-recorded music. She performed at the event last year too, as a solo artiste, but a German band providing the music.
This year, however she says, it’s a different scene.
“The novel attraction will be the dancers from Germany — all girls, clad in German outfits,” Suzi said. She added that the event will also highlight the activities generally connected with Oktoberfest, which should generate a lot of fun and excitement for those who join her in Colombo next month.
Suzi has become a much-in-demand artiste in Europe, and has even performed Down Under, in Melbourne.
In Switzerland, where she has been based for the past 42 years, she continues to charm audiences with country and classic hits, performing at private events and community nights across Europe.
“My weekends are generally loaded with my work as a singer,” she said. “And I also play tennis three times a week, because I need to keep fit to entertain my audience in an active way.”
Her repertoire is made up mainly of Swiss, German and English songs.
And true to form, Suzi loves springing surprises.
“So watch out when you join me at Oktoberfest 2026, in Colombo!” she said.
-
Sports4 days agoDDS set to lose Test captaincy
-
News4 days agoSri Lanka faces new grid challenge as rooftop solar surges: former CEB GM
-
Latest News4 days agoShafali, Deepti power India into sixth T20 Asia Cup final
-
Opinion6 days agoNavigating Sri Lanka’s Israeli Dilemma
-
Latest News4 days agoSri Lanka thwart Fatima Sana challenge to secure Asia Cup final spot
-
Features5 days agoLost for 90 years: Rare Goby resurfaces in Jaffna
-
News2 days agoGnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling
-
News3 days agoAmmunition cache found in old Kandy bungalow
