Connect with us

Features

Trump’s Peace Bell Skips Myanmar

Published

on

US President Donald Trump presided over the signing of a peace deal between Thailand and Cambodia during his first day at the ASEAN summit in Malaysia. The president spoke on how his administration has ended eight wars in "just eight months"

“I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” George Orwell wrote these words in Burma, observing how power, unchecked and unaccountable, devastates both the oppressed and the oppressor. Today, Myanmar is living proof of that dictum. The country has been destroyed repeatedly: first by colonial exploitation, then by military coups, and now by international indifference. No global institution—the UN, ASEAN, or the European Union—has ever addressed the structural rot in Myanmar. They focus on convenient symptoms: massacres, refugee flows, the Rohingya crisis, while the underlying mechanisms of oppression, corruption, and militarised governance persist.

Myanmar’s structural failures are deep, historical, and enduring. Under British colonial rule (1824–1948), the administration deliberately restructured the population and economy. Tens of thousands of Muslim labourers from Bengal were imported into Arakan (now Rakhine State) to work rice fields, plantations, and ports. Pre-colonial Burma had approximately 15 million people in 1824; by 1941, the population had more than doubled to around 42 million. The Rohingya population alone increased from a few thousand in the early 19th century to tens of thousands by the early 1940s. This demographic engineering was used to create a labour force and later became a tool for political manipulation. After independence, U Nu deliberately resettled Muslims from neighbouring regions in Arakan to consolidate votes. These policies, both colonial and post-colonial, set the stage for decades of ethnic tension and unrest, turning demographics into political leverage rather than a basis for social cohesion.

Independence did not bring stability. Between 1948 and 1962, U Nu’s government faced multiple insurgencies. The Shan, Kachin, and Karen states witnessed sporadic civil war, with thousands of civilians killed. The army seized power in 1962 under General Ne Win, instituting the “Burmese Way to Socialism,” nationalising all major industries, and isolating the economy. By 1988, GDP per capita had fallen from an estimated $220 to just $170. Infrastructure collapsed, education stagnated, and health systems deteriorated. The military diverted resources to maintain its control, exacerbating ethnic conflicts rather than resolving them.

Buddhism, often idealised as a moral counterweight, failed the nation. The sangha, in principle an ethical institution, either aligned with the regime or was brutally suppressed when it resisted. During the 2007 Saffron Revolution, dozens of monks were killed in crackdowns. Religion, which could have anchored ethical governance, instead became subordinated to coercion, leaving the country without a moral framework capable of sustaining justice or inclusion.

The Rohingya crisis is not an isolated religious or ethnic problem; it is the predictable result of decades of structural manipulation. Policies from the colonial era, U Nu’s resettlement programmes, and later military exclusion compounded marginalisation. By the 2010s, over 750,000 Rohingya had fled to Bangladesh, stateless and persecuted. Yet international attention frames this as a humanitarian or religious crisis rather than acknowledging that it was manufactured over generations for political purposes. Ethnic minorities in other regions face similar oppression, but their struggles rarely make headlines.

Myanmar’s wealth has fuelled its misery. Jade, rubies, timber, oil, and gas have been monopolised by the military and its allies. In the 2000s, jade exports alone were valued at over $1.5 billion annually. Gas pipelines and hydroelectric projects, particularly Chinese-financed, consolidate Beijing’s influence and tie Myanmar’s internal conflicts to external strategic interests. The local population sees little benefit.

The 2021 coup returned the Tatmadaw to full control, sparking widespread civil conflict. Ethnic armed groups and the People’s Defence Forces have captured significant territories in Shan, Kachin, and Rakhine states in response to military airstrikes on civilians. Operation 1027, led by the TNLA, MNDAA, Arakan Army, and allied PDF forces, temporarily seized northern Shan towns and trade routes, threatening Mandalay. Yet China intervened, pressuring the MNDAA and TNLA to halt operations, detaining leaders, seizing assets, and controlling border access. In Rakhine, the Arakan Army has captured 14 of 17 townships and is attempting to control ports such as Kyaukphyu and Sittwe, which are critical to Chinese energy and trade projects. This demonstrates that Myanmar’s internal conflict is inseparable from external manipulation: the military cannot govern without foreign complicity, and ethnic resistance cannot succeed without geopolitical constraints.

The junta’s plan to conduct elections in December 2025 and January 2026 is transparently a bid for legitimacy. Townships where resistance forces are active will hold elections under military control. ASEAN has refused to send observers, citing ongoing conflict and lack of peace progress. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International describe the vote as a sham. Most citizens, particularly in conflict zones, will be unable to participate. The elections are a façade, a theatre of legitimacy without democratic substance.

Meanwhile, the international community continues to fail. The UN, EU, and ASEAN focus on refugee numbers, massacres, and human rights violations—visible symptoms—but avoid confronting the structural causes: military autonomy, systemic corruption, ethnic marginalisation, and economic predation. The United States, under Trump, compounded the problem. The administration largely ignored Myanmar, declined substantive diplomatic engagement, and restricted visas for Burmese citizens, leaving the population trapped under military rule. Meanwhile, Trump celebrated peace agreements elsewhere, such as the Thailand-Cambodia deal, showing that the US can recognise conflict resolution—but chooses not to apply it where inconvenient. If Trump truly values peace, he cannot continue to ignore Myanmar. Genuine peace requires confronting the deepest rot in governance and society, not celebrating superficial accords elsewhere while allowing mass atrocities to persist.

Trump, in his pursuit of peace and his apparent thirst for a Nobel Prize, may have ended up a prince who lost his crown—but far more can be learned from the laureate whose Nobel recognition was effectively nullified for attempting dialogue with yesterday’s enemies, against whom the West unleashed relentless propaganda, all while she endured the abyss of Myanmar’s military repression. That is Aung San Suu Kyi.

Unfortunately, Trump’s selective engagement exemplifies the broader international pattern: convenience over responsibility, optics over accountability. Global institutions speak in press releases but take no effective action against the Tatmadaw or the external actors that enable it. Structural reform, military accountability, and economic justice remain unaddressed. Tyranny destroys freedom—yet the world continues to permit Myanmar’s structural tyranny, treating its people as expendable, its resources as extractable, and its political legitimacy as negotiable.

The junta continues to tighten control, ethnic armed groups fight for survival, and civilians bear the cost. Elections are meaningless; international bodies are toothless; global powers selectively ignore the country’s collapse. Myanmar’s isolation is deliberate, maintained through political convenience and a refusal to confront structural rot. If peace is more than rhetoric, if international actors truly believe in stability and justice, Trump and others can no longer look away. The people of Myanmar, long abused and ignored, deserve more than symbolic gestures and selective diplomacy—they require structural accountability, ethical governance, and an end to the cycles of exploitation that have defined their history. Until that happens, the country will remain a tragic proof of human and institutional failure, with no end in sight.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

on

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Continue Reading

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

on

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

on

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.

Continue Reading

Trending