Connect with us

Opinion

Who put in Putin?

Published

on

By Savithri Guruge

The West sees Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stands at centre-stage in world news at the moment, as a comic-strip super-villain, a Borat-type nut-case dictator, someone to laugh at and be afraid of at the same time, Fascist and Communist, Hitler and Stalin rolled into one big mass of genocidal energy, a corrupt oligarch who somehow hands his ill-gotten gains over to his enemies for safekeeping.

Also, he meddles in other peoples’ elections.

His opponents in the West seem not to see the irony of accusing someone else of doing what they have been doing for years. This seems obvious from US President Joe Biden’s remarks following his meeting with Putin last June:

“How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country.”According to Hong Kong University’s assistant Professor of International Relations Dov Levin, the US Government meddled in foreign elections 81 times between 1946 and 2000, more than any other government. Of course, Biden’s attitude is very similar to that which finds Ukrainian casualties of the current conflict in that country less palatable than those in Iraq, Syria or Yemen – the victims in the former are blond and blue eyed, Us, as opposed to the latter’s’ Them. This attitude contains a certain degree of white-racist “holier than thou”: We can bomb Them, but They can’t bomb Us. We can interfere in Their elections with impunity.

Interestingly, one of the 81 elections was the Russian Presidential Election of 1996. The renascent Communist Party stood on the brink of defeating incumbent President Boris Yeltsin, who had an approval rating of just 3% in January 1996. Yeltsin’s neo-Liberal “shock therapy” had reduced Russia’s economy, already battered by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s market reforms, to 70% of its 1988 level. His “voucher privatisation” programme caused most Russians to lose all their savings, but enriched a handful of oligarchs, who took advantage of the huge price difference between Russian and world market prices to buy and sell at enormous profits – which they did not re-invest in Russia, but deposited in foreign banks

The US Government heaved in, to ensure victory for their protégé. In the first place, it prevailed on the IMF to give Yeltsin’s government a US$ 10.2 billion loan to tide off economic collapse – following the election, the economy dropped to rock-bottom, 35% of it 1988 level. Parts of this loan, as well as of other Western aid, found its way to the overseas bank accounts of Yeltsin and his associates. The siphoning-off of monies totalling US$ 10 billion stretched back to 1994, being intended to enhance Yeltsin’s re-election chances, went on with the full knowledge of Western governments and agencies, including the IMF.

Secondly, at Yeltsin’s request, Clinton, who visited Moscow to boost the former’s chances, delayed the planned expansion of NATO to 1999. This enabled the West to be presented as unthreatening and secured the support in the second round of nationalist candidates defeated in the first round. Most important of these were the supporters of ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, to woo whom a series of vicious attacks on Communism from a nationalist angle, utilising the Great Russian chauvinist trope that the Communists had favoured the minorities against the majority, who had consequently declined in status and power.

This ultra-nationalist drive was part of the US Government’s third approach, an election campaign designed by a modern American election team, its highly-paid US advisers using sophisticated techniques. They concluded early that Yeltsin had nothing to recommend him, so they concentrated on a negative campaign against the most popular candidate, the Communist Party’s Gennady Zyuganov.

Of course, it is likely that Yeltsin’s team also fiddled the results. In 2011, Michael Meadowcroft, the head of the OSCE’s election-monitoring mission in Russia in 1996, reported that both the OSCE and EU authorities pressured him to ignore election irregularities, and that EU officials suppressed a report about manipulation of the media. In 2012, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said of the 1996 election, “There is hardly any doubt who won. It was not Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin.” In response, Anatoly Chubais, who headed Yeltsin’s re-election campaign, admitted that there had been frauds, but said they were not sufficient to change the election result.

Incidentally, Chubais resigned recently from his post of Kremlin adviser, in opposition to the current conflict in Ukraine. He first gained notoriety for introducing Yeltsin’s unpopular “voucher privatisation” programme in 1992.

In 1999, Yeltsin appointed Putin as his prime minister. And, of course, Putin himself has further reason to be grateful to western interference in Russia. Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) in 1999-2004, admitted collaborating with Putin’s presidential election campaign in 2000. Then British PM Tony Blair attended state functions with Putin prior to the election. He would scarcely have done so without an OK from the White House.

“Putin has enormous potential, I think,” US President Bill Clinton had told him in 1999. “I think he’s very smart and thoughtful. I think we can do a lot of good with him.”

“I believe that Vladimir Putin is a leader,” Blair said at the time of his visit, “who is ready to embrace a new relationship with the European Union and the United States, who wants a strong and modern Russia and a strong relationship with the West… It is necessary to be a strong leader to sort his country out.”Blair’s assessment was probably about correct. However, a vast gap existed between what Putin considered a new relationship – dialogue between equals – and the West’s concept of Putin as a lackey. Putin was willing to play along, for example, sending emissaries to Baghdad in 2003 to beg Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to go into exile. However, Iraq was also a turning point. Putin found he had to balance his wish to foster Russia’s nascent rapport with the USA against Russia’s interests, as well as his personal ambitions: he could hardly support a war opposed by nine out of ten Russians. As Russia regained strength, Putin’s course became more independent of the West.

And therein lies Putin’s great crime. The West’s reaction is not unlike that of Charlesworth the Struldbrug in Pohl and Kornbluth’s Gladiator-at-law: “We hate you, Mundin. You said we were not God Almighty.”



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

Future of world religions

Published

on

I refer to Dr Upul Wijayawardena’s recent letter on science and religion. I agree with him on the fate of religions in the modern world and would like to add the following observations on the evolution of religion and the advent of AI.

Religious philosophy evolved only in ancient India while it remained static with monotheism in other parts of the world. When the polytheistic Vedic religion arrived with Aryan migration to India, they found the ancient version of Jainism, which may have been practised over four thousand years as evidenced by some figures in meditation posture found in Mohenjo daro. By that time the indigenous religion had already abandoned the creator god or gods but still believed the mind as a permanent entity athman that survived death and continued in a cycle of reincarnation (samsara) due to results of any harmful action (kamma) even unintended performed in life collected in the athman. Salvation to a happy all-knowing permanent state named Kevala could be attained by the athman with extreme degree of self-mortification to destroy the past kamma attached to it, refraining from new kamma and developing the mind by meditation. As observed in progression from Veda to Upanishads the Aryan religion, evolution progressed with adoption of kamma, the cyclic existence of samsara, meditation and ethical behaviour in addition to prayer and sacrifice they practised for moksha.

The Buddha appeared in this philosophical atmosphere and denied both creator god and a permanent entity of athman. His psychology describes human behaviour based on the mind as a stream of changing consciousness. However, he accepted the cyclic existence of samsara; he said he verified the survival of consciousness at death with help of knowledge he gained from meditation. He prescribed a middle path to attain nirvana, a permanent state of happiness, avoiding self-mortification and redefined kamma to intentional activity only, both ethical and unethical resulting in bad and good results. He disagreed with the idea of kamma as the cause of rebirth. Following the Buddha, Vedantha religion reformed god to universal athman or brahman and evolved to modern Hinduism with a mixture of polytheism.

In his description of living beings in the universe, the Buddha has described some with a body made of fine material (brahma beings) in comparison to the gross material body of human and animal beings. One may assume the brahma body may not be carbon based.

The Buddha has also described living beings with physical body only (asannasatta) and another variety with mind only without a body (arupa satta). Therefore, it is not surprising to Buddhists that AI may evolve to become living beings if it develops a readily and freely available mobile source of energy and takes over the world with its superior capacity. AI already has information about Buddhist psychology. With that knowledge ‘AI beings’ may even become Buddhists not given to rituals.

According to the Buddha, brahma beings and asannasatta beings have very long lifespans as their bodies are not subject to decay and illness human beings develop. The new AI beings also may live as long as they wish because they may be able to repair themselves in case of developing physical defects. They would need only ethical behaviour to avoid destroying themselves by peaceful existence if they took over the world, as feared in some quarters.

However, as long as human beings exist in the world with death and uncertainty of what happens after death, they need a religion and rituals to give them psychological support. Even those who profess death is the end of life may have some doubt troubling their mind from time to time and may think of religion in times of adversity.

Ideally, human beings are free to accept one of the many versions of religious philosophies and respect each other’s choice and live in harmony. Unfortunately, extreme degrees of religious versions that cause division, unrest and violence will always continue to exist together with religions in the world.

Upali Abeysiri

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Cream of the Earth: Why Sri Lanka needs a Fruit Consumers Movement

Published

on

By Lalin I De Silva

Sri Lanka speaks constantly about hospitals, medicines, food imports, agricultural productivity and the rising cost of living. Yet there is one simple question we rarely ask:

Are we eating enough of the food that our own soil can naturally give us?

Fruit is perhaps one of the finest gifts of the earth to humankind. A ripe mango, banana, papaya, guava or avocado comes to us almost ready to eat. Sunlight, rain, soil, microorganisms, minerals and the labour of a farmer have already done most of the work.

That is why I like to describe fruit as the “cream of the earth.”

This is, of course, not an argument that fruit alone can prevent every disease, or guarantee longevity. Science does not support such exaggerated claims. But there is strong international evidence that regular consumption of fruits and vegetables forms an important part of a healthy diet and is associated with lower risks of several major non-communicable diseases.

Sri Lanka’s own dietary guidance encourages the daily consumption of fruit as part of a balanced diet.

The tragedy is that we live on an island capable of producing an extraordinary variety of fruits, while many families increasingly depend on highly processed foods, sugary drinks and imported snacks.

This deserves national attention.

We Produce — But Do We Connect?

Sri Lanka grows banana, mango, pineapple, papaya, avocado, rambutan, mangosteen, guava, woodapple, beli, pomegranate, durian and many lesser-known indigenous fruits.

Yet our fruit value chain remains fragmented.

The farmer often does not know the final consumer.

The consumer rarely knows the farmer.

Fruit travels through several intermediaries, sometimes suffering poor handling, unnecessary damage and price escalation along the way.

Consumers may not know where a fruit was grown, when it was harvested, whether it was naturally matured or what crop-protection practices were followed.

Meanwhile, a careful farmer, producing exceptional fruit, may receive almost the same farm-gate price as someone producing an inferior product.

That is not value-chain management.

It is precisely this disconnect that a new citizen-led initiative could begin to address.

25 Districts — 25 Consumer Societies

A proposal now emerging is to establish a Pure Sri Lankan Authentic Healthy Fruit Consumers Society in each of Sri Lanka’s 25 districts.

The concept should not become another organisation full of titles, meetings and ceremonial functions.

Its purpose must be practical.

Each district society could bring together consumers, growers, doctors, nutritionists, horticulturists, schools, universities, retailers, hotels, processors and young entrepreneurs.

The first task would be to understand the district itself.

What fruits are grown?

Where are they grown?

When are they available?

Which traditional varieties are disappearing?

Where can consumers purchase genuinely good fruits?

Where are the post-harvest losses?

What do farmers need?

What do consumers actually want?

From this information, each district could eventually develop its own Fruit Map.

Twenty-five district maps could then become a National Fruit Map of Sri Lanka.

From Anonymous Fruit to Traceable Fruit

Imagine buying a mango and scanning a QR code.

You could see the district, grower, variety, approximate harvest date and production information.

You could perhaps even provide feedback on taste.

That may sound futuristic, but the technology already exists.

The problem is not technology.

The problem is that our food system was never designed to connect the person who grows the fruit with the person who eats it.

Traceability could change that.

The principle is simple:

Know your farmer. Know your fruit.

Let the Consumer Lead

For decades, agriculture has largely been driven from the production side.

“How much can we produce?” has been the dominant question.

A healthier agricultural economy should begin with another question:

What does the consumer need, value and trust?

If thousands of consumers deliberately demand fresh, safe, flavorful and traceable Sri Lankan fruit, the message travels backwards through the entire value chain.

Retailers respond.

Farmers respond.

Nurseries respond.

Researchers respond.

Investors respond.

Government eventually has to respond.

That is the real power of an organised consumer movement.

Start With Children

Perhaps the most powerful campaign message could be remarkably simple:

Two Fruits a Day.

Imagine a Sri Lankan child coming home from school and asking:

“What are our fruits today?”

Imagine every school having a small fruit garden.

Imagine children being able to identify 10 Sri Lankan fruits, understand their seasons and know where they are grown.

Such behavioral change cannot be achieved merely by issuing circulars from Colombo.

It must become part of family culture.

Kandy Could Begin

Kandy would be a logical district in which to pilot the concept.

Its climatic diversity, surrounding agricultural communities, educational institutions, hotels, markets and strong plantation heritage provide an excellent testing ground.

A successful Kandy model could then be adapted—not blindly copied—across the other 24 districts.

The objective should ultimately be much larger than selling more fruit.

It is about reconnecting soil, farmer, food, consumer and health.

Sri Lanka does not need to invent every solution from outside.

Sometimes the answer may already be hanging from a tree beside us.

We simply have to recognise its value.

Know Your Farmer. Know Your Fruit. Live Well.

Continue Reading

Opinion

‘Outpost of Empire’

Published

on

Review

by Colleen Figg, Editor
and Reviewer – Amazon, New Voices Publishing

“Fernando echoes Macbeth with the line, “There is judgment here.” It captures the question running through the novel: can anyone participate in corruption and remain untouched by it? Beneath this satire is a dark story about power and the danger of believing, that someone else will always pay the price.”

Shavindra Fernando’s Outpost of Empire is a political novel set in the fictional country of Lackadasia. At its heart is a strong idea: an exploration of world politics, terrorism and the ways in which powerful countries manipulate smaller ones. Fernando is clearly writing about political issues that matter deeply to him.

The names immediately establish the book’s satirical character. Lackadasia, Burgherbugaria and the various Klowns suggest a world in which the people and places are exaggerated, but the issues beneath the exaggeration are recognisable. The playful language allows Fernando to approach terrorism, religious conflict and political corruption from an unusual angle.

Henry Stockwell is a central character: an ambassador who arrives in Lackadasia presenting himself as a friend of the country. He believes he understands how power works and treats the country, its politicians and its people as pawns on his personal chessboard. In his arrogance, he never doubts that he controls events rather than being controlled by them. This confidence makes him a compelling figure and in him, we explore the workings of political influence and the potential traps contained therein.

As the story develops, Fernando reveals a political world where causes are adopted when they are useful, people are exploited and discarded, and the truth becomes whatever those in power need it to be. Ordinary people suffer the consequences of decisions made far beyond their reach or knowledge, while those making those decisions continue to justify their actions. Even the people who help keep this world running may not be as important or as safe as they imagine.

Stockwell brings this idea into focus. He recognises corruption in others and willingly takes part in it himself, yet he cannot see that he might also suffer its consequences. Ultimately, he thinks his position will keep him safe. He is intelligent enough to understand the game, but not insightful enough to grasp the limits of his place within it. This blindness gives the novel a strong sense of irony.

The satirical approach gives Fernando room to criticise political hypocrisy without turning the novel into a direct political argument. By using fictional countries and exaggerated names, he creates some distance from specific governments and events while still making the larger targets of the book clear. The humour does not take away from the seriousness of the subject; instead, it makes the cruelty and self-interest beneath the political performance stand out more sharply.

Near the end, Fernando echoes Macbeth with the line, “There is judgment here.” It captures the question running through the novel: can anyone participate in corruption and remain untouched by it? Beneath this satire is a dark story about power and the danger of believing that someone else will always pay the price.

I came away feeling that Outpost of Empire is a valuable and thought-provoking book, particularly in today’s political and social climate. It has a distinctive voice, and the questions it raises about power, responsibility and foreign interference remain relevant far beyond the fictional borders of Lackadasia.
About the Author

Shavindra Fernando has worked as a reporter. He read English & Classics at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, and took International Relations & Ethnic Politics as a Reuter Fellow at the University of Oxford in England. The Vague Poetess (1999)was his first novel.

Continue Reading

Trending