Connect with us

Editorial

A crime of utmost savagery

Published

on

Wednesday 2nd December, 2020

The recent assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Prof. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, has shocked the civilised world and been rightly condemned as a dastardly act of terrorism. His killers left no clues as to their identities. Iran has blamed the US (which it calls ‘Global Arrogance’) and Israel. Its indignation is understandable.

Those who had Prof. Fakhrizadeh assassinated may have sought to demoralise Iran and scuttle its nuclear programme, but they seem to have only strengthened Tehran’s resolve to achieve its goal. The proliferation of nuclear weapons, no doubt, is an unnervingly frightening proposition, but the question is whether those who are all out to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions have cared to set an example by suspending the production of their nukes.

Most of the nuclear capable countries are run by bloodthirsty hawks who have engineered many wars and caused hundreds of thousands of civilians to be killed elsewhere. The world cannot be any more dangerous even if other states acquire nuclear capability. Nukes in the hands of any nation are dangerous. Those who already have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, which are capable of blowing the planet several times over, will be without any moral right to try to prevent others from producing nukes so long as they do not decommission theirs and act responsibly without abusing their military might to dominate and exploit the world.

The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is the goal the world must strive to achieve, but assassinating nuclear scientists is certainly not the way to set about it. Given the present global order, where might is right, for all practical purposes, it is only natural that the countries whose sovereignty and independence are threatened by meddlesome nuclear powers are trying to arm themselves with nukes. Iran is not alone in doing so. One may recall what Charles de Gaulle famously said: “No country without an atomic bomb could properly consider itself independent.”

Gone are the days when the US had the run of the world, so to speak. Now, it has formidable opponents. Try as it may, it cannot frighten China into submission either economically or militarily or otherwise, and Russia is also emerging powerful. The US and China are evenly matched in most respects so much so that the former has had to look for new allies or lackey states to retain its dominance of the international order. Worse, it has had to talk to the Taliban in a bid to wriggle out of the Afghan imbroglio. About a decade or so ago, who would have thought the US would ever negotiate with terrorists?

The world is changing fast, and so are geo-political dynamics and realities. The world history is replete with instances of mighty empires crumbling. The sun finally set on the British empire. Uncle Sam will show a clean pair of heels, given half a chance in Afghanistan, and has failed to humble the ‘Little Rocket Man’, who cocks a snook at Washington, at every turn, from his hermit kingdom. Those who are riding piggyback on the US or other powerful countries and resorting to aggression against their enemies had better be mindful of this reality, and act responsibly.

Iran should be dealt with diplomatically and must not be driven into a corner. Washington should not have withdrawn from the so-called Iran nuclear deal and opted for hostile action. President Donald Trump, who made that mistake, is on his way out, and how his successor, Joe Biden, widely considered a sensible leader, will handle the Iran issue is not clear.

One can only hope that Iran, which has not chosen its enemies wisely, will remain unprovoked in spite of its unbearable loss, desist from retaliation, which may be exactly what its enemies are waiting for, and deny the perpetrators of the dastardly crime of assassinating its much-revered scientist the pleasure of having a casus belli.

 

 



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Barrels vs bombs

Published

on

War and politics are full of uncertainties and surprises. When one heard US President Donald Trump bragging that the US and Israel had won the war against Iran at the end of the third day of bombing itself, one was reminded of US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II, and his realistic assessment of war. Eisenhower famously said, “… every war is going to astonish you in the way it occurred, and in the way it is carried out.” Fielding a question at a press conference about how the US would respond to a potential conflict involving China and Taiwan, he said the war was inherently unpredictable and responsible leaders could not forecast exactly how it would unfold.

Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have thought they would be able to bomb Iran into submission and engineer a regime change in Tehran in a matter of few days after killing Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the war is dragging on with no end in sight, and Iran has opened a new front in the economic sphere. It has effectively turned the world’s most important oil chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz, into a strategic lever, countering US-Israeli bombs with barrels of oil, so to speak.

Trump recently reassured the world that the war would be over soon, and G7 countries released part of their strategic oil reserves when oil prices began to climb, but Iranian attacks on six ships in the Hormuz Strait have caused oil prices to soar again despite the release of as many as 400 million barrels of oil by the International Energy Agency, with the US alone pledging to contribute 172 million barrels. Iran has warned that it will not allow “one litre of oil” to be exported from the region while US and Israeli attacks continue. Many economies are already groaning under high oil prices, and some of them have adopted energy-saving strategies that hurt their industries and citizens. There is no way the US can absolve itself of responsibility for this situation, with fears being expressed of a possible global recession, which will lead to job losses, drastic welfare cuts and many other untold hardships for countless people across the world. The IMF has warned of an increase in global inflation if the Middle East conflict continues.

President Trump initially gave flippant answers to serious questions about escalating oil prices, claiming that the US would gain from oil price increases, and he prioritised defeating Iran over bringing oil prices down, but the sobering economic reality made him swallow his pride and waive US sanctions on Russian oil as a desperate measure to stabilise the global energy market. The waiver is said to be effective only for one month, but unless oil prices come down, it will have to be extended. This move has gladdened the heart of Russian President Vladimir Putin beyond measure. The reason the US gave for imposing sanctions on Russian oil was that Russia used oil money to fund its war against Ukraine.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described the waiver of sanctions on Russian oil as a ‘narrowly tailored, short-term measure’ that applies only to oil already in transit and will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government, which derives the majority of its energy revenue from taxes assessed at the point of extraction. But Russia’s economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev wrote on Telegram that the US was “effectively acknowledging the obvious: without Russian oil, the global energy market cannot remain stable”. President Putin has expressed a similar view.

The western allies of the US have not taken kindly to the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz in no way justifies lifting sanctions on Russia, French President Emmanuel Macron has said after a discussion with other G7 leaders on the economic fallout from the Iran war. Countries like Ukraine ought to realise that their interests do not figure in the Big Powers’ scheme of things. No sooner had Trump asked Ukraine for help to counter Iranian drones on its allies in the Middle East than he lifted sanctions on Russian oil.

The US and Israel have said it is they who will decide when to end the ongoing war. But Iran has said although they started the conflict it will decide how and when to finish it. The UN, which has outlived its raison d’etre for all intents and purposes, has called for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East. It is doubtful whether the parties to the war will heed the UN call, but it will be in their interest to do so, and pave the way for the de-escalation of the bomb-barrel conflict, as it were, which has adversely impacted the entire world. More than 4.2 million people have already been displaced in the Middle East region, mostly in Iran, according to the UN. Trump ought to heed Eisenhower’s view of war.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Astrologers’ ire

Published

on

Saturday 14th March, 2026

Some prominent astrologers are up in arms, claiming that the JVP-NPP government has not officially recognised the list of traditional New Year auspicious times or the nekath seettuwa they have submitted. They have been holding press conferences and raking the government leaders over the coals (pun intended) for what they describe as a sinister move to devalue the cultural significance of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year. All previous governments officially endorsed the nekath seettu, according to which New Year activities are usually conducted.

The Department of Cultural Affairs has responded, saying that two groups of astrologers have submitted two different nekath seettu, and it will make a final decision after allowing public and expert views to be expressed thereon. It has also said that it, together with the Ministry of Buddhist and Religious Affairs, will continue to take necessary steps to safeguard and promote the country’s cultural values, including longstanding New Year traditions.

Sri Lankan governments want the public to do as they say, and they do as astrologers say. In the final analysis, the whole country does as astrologers say. There was a time when even military operations in the North and the East were conducted according to auspicious times. Many of them ended in disaster, and ones that were not launched according to auspicious times yielded the desired results in 2009. Interestingly, the President who provided political leadership for the country’s successful war on terror, suffered an ignominious defeat by advancing a presidential election on astrological advice. No astrologer could predict that another President would have to flee the country and resign.

Some critics of the incumbent government have claimed that it is not keen to recognise the New Year auspicious times officially as it is led by a bunch of Marxists who place no value on cultural practices. They have pointed out that Marxists generally treat astrology as superstition or a cultural phenomenon rather than a legitimate system within Marxist theory. However, Karl Marx has not made any specific reference to astrology though some Marxist scholars have taken a critical view thereof. In the 1950s, German philosopher, Theodor W. Adorno, a major Marxist influenced social theorist, wrote about astrology and horoscope columns in newspapers and magazines as part of his critique of mass culture under capitalism. He viewed astrology as a symptom of irrationalism and conformity in capitalist societies, where people are distracted from systemic social problems and instead turn to vague supernatural explanations. This view has gained currency among not only Marxists but many non-Marxist scholars and thinkers. One may recall that Voltaire also famously said, “Superstition is to religion what astrology to astronomy—the mad daughter of a wise mother. These daughters have too long dominated the earth.” This is particularly true of Sri Lanka and some other countries in this region.

If auspicious times are based on mathematically determined planetary positions, how come there are two lists of nekath. How is the government going to decide which list is correct? One can only hope that the government will not favour the group of astrologers backed by NPP politicians. There is hardly anything that Sri Lankan politicians do not politicise. Unless the government handles the nekath issue carefully and resolves it to the satisfaction of both sides, there may be what can be described as an astrologers’ war, and the people who rely on the official nekath seettuwa to conduct the New Year rituals will be confused and the political opponents of the JVP/NPP will surely weaponise the issue.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Heed ominous signs – II

Published

on

Friday 13th March, 2026

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have not been able to stabilise the global oil market with their rhetoric and assurances. Their airstrikes on Iran’s naval ships, and mine-laying vessels, etc., have not helped make the Strait of Hormuz safe for international navigation. Iran has attacked six ships so far in that vital choke point. Oil prices began to climb again yesterday despite the release of 400 million barrels of oil, as part of a coordinated International Energy Agency action involving several countries. The US announced that it alone would release as many as 172 million barrels of oil to stabilise the market.

Having carried out successful attacks on vessels passing through the Hormuz Strait and sent the global oil market into panic mode, Iran now says it will stop attacks only on several conditions—end of US-Israeli military attacks, a binding guarantee that there will be no future strikes, recognition of Iran’s sovereign rights, and compensation for war damage. The US and Israel have ignored these conditions.

Prudence demands that Sri Lanka brace itself for an energy crisis. But the JVP-NPP government is all at sea, and its response to the crisis appears to be all over the place. It is apparently labouring under the misconception that it will be able to reduce fuel consumption and manage the crisis simply by jacking up prices. There’s no shame in rationing fuel during a global crisis, as we argued in a previous editorial comment. The previous government introduced a QR based fuel rationing system, which helped it not only overcome a crippling fuel crisis but also retain its hold on power. In fact, some economic advisors reportedly pushed for fuel rationing to prevent a crisis in early 2022, but the Rajapaksas ignored their counsel only to head for the hills with angry protesters in close pursuit a couple of months later.

Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe has claimed that recent panic buying and hoarding of fuel led to a depletion of the country’s petroleum reserves. His claim should be taken with a pinch of salt, for he is trying to justify the huge fuel price increases, but the government could have controlled that situation by resorting to QR-based fuel sales. The same method can be used to prevent many people from using extra gas cylinders to stock up on LPG at the expense of others. Some Litro agents themselves are known to hoard gas and sell it at a black market premium.

Thailand has said its energy reserves are sufficient for about 95 days, but it has already adopted emergency measures to curtail energy consumption. Many other countries have done the same. Pakistan has set an example worthy of emulation. The emergency fuel crisis management measures adopted by Pakistan include a four-day work week for state institutions, work from home for about half of employees in public and private sectors, except essential services, temporary closure of schools and universities, the introduction of online learning, 50% cut in fuel allocations for state vehicles besides the removal of around 60 percent of official vehicles off the road, restrictions on official travel and encouragement of virtual meetings in government institutions. Sri Lanka should learn from Pakistan’s fuel-saving approach.

In this country, no opening ceremony is considered complete without the presence of either the President or the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister. We have had Presidents, Prime Ministers and ministers travelling all over the country, attending various ceremonies and meetings all these years; the incumbent rulers are no exception. The President, the Prime Minister and ministers can inaugurate projects and attend meetings remotely, and help save a lot of fuel and millions of rupees spent on security arrangements, etc. Why should the President travel all the way from Colombo to faraway places to attend District Coordination Committee meetings when he can address them online? Government politicians and officials ought to stop running around like headless chickens and help save fuel and state funds.

It is high time the government stopped dilly-dallying and introduced QR-based fuel rationing.

Continue Reading

Trending