From the global South’s viewpoint the time could not be more appropriate to re-explore the possibility of forging ahead with realizing its long neglected collective development aims. It would seem that over the past three decades or more the developing world itself has allowed its outstanding issues to be thrust onto the backburner, so to speak, of the global development agenda.

Maybe the South’s fascination with the economic growth models advanced by the West and its apex financial institutions enabled the above situation to come to pass. However, time has also made it clear that the people of the South have gained little or nothing from their rulers’ fixation with the ‘development’ paths mapped out for them by Western financial institutions which came to prioritize ‘market-led’ growth.

At this juncture it is crucial that the more informed and enlightened sections among Southern publics come together to figure out where their countries should ‘go from here’ in terms of development, correctly defined. It is gladdening to note that the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, Colombo (RCSS) has got down to this task.

On November 3rd, the RCSS launched its inaugural ‘RCSS Strategic Dialogue’ under the guidance of its Executive Director, Ambassador (Retd.) Ravinatha Aryasinha, under the theme, ‘Research Priorities for the Global South in Challenging Times’, and the forum was led by none other than by Dr. Carlos Maria Correa, the Executive Director of the Geneva-based South Centre, an institution that has played a pivotal role in Southern development and discourse over the decades.

Among the audience were thought leaders, diplomats, senior public servants, development experts and journalists. In what proved to be a lively, wide-ranging discussion issues at the heart of Southern development were analyzed and a general understanding arrived at which ought to stand the South in general and Sri Lanka in particular in good stead, going forward.

A thought-provoking point made by Dr. Carlos Correa was that the ‘US is helping India and China to come closer, and if India and China work together, the global economy and politics could change dramatically.’ He was referring to the tariff-related trade strife that the US has unleashed on the world and the groundwork that it could lay for the foremost Asian economic powers, India and China, to work consensually towards changing global trade terms in particular in favour of the global South.

The Asian powers mentioned could easily achieve this considering that they could hold their own with the US in economic terms. In other words there exists a possibility of the world economy being shaped in accordance with some of the best interests of the South, provided the foremost economic powers of the South come together and look beyond narrow self- interests towards the collective good of the South. This is a challenge for the future that needs taking up.

China sought to identify itself with the developing world in the past and this could be its opportunity to testify in practical terms to this conviction. In view of the finding that well over 40 percent of global GDP is currently being contributed by the major economies of the South, coupled with the fact that the bulk of international trade occurs among Southern economies, the time seems to be more than right for the South to initiate changes to the international economy that could help in realizing some of its legitimate interests, provided it organizes itself.

The above observation could be considered an important ‘take-away’ from the RCSS forum, which needs to be acted upon by governments, policy makers and think tanks of the developing world. It is time to revisit the seemingly forgotten North-South and South-South Dialogues, revive them and look to exploiting their potential to restructure the world economic system to suit the best interests of all countries, big or small. There are ‘research priorities’ aplenty here for those sections the world over that are desirous of initiating needed qualitative changes to the international economy for the purpose of ushering equity and fair play.

An important research question that arises from the RCSS forum relates to development and what it entails. This columnist considers this question a long- forgotten issue from the North-South Dialogue. It is no longer realized, it seems, that the terms growth and development cannot be used interchangeably. Essentially, while ‘growth’ refers to the total value of goods and services produced by a country yearly, ‘development’ denotes equity in the distribution of such produce among a country’s population. That is, in the absence of an equal distribution of goods and services among the people no ‘development’ could be said to have occurred in a country.

From the above viewpoint very few countries could be said to have ‘developed’ in particularly the South over the decades since ‘political independence’; certainly not Sri Lanka. In terms of this definition of development, it needs to be accepted that a degree of central planning is integral to a country’s economic advancement.

Accordingly, if steady poverty alleviation is used as a yardstick, the global South could be said to be stuck in economic backwardness and in this sense a hemisphere termed the ‘South’ continues to exist. Thanks to the RCSS forum these and related issues were raised and could henceforth be freshly researched and brought to the fore of public discussion.

We have it on the authority of Dr. Carlos Correa that a 7000 strong network of policymakers is at the service of the South Centre, to disseminate their scholarship worldwide if needed. The South would be working in its interests to tie-up with the South Centre and look to ways of advancing its collective interest now that it is in a position to do so, considering the economic clout it carries. It is time the South took cognizance fully of the fact that the global economic power balance has shifted decisively to the East and that it makes full use of this favourable position to advance its best interests.

The New International Economic Order (NIEO) of the sixties and seventies, which won mention at the RCSS forum, needs to be revisited and researched for its merits, but the NIEO was meant to go hand-in-hand with the New International Information Order (NIIO) which was birthed by Southern think tanks and the like around the same time. Basically, the NIIO stood for a global information order that made provision for a balanced and fair coverage of the affairs of the South. Going forward, the merits of the NIIO too would need to be discussed with a view to examining how it could serve the South’s best interests.

BBC is in trouble again; this time with the most powerful person in the world. Donald Trump has given an ultimatum to the BBC over a blunder it should have corrected and apologized for, a long time ago, which it did not do for reasons best known, perhaps, only to the hierarchy of the BBC. Many wonder whether it is due to sheer arrogance or, pure and simple stupidity! Trump is threatening to sue the BBC, for a billion dollars in damages, for the defamation of character caused by one of the flagship news programmes of the BBC “Panorama” broadcast a week before the last presidential election.

BBC is the oldest public service broadcaster in the world, having commenced operations in 1922 and was once held in high esteem as the most reliable broadcaster in the world due to its editorial neutrality but most Sri Lankans realized it is not so now, due to the biased reporting during Sri Lanka’s troubled times. By the way, it should not be forgotten that the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation is the second oldest public broadcaster in the world, behind the BBC by only three years, having commenced operations as ‘Colombo Radio’ on 16 December 1925; it subsequently became ‘Radio Ceylon’. It soon became the dominant broadcaster of South Asia, with a Hindi service as well, and I wonder whether there are any plans to celebrate the centenary of that great heritage but that is a different story.

The Panorama documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” was broadcast on 28 October, days before the US presidential election held on 5th November 2024. No one, except the management of the BBC, was aware that this programme had a doctored speech by Trump till the British newspaper The Telegraph published a report, in early November, stating that it had seen a leaked BBC memo from Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to its editorial standards committee, sent in May. This memo pointed out that the one-hour Panorama programme had edited parts of a Trump’s speech which may convey the impression that he explicitly encouraged the Capitol Hill riot of January 2021. In fact, this is what most believe in and whether the editors and presenters of Panorama purposely doctored the speech to confirm this narrative remains to be seen.

In his speech, in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, what Trump said was: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” However, in Panorama he was shown saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” The two sections of the speech that were edited together were more than 50 minutes apart and the “fight like hell” comment was taken from a section where Trump discussed how “corrupt” US elections were.

There is no doubt that Trump is very lax with words but that does not mean that the media can edit his speeches to convey a totally different meaning to what he states. The moment the memo was received, from its own advisor, the senior management of the BBC should have taken action. The least that could have been done is to issue a correction and tender an apology to Trump in addition to punishing the errant, after an inquiry. One can justifiably wonder whether the BBC did not take any action because of an inherent prejudice against Trump. Even if not so, how the events unfolded makes the BBC appear to be an organization incapable of monitoring and correcting itself.

In fact, a news item on 9 November in the BBC website titled, “Why is Donald Trump threatening to sue the BBC?”, referring to the memo states the following:

“The document said Panorama’s “distortion of the day’s events” would leave viewers asking: “Why should the BBC be trusted, and where will this all end?”. When the issue was raised with managers, the memo continued, they “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards”.

From these statements, it becomes very clear that all that the senior management wanted to do was a cover-up, which is totally inexcusable. After the expose by The Telegraph the BBC had been inundated by public complaints and faced criticism all round resulting in the resignations of the Director General and the Head of News. To make matters worse, the Chairman of the Board of Directors stated that he was planning to tender an apology to President Trump. If he had any common sense or decency, he would have done so immediately.

Worse still was the comment of the head of international news who tried to justify by saying that this sort of editing happens regularly. He fails to realise that his comment will make more and more people losing trust in the BBC.

Some are attempting to paint this as an attempt by those against the licence-fee funding model of the BBC to discredit the BBC but to anyone with any sense at all, it is pretty obvious that this a self-inflicted injury. Some legal experts are advising the BBC to face the legal challenge of Trump, failing to realise that even if Trump loses, the BBC would have to spend millions to defend. This would be the money paid as licence fees by the taxpayer and the increasing resistance to licence fee is bound to increase.

Overall, this episode raises many issues the most important being the role of the free press. British press is hardly fair, as newspapers have political allegiances, but is free to expose irregularities like this. Further, it illustrates that we must be as careful with mainstream media as much as we are with newly emerging media. When a respected organization like the BBC commits such blunders and, worse still. attempts to cover-up, whom can we trust?

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Unexpected events seem to have cropped up at this year’s Miss Universe pageant and there could be more ‘surprises’ before the crowning day – Friday, 21st November, 2025, at the at the Impact Challenger Hall, in Pak Kret, Nonthaburi, Thailand..

First, the controversy involving the pageant’s Thai Director and Miss Mexico, and then the withdrawal of some of the contestants from the 74th Miss Universe pageant.

In fact, this year’s pageant has has kept everyone on edge.

However, I’m told that Sri Lanka’s representative, Lihasha Lindsay White, is generating some attention, and that is ecouraging, indeed.

While success in the pageant is highly competitive and depends on performance during the live events, let’s hope Lihasha is heading in the right direction.

Involved in an unpleasant scene

The 27-year-old Miss Universe Sri Lanka is a businesswoman and mental health advocate, and, according to reports coming my way, has impressed with her poise, intellect, and stage presence.

Her strong advocacy for mental health brings a message of substance and style, which aligns with the Miss Universe Organisation’s current emphasis on impact and purpose beyond just aesthetics.

Lihasha has undergone rigorous training, including catwalk coaching, under internationally acclaimed mentors – Indonesia’s Putra Pasarela for runway coaching; and the Philippines’ Michelle Padayhag for Q&A mastery – which, I’m told, has strengthened her confidence and stage presence.

Pageant predictions are speculative and vary widely among experts. While some say there is a possibility of Lihasha tbreaking into the semi-finals, there is no guarantee of a win.

Ultimately, the outcome will be determined during the competition events, including the preliminary show, national costume segment, and the final night, where Lihasha will compete against representatives from over 100 countries.

Maureen Hingert: 2nd Runner-up in 1955 / Miss Mexico: Stood up for women’s rights

While Sri Lanka has not won the Miss Universe crown before, Maureen Hingert was placed as the 2nd Runner-up in 1955.

Lihasha Lindsay White is a dedicated candidate with a strong personal platform, and her performance in the remaining preliminary events, and at the final show, will determine Sri Lanka’s chances this year.

The competition, no doubt, will be fierce, with contestants bringing diverse backgrounds, preparation methodologies, and cultural perspectives.