BY N. A. de S. Amaratunga

According to some leading world economists like Jeffrey Sachs, the dollar is in trouble due to several reasons. The US is the largest taker of debts and it owes about 37 trillion dollars which is more than 100 % of its national income and Sachs says soon it will double if the country continues its present foreign policy particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East and also its monetary policy of printing money to maintain its status of affluence. Sachs says the rulers of US including those vying to come to power in the forthcoming elections are under the control of the weapons industry and the hawks in the defence establishment and thus are obliged to continue its policy on the ongoing global military conflicts. The number of central banks in the world that hold the dollar as their reserve currency for international transactions have reduced in number in the past few years which according to economists is a sign of the weakening of the dollar. The dollar is falling against world currencies like the yen and yuan, which again is evidence that there is some truth in the story that the dollar is in trouble.

Another factor that challenges the dominance of the dollar is the rapid development of BRICS organization in its attempt to find alternatives to the dollar as the currency for transactions among its member states which is also growing steadily with five more countries joining it and several others applying to join. BRICS is mainly concerned about the dominance of the dollar as the main global currency and the policy of the US to weaponise the dollar. The dollar is being used as a tool to further the hegemonic policies of the US which is possible as it has the ability to control the circulation of the dollar. For example, large sums of dollars that belong to its adversaries such as Russia, Iran held in banks are being seized by the US to punish these countries. US is proposing to use the interests accrued in the accounts that belong to Russia to fund the proxy war in Ukraine. Russia, which is a powerful country, may not take these indignities and economic warfare lightly and together with other BRICS countries will go all out to end the dominance of the dollar.

The total national income of BRICS countries in terms of purchasing power parity has gone past that of the G7 countries. These countries are now trying to develop a common currency for use among its members and to overcome the problem of banking they might resort to digital methods in their transactions. BRICS is an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and the countries which have recently joined the organisation include Egypt, UAE, Iran and Ethiopia. Saudi Arabia attends its meetings and may join soon.

These developments are important for the Global South including Sri Lanka which apparently is interested in joining the organisation and possibly may pursue the matter at its next meeting scheduled for October this year. If a common currency or a basket of commodities for trade is developed Sri Lanka would be immensely benefited in its trade with India, China, Russia, Iran etc. Our country is struggling to find dollars to purchase its essential items. If transactions with these countries could be carried out on a barter system or an alternative currency independent of the dollar and importantly based on the purchasing power parity, which is not possible with the dollar dominated present system, Sri Lanka’s battle to earn dollars would be eased to a great extent. The discussions on the development of such a system it seems is high in their agenda at the forthcoming meeting. Dedollarisation of the economy of the member states which would enable these countries to independently do business among themselves would be given priority. For countries like Russia, China and Iran such a system would help to blunt the use of the dollar as a weapon and a tool of hegemony.

Moreover, the stated policy of Russia and China is non-interference in the internal affairs of less powerful countries. In contrast the US and Europe interfere in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs to such an extent that they even dictate to us on constitution making. They could do so as we are dependent on them for survival. The US not only wants to be number one global power but also decide on how other countries run their affairs. It has dawned on the Global South that this type of total dominance cannot be tolerated any longer. The BRICS would want to help the Global South to disentangle itself from the present dollar dominated global economic system that seems to not only enslave but also leave them impoverished. The new government in Sri Lanka would do well to take cognizance of the rapid changes unfolding in the global economic arena, particularly the significance of the emerging BRICS and play its cards for maximum benefit to the country. As BRICS is apparently richer than G7 countries such a move would not be disadvantageous by any measure.

(Reference – Jeffrey Sachs Interviews – Oct. 2024)

Dr. Lal Samarakoon was born in Dehipe, Padiyapalella, Nuwara Eliya. He had his primary education at Gampola Zahira College and Ratnapura Ferguson College, and entered the University of Kelaniya from Matale Science College.

Obtaining a B Sc. degree in Physical Science with a first class, he qualified as a Surveyor from the National Survey Department and started serving the Mahaweli Development Program in Girandurukotte in 1986. Lal was awarded a Monbusho Scholarship, by the Government of Japan to obtain the Doctor of Philosophy degree in remote sensing from the university of Ehime.

He served Nippon Koei, a planning, design and construction company for several years. In 1998, Lal was appointed the Director of Geoinformatics Center of the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. He served in this position till 2018.

Dr. Lal Samarakoon has represented a generation that has seen the disaster risk management discipline transition from the sidelines of a welfare-oriented subject to a full-fledged discipline, which has emerged as a component of development discourse subsequently. He was a deep-thinking technocrat, innovative scientist, and dependable professional who firmly believed technology applications are needed to manage disasters and build climate resilience in Asia.

He observed the significant capacity gaps that exist in Asia in applying remote sensing and GIS tools in disaster risk management, and supported the countries in the Asia region to reduce these capacity gaps over the last 30 years. During his longstanding career at the Geoinformatics Center of the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) he developed methodologies which provided better exposure for disaster management professionals in the region to use spatial information in Disaster Risk Management.

He successfully partnered with other international technical and academic institutes, including with the postgraduate Institute of Science in Sri Lanka, broadening the objectives and opportunities for cross-learning. His work was instrumental to prove that scientific advancement can be utilized successfully and cost-effectively to improve disaster risk management and climate adaptation practices.

His work as a scientist supported applying spatial data in several countries in the Asia region; the Lao PDR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nepal for disaster risk reduction. Dr. Samarakoon will be remembered for his pioneering and outstanding contributions to Sri Lanka, and other countries in the Asia region with scientific innovation, training, education and policy support. His untiring efforts have helped create a pool of disaster risk management practitioners in mandated institutions, a much needed contribution for meeting the current day disaster and climate risk challenges.

May he attain nibbana,

N.M.I.S. Arambepola
Nirmala Fernando
Madhavi Malalgoda Ariyabandu

In the wake of Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s appointment as President, an unsettling narrative has emerged from a small but vocal group of intellectuals within the Sri Lankan society. This faction seems intent on portraying the National People’s Power (NPP) as a social entity burdened with history of violence, a portrayal that is not only misleading but also dangerous in its potential repercussions for national unity.

The intellectual critique in question often draws upon past events from Sri Lanka’s turbulent history—specifically the insurrections of 1971 and 1988. These events, which were marked by political unrest and significant bloodshed, are being referred to create a negative image of the NPP, depicting it as an organisation with a legacy of violence.

While these incidents undoubtedly left deep scars on the national psyche, the selective emphasis on these periods, while glossing over other equally important historical contexts, is concerning. Most notably, the narrative ignores the three-decade-long terrorism perpetuated by the LTTE, which claimed thousands of lives and posed an existential threat to the country’s sovereignty. This omission, whether deliberate or inadvertent, raises questions about the motives behind such critiques.

Interestingly, this narrative is not confined to private intellectual circles. It has found its way into the mainstream media, including television programmes where a small section of the elite has voiced these concerns. Their views, though presented under the guise of objective analysis, appear to be rooted in specific historical grievances rather than a balanced understanding of the NPP’s present-day policies and leadership.

The portrayal of the NPP as a violent faction is not only misleading but also problematic for the broader national discourse. By continuously referring to past insurrections without addressing the socio-political context in which the NPP operates today, these intellectuals risk fostering division, rather than promoting constructive dialogue about the country’s future.

What is particularly troubling is the potential impact of these narratives on the minds of the innocent populations in the North and East of Sri Lanka. These regions, already burdened by decades of conflict, are especially vulnerable to manipulations of historical narratives. The attempt to seed fear and distrust through selective memories of the past could widen ethnic and political divides, reversing the hard-won progress made in reconciliation and peacebuilding efforts.

The implications of these actions are profound. If left unchecked, this manipulation of historical facts could fuel distrust, especially in communities that are still healing from the traumas of war. Such divisive rhetoric, which paints certain political movements in broad, negative strokes, undermines efforts to foster national unity, which is critical at this juncture in Sri Lanka’s development.

It is imperative that both the government and the informed public remain vigilant in the face of these developments. While free speech and intellectual discourse are essential in any democracy, the dissemination of false or misleading information must be addressed with caution. The current administration, along with media outlets and thought leaders, must prioritise the accurate representation of political parties and movements, ensuring that all voices are heard in an atmosphere of respect and truth.

Furthermore, the intellectual elite must recognise their responsibility in shaping public opinion. Rather than perpetuating narratives rooted in selective memory and old political rivalries, they should engage in constructive dialogue about how Sri Lanka can move forward—socially, politically, and economically. Only by acknowledging the complexities of the past and focusing on the present can the country achieve the progress and development it desperately needs.

In conclusion, the emerging portrayal of the NPP as a faction tainted by historical violence is a dangerous oversimplification of a more complex reality. It is crucial that all stakeholders, from the government to the intellectual elite, approach political discourse with a sense of responsibility and an eye toward the future. Only then can Sri Lanka continue its path toward reconciliation, unity, and sustainable development.

K R Pushparanjan

Canada