Connect with us

Features

Growing dilemmas for US in South Asia

Published

on

As could have been expected the Biden administration is coming under heavy criticism at home and among some sections of the international community for what is seen as a botched withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. On the domestic front, it is the political Right that is proving the Biden administration’s harshest critics.

Some of these criticisms centre around accusations that the Biden administration pulled out the US’s remaining troops in Afghanistan with hardly a care for their safety and of having compromised US national security considerations in South and Southwest Asia in the process. Generally, the withdrawal has come to be seen as considerably precipitous, unplanned and careless.

Besides, Biden is being charged with not having been sufficiently caring for non-military American lives and for those of the US’s Western allies in Afghanistan, in addition to not being protective of those sections among the local Afghan public who cooperated with the US over the years during the “war on terror”. Among the latter are intelligence operatives who worked closely with the US army. The perception is that quite a few of these cooperative sections were left behind in Afghanistan to be at the mercy of the Taliban.

Besides these strictures of a specific nature, the general perception has been steadily gaining ground among sections of US and international opinion that the Afghan people were left to their devices in the face of an inevitable Taliban take-over of the country, which is seen, of course not without reason, as being deeply inimical to the wellbeing of Afghans.

Former US Secretary of State Leon Panetta could be considered as having spoken for the US Right when he said in an interview with a section of the international media that the prime responsibility of a US administration is to protect American lives anywhere. He said that although it is true that it was the Trump administration that initiated talks with the Taliban and finalized a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, it was up to the Biden administration to ensure that the withdrawal was effected with utmost care and judiciously. It should have been sparing of US and other lives and should have had its focus on upholding the honour and dignity of the US. However, the Biden-supervised withdrawal did none of this and compromised the standing of the US in the world community.

While such charges could be considered as integral to the usual politicking between the principal political parties of the US, there are policy issues in these arguments and counter-arguments that should not be allowed to pass unnoticed by the analyst. One is the question of the US’s standing as a world power and its reputation. Although not elaborated on by Panetta, besides the botched nature of the recent US troop withdrawal, what is also at issue here is a decision by the US to withdraw militarily from a theatre of conflict that is central to the stability of the South and South West Asian regions. Currently, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is taking a considerable amount of the flak as well for the US’s seeming blunder in South West Asia.

Afghanistan was coveted by almost all the principal powers of the modern world over the decades. First it was Britain in imperial times, followed by Russia and the US. As indicated in this column on previous occasions it is the central strategic location of Afghanistan that accounts for this unusual interest in the country on the part of the major powers.

Simply put, Afghanistan is at the geographical cross roads to a number of the world’s foremost states: China, Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan and a score of Central Asian states that define the contours of the current international political order. Besides, Afghanistan is resource-rich and would prove a treasure trove for those powers that are intent on being on a growth fast track.

Accordingly, what is the message that the Biden administration would be sending to the US and the world through its troop withdrawal? The administration is indicating that it is beating a hasty retreat from a highly coveted prize in South Asia and that it is tamely allowing the US’s rivals, such as China and Russia, to occupy centre stage in Afghanistan. This amounts to a foreign policy defeat for the US.

No doubt, there are potential political costs for the Biden administration through this decision. But there has occurred a seemingly curious US decision in another region of strategic and economic interest to most major powers, while all this is happening in South Asia. That is the US decision to remove its missile defence systems in Saudi Arabia; its strategic partner in the Middle East and the Gulf.

This move by the US amounts to leaving its ally Saudi Arabia vulnerable to attack by its rivals for power in the region. But the decision by the US was a shrewdly calculated one that took into consideration its economic and security interests. The measure indicates that the Gulf and the Middle East are of waning interest to the US. Like Afghanistan they are arenas of chronic and wasting conflict that would not serve the US’s best interests in the long run.

Instead, the US would prefer to bolster its military and economic presence in the Asia-Pacific region. This is taking the Barrack Obama thinking of having a “Pivot to Asia” to its logical conclusion. The Asia-Pacific, which is home to ASEAN, is pivotal to world economic growth and the US would rather better its economic prospects there rather than engage in unending wars in other parts of the world.

Thus, the US, the so-called mightiest democracy, trying to showcase liberal values, runs the risk of being seen as having betrayed a suffering Southern country in the form of Afghanistan and of leaving it in the hands of an intolerant fundamentalist outfit that has no qualms in resorting to terror. Besides, it could be seen as tamely giving way to China and Russia in Afghanistan.



Features

Why Small Farms will be the backbone of food security

Published

on

The ecological axiom that: ‘Energy flow through a system tends to organise and simplify that system’, is abundantly clear in agriculture. As farms moved from small interdependent units, bounded by fences and hedgerows, to large cropping fields to accommodate machine management, we lose the biodiversity that once existed on that landscape and the biomass that provided the Ecosystem Services. This sacrifice was rationalised through the invocation of economic profit. The economic ‘profit’ gained by subsidies on fossil fuel and uncontrolled extraction from the Global Commons. The ‘development’ of agriculture has become a race to control the commodity market. The farmer ceased to be a feature of the farm. In a telling statement, the farmers of Sri Lanka sent the following statement to the CGIAR in 1998 :

‘We, the farmers of Sri Lanka would like to further thank the CGIAR, for taking an interest in us. We believe that we speak for all of our brothers and sisters the world over when we identify ourselves as a community who are integrally tied to the success of ensuring global food security. In fact it is our community who have contributed to the possibility of food security in every country since mankind evolved from a hunter-gather existence. We have watched for many years, as the progression of experts, scientists and development agents passed through our communities with some or another facet of the modern scientific world. We confess that at the start we were unsophisticated in matters of the outside world and welcomed this input. We followed advice and we planted as we were instructed. The result was a loss of the varieties of seeds that we carried with us through history, often spanning three or more millennia. The result was the complete dependence of high input crops that robbed us of crop independence. In addition, we farmers producers of food, respected for our ability to feed populations, were turned into the poisoners of land and living things, including fellow human beings. The result in Sri Lanka is that we suffer from social and cultural dislocation and suffer the highest pesticide- related death toll on the planet. Was this the legacy that you the agricultural scientists wanted to bring to us ? We think not. We think that you had good motives and intentions, but left things in the hands of narrowly educated, insensitive people.’

The diverse farm had to yield to production monoculture, which was made possible through the burning of fossil fuels. Ironically the burning of fossil fuels is the major reason for the current destabilised climate and threat to agriculture. One consequence of climate change is the predicted rise in global temperatures. If ambient temperatures exceed 40 degrees , which has become the reality in many places even today, food production will be compromised. All the food we eat originates with plants and plants produce using photosynthesis. Photosynthesis, or the capture of solar energy by plants, is done with chlorophyll, the thing that makes plants green and chlorophyll begins to break down after 40 degrees. Landscapes whose summer temperatures go beyond this limit will have smaller and smaller crops as the temperatures increase. The only solution to this oncoming crisis, is to begin introducing trees at strategic points on the landscape.

Trees and all other forms of vegetation cool the environment around them through the transpiration process, which takes place in the leaves. The water absorbed by the roots is sent up to the leaves which release it as vapor, cooling the air around it. Measurements on trees done by research institutions worldwide, indicate that an average large tree produces the cooling equivalent of eight room sized air conditioners running for 10 hours, a cooling yield 0f 1,250,000 Bthu per day. Plantations of trees have been recoded to have daytime temperatures at least 3 degrees below the ambient. This is an important aspect of Ecosystem Services that needs to be considered for adaptive agriculture.

Small farms which produce food with low external energy and maintain high biomass and biodiversity, are the models of food production that can face the climate compromised future before us. Capital, resource and energy expensive agricultural systems could fail in a high temperature future and threaten global food security, we need options. One would be to encourage a consumption and distribution system that facilitates small farmers to enter the market. Another would be to realise the value of the ecosystem services of a farm and develop systems to measure and reward. We are all aware of the future before us. Now is not the time to stand blinking like a deer facing the headlights.

But placing trees in and around cropping areas becomes a problem in large cropping fields designed to accommodate machine management. The management of such trees and hedgerows requires needs that cannot be provided without human management. Agricultural landscapes will need management that will be adaptive to the changing climate. An example would be; small interdependent units bounded by fences and that increase biodiversity and the biomass while providing Ecosystem Services.

Investment in food security, should take climate change seriously. All new agricultural projects should address the heat thresholds of the planned crops. The Sri Lankan country statement at COP 21 stated that :

“We are aware that the optimum operating temperature of chlorophyll is at 37 deg C. In a warming world where temperatures will soar well above that, food production will be severely impacted.”

And that :

“We are aware that the critical Ecosystem services such as; production of Oxygen, sequestering of Carbon, water cycling and ambient cooling is carried out by the photosynthetic component of biomass. This is being lost at an exponential rate, due to the fact that these Ecosystem Services have not been valued, nor economically recognised.”

These statements cry out for the recognition of the role that small farms will have to play in the future. In a temperature compromised future, small farms with high standing biomass, through their cooler temperatures will continue to produce food in heat stressed periods. If such Ecosystem Services can be given a value, it will strengthen the economy of small farms and ensure local, sustainable food production into the future.

Small farms which produce food with low external energy and maintain high biomass and biodiversity, are the models of food production that can face the climate compromised future before us. Capital, resource and energy expensive agricultural systems could fail in a high temperature future and threaten global food security, we need options. One would be to encourage a consumption and distribution system that facilitates small farmers to enter the market. Another would be to realize the value of the ecosystem services of a farm and develop systems to measure and reward. We are all aware of the future before us. Now is not the time to stand blinking like a deer in sheadlights.

Continue Reading

Features

Encouraging signs, indeed!

Published

on

Derek and Manilal

Local entertainers can now breathe a sigh of relief…as the showbiz scene is showing signs of improving

Yes, it’s good to see Manilal Perera, the legendary singer, and Derek Wikramanayake, teaming up, as a duo, to oblige music lovers…during this pandemic era.

They will be seen in action, every Friday, at the Irish Pub, and on Sundays at the Cinnamon Grand Lobby.

The Irish Pub scene will be from 7.00 pm onwards, while at the Cinnamon Grand Lobby, action will also be from 7.00 pm onwards.

On November 1st, they are scheduled to do the roof top (25th floor) of the Movenpik hotel, in Colpetty, and, thereafter, at the same venue, every Saturday evening.

Continue Reading

Features

Constructive dialogue beyond international community

Published

on

by Jehan Perera

Even as the country appears to be getting embroiled in more and more conflict, internally, where dialogue has broken down or not taken place at all, there has been the appearance of success, internationally. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa will be leading a delegation this week to Scotland to attend the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26). Both the President, at the UN General Assembly in New York, and Foreign Minister Prof G L Peiris, at the UN Human Rights Council, in Geneva seem to have made positive impacts on their audiences and, especially amongst the diplomatic community, with speeches that gave importance to national reconciliation, based on dialogue and international norms.

In a recent interview to the media Prof Peiris affirmed the value of dialogue in rebuilding international relations that have soured. He said, “The core message is that we believe in engagement at all times. There may be areas of disagreement from time to time. That is natural in bilateral relations, but our effort should always be to ascertain the areas of consensus and agreement. There are always areas where we could collaborate to the mutual advantage of both countries. And even if there are reservations with regard to particular methods, there are still abundant opportunities that are available for the enhancement of trade relations for investment opportunities, tourism, all of this. And I think this is succeeding because we are establishing a rapport and there is reciprocity. Countries are reaching out to us.”

Prof Peiris also said that upon his return from London, the President would engage in talks locally with opposition parties, the TNA and NGOs. He spoke positively about this dialogue, saying “The NGOs can certainly make a contribution. We like to benefit from their ideas. We will speak to opposition political parties. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa is going to meet the Tamil National Alliance on his return from COP26, which we will attend at the invitation of the British Prime Minister. So be it the NGO community or the foreign diaspora or the parliamentary opposition in Sri Lanka. We want to engage with all of them and that is very much the way forward”

INTERNAL FRAGMENTATION

The concept of a whole-of-government approach is indicative of a more cohesive approach to governance by government ministries, the public administration and state apparatus in general to deal with problems. It suggests that the government should not be acting in one way with the international community and another way with the national community when it seeks to resolve problems. It is consistency that builds trust and the international community will trust the government to the extent that the national community trusts it. Dialogue may slow down decision making at a time when the country is facing major problems and is in a hurry to overcome them. However, the failure to engage in dialogue can cause further delays due to misunderstanding and a refusal to cooperate by those who are being sidelined.

There are signs of fragmentation within the government as a result of failure to dialogue within it. A senior minister, Susil Premajayantha, has been openly critical of the ongoing constitutional reform process. He has compared it to the past process undertaken by the previous government in which there was consultations at multiple levels. There is a need to change the present constitutional framework which is overly centralised and unsuitable to a multi ethnic, multi religious and plural society. More than four decades have passed since the present constitution was enacted. But the two major attempts that were made in the period 1997-2000 and again in 2016-2019 failed.

President Rajapaksa, who has confidence in his ability to stick to his goals despite all obstacles, has announced that a new constitution will be in place next year. The President is well situated to obtain success in his endeavours but he needs to be take the rest of his government along with him. Apart from being determined to achieve his goals, the President has won the trust of most people, and continues to have it, though it is getting eroded by the multiple problems that are facing the country and not seeing a resolution. The teachers’ strike, which is affecting hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren, is now in its fourth month, with no sign of resolution. The crisis over the halting of the import of chemical fertiliser is undermining the position of farmers and consumers at the present time.

EARLY WARNING

An immediate cause for the complaints against the government is the lack of dialogue and consultation on all the burning issues that confront the country. This problem is accentuated by the appointment of persons with military experience to decision-making positions. The ethos of the military is to take decisions fast and to issue orders which have to be carried out by subordinates. The President’s early assertion that his spoken words should be taken as written circulars reflects this ethos. However, democratic governance is about getting the views of the people who are not subordinates but equals. When Minister Premajayantha lamented that he did not know about the direction of constitutional change, he was not alone as neither does the general public or academicians which is evidenced by the complete absence of discussion on the subject in the mass media.

The past two attempts at constitutional reform focused on the resolution of the ethnic conflict and assuaging the discontent of the ethnic and religious minorities. The constitutional change of 1997-2000 was for the purpose of providing a political solution that could end the war. The constitutional change of 2016-19 was to ensure that a war should not happen again. Constitutional reform is important to people as they believe that it will impact on how they are governed, their place within society and their equality as citizens. The ethnic and religious minorities will tend to prefer decentralised government as it will give them more power in those parts of the country in which they are predominant. On the other hand, that very fact can cause apprehension in the minds of the ethnic and religious majority that their place in the country will be undermined.

Unless the general public is brought aboard on the issue of constitutional change, it is unlikely they will support it. We all need to know what the main purpose of the proposed constitutional reform is. If the confidence of the different ethnic and religious communities is not obtained, the political support for constitutional change will also not be forthcoming as politicians tend to stand for causes that win them votes. Minister Premajayantha has usefully lit an early warning light when he said that politicians are not like lamp posts to agree to anything that the government puts before them. Even though the government has a 2/3 majority, this cannot be taken for granted. There needs to be buy in for constitutional reform from elected politicians and the general public, both from the majority community and minorities, if President Rajapaksa is to succeed where previous leaders failed.

Continue Reading

Trending