Features

IMF China and debt-trap

Published

4 years ago

2022/11/12

by N.A.de S. Amaratunga

The above topic is relevant to all countries experiencing economic crises for IMF and China, it appears are alternative and perhaps competing sources for economic aid and they are both accused of causing debt-traps for the recipient countries. IMF is accused by people like Joseph Stiglitz of manipulating the economy of poor countries in such a way that there is a drain of their wealth for the benefit of the rich countries. China is accused of trapping the recipients of its aid to cough out to the Chinese their valuable national assets like harbours and airports. Poor countries have turned to China after realising the apparent folly of following IMF policy and China has willingly stepped in to displace the IMF. In this context IMF is perceived as a tool of the Western powers and China as the alternative power that could stand up against Western imperialism.

Sri Lanka seemingly is in a situation where it is not possible to be choosy. Most of the economic advisers have been asking the government to go for an IMF programme since 2019 when the early symptoms of an economic downturn were visible. However, the then government decided not to go to IMF but tried out other measures like heavy cuts on tax and stabilizing the rupee against the dollar. These plus other blunders like a ban on agro-chemicals brought the country to bankruptcy forcing it to default on debt repayment and to decide to seek IMF assistance. IMF may have already asked the government to adopt policies that may cause lot of hardship to people. Heavy taxation has been brought back. Loss making public enterprises may have to be privatized. Welfarism may have to be curtailed with less public expenditure. Market forces may have to be given more freedom with less government intervention.

All these measures would finally hurt the lower middle class and the poor. This is where the Chinese factor comes in. The relevant questions are whether China is an alternative to IMF, whether its presence as a player in the global debt scenario would give recipient countries the opportunity to negotiate with the IMF for more favourable terms and conditions and whether any of these lenders have designs on the recipients. These are important questions for Sri Lanka at the present moment as negotiations with the IMF are not finalised, rescheduling of debt is still being discussed and nothing is certain yet. And China seems to be closely watching the unfolding events, all the time promising every assistance.

A research study done by James Sundquist (2021) involving 104 developing countries covering the period from 2001 to 2017 has shown that Chinese aid has helped some countries to turn away from the IMF and others to negotiate deals with less damaging conditions. Chinese loans may have achieved much more than the loudest critics of the IMF. Plain criticism of the IMF has not brought any results beneficial to poor countries. But the competition brought on by China has resulted in the change of policy in relation to terms and conditions of the IMF. In 1996 the IMF and the World Bank developed the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative, under which low-income countries with multi-year track records of good policies would qualify for grants in association with their concessional loans.

The HIPC initiative soon came under heavy criticism for “offering too little relief too slowly to too few,” with only four countries obtaining full stock of available debt relief before the end of the century. In 1999, the Bretton Woods institutions “enhanced” the Initiative by lowering the bar for judging whether debt was unsustainable and providing debt relief and grants sooner to qualifying countries. Within three years, enhanced HIPC could deliver almost US$1 billion in debt relief to 25 countries.

Critics of China on its role as an aid-giver accuse China of many dirty tricks including 1) prioritising short term projects instead of long term programmes aimed at sustainable prosperity, 2) non-transparent lending with little regard for issues such as corruption and money laundering and 3) promoting infra-structure projects that benefit China’s economy, for instance its imports of raw materialas and export of manufactured goods.

However, if China is intent on ensnaring poor helpless countries it would target countries like Zimbabwe, but it did not come forward to bail out that country for it was seen that Zimbabwe had no reliable foreign exchange earning capacity. This shows that China focuses on debt sustainability of a country rather than its vulnerability that provides an opportunity to trap them and force them to part with their national assets. Countries which export large volumes of natural resources are the most likely to benefit from Chinese aid. This could mean that China may not be interested in encouraging these countries to develop their technology that would enable them to add value to their natural resources before they export them. Yet there are countries which see China as an alternative to the IMF. China may not be engaged in ensnaring poor countries but it certainly is interested in their natural resources.

Financial Times reports (18^th January 2022) that some 74 low- and middle-income countries “will have to repay an estimated $35 bn to official bilateral and private-sector lenders in 2022”, which is a 45% increase compared with 2020, “with seen as one of most vulnerable.” Ghana, Salvador and Tunisia could also be in jeopardy. Zambia defaulted in 2020 on an amount of $3 billion and the situation has not improved. The Zambian government is negotiating a new loan from the IMF, which, if granted, will demand more austerity measures. As explained in the Financial Times, this surge is a consequence of developing countries contracting ever more debt to face the impact of coronavirus, but also of the rising cost of refinancing existing loans and the resumption of debt repayments that had been suspended during the pandemic. David Malpass, President of the World Bank, warned that the creditors’ insistence on being paid will increase the risk of disorderly defaults. “Countries are facing a resumption of debt payments at precisely the time when they don’t have the resources to be making them,” he said.

Almost all countries take loans from other countries with the US being the biggest borrower. For the rich it is a game they can play and also enjoy very well. But for the poor countries it is a matter of life and death. The slightest mishap, eg; Covid pandemic, and their survival is in danger. This is so mainly because the system involving global debt is so designed that it ensures a flow of wealth from the poor to the rich. The IMF and the World Bank may have changed their policies, but that may be to prevent the total death of the indebted countries but not with the intention of making them prosperous. The idea is to keep the developing countries in a permanant state of poverty and remain suppliers of raw materials and cheap labour. “The hidden agenda, the one that is actually applied, is to subordinate the public and private spheres of all human societies to the capitalist imperative of seeking maximum . The implementation of this hidden agenda results in reproducing poverty rather than reducing it and in increasing inequalities rather than reducing them. It results in stagnation, if not deterioration, of the living conditions of a great majority of the world’s population, concurrently with a greater and greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller elite. A further result is the continued deterioration of ecological balances, which means that the very future of humanity is in danger” (Eric Toussaint, 2022).

China, if it is not a party to this evil system must try to help change the system. Chinese economy is not entirly profit dependent and neo-liberal. It must come forward, as it has shown in the recent past, at this critical hour to help the poor countries come out of the debt-trap they have got into. It must get together with other like-minded countries to set up an alternative to the IMF. This new organisation could prevent poor countries from being entrapped by the imperialist forces. It could strengthen the negotiating capacity of poor countries which have to obtain loans for their survival. It should be possible for these countries to get some aid without having to mortgage their future survival.

All News Advertisement

Features

‘The devil is in the details’ in West Asian peace

Published

3 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Donald Trump at the current G7 summit in France. Evelyn Hockstein/Getty Image

It is obviously too early for an outpouring of joy over the seeming cessation of hostilities between the main antagonists in West Asia. While the prospect of there being a measure of calm in the region is being welcomed by considerable sections of the international community, what is ‘on the table’ currently is only a Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran to give peace a chance. The hard part in the peace effort remains to be achieved.

In the Middle East of today we have one of the most complex conflicts to break out in modern international politics and the observer would be naive in the extreme to expect a facile and early closure to the tangle. Yet, for the sake of the world’s publics who have been hurting badly in the prolonged hostilities one could only hope that the US-Iran MoU that is expected to be signed by the sides on Friday would lead eventually to a substantive peace. The world’s thanks are due to Pakistan in this connection for its sustained support in the peace drive.

While the sides have agreed to a ceasing of hostilities in the most general terms and have reached accord on the facilitation of uninterrupted oil and gas supplies to the rest of the world, for instance, the ‘devil will prove to be in the details’ in an envisaged comprehensive peace settlement. It is these details that would make or break peace if the negotiations go on in earnest.

Nevertheless, the details would need to be worked out consensually in a spirit of compromise with an eye to the greater good of the world community. Realpolitik or a narrow focus on solely the national interest among the protagonists, for example, would need to give way to a measure of humanity that would encompass within it a consideration of the overall well being of the world. In other words, it is statesmanship that would crucially matter.

The next few weeks would establish whether humanists are ‘asking for far too much’ when they broach the questions at issue in these terms. Yet it is essentially self interest and national security considerations of the first importance that drove the conflict from even prior to February this year and these questions would need to be taken up and resolved to the satisfaction of the US and Iran in the main if some headway is to be made towards a durable settlement.

The nuclear issue would prove to be the proverbial Gordian Knot. From a realistic viewpoint, Iran could not be expected to be without a potential nuclear deterrent in the face of perceived nuclear threats emanating for it from the West and Israel. In the short term, Iran would need to possess this deterrent to a measure, within a mutually agreed international legal framework maybe, until wide agreement is reached on the nuclear tangle. Specifically, Iran’s immediate threat perceptions with regard to her nuclear-powered rivals would need to be defused during initial negotiations.

Ideally it is a world free of nuclear weapons that must be aimed at but since this goal cannot be achieved in the near or medium terms, unfolding negotiations would need to ensure Iran’s absolute security in a world of powers that continue to swear by the nuclear deterrent, if it is to give up the suspected latter capability.

However, it is to the degree to which the present nuclear powers divest themselves of this capability that Iran could be put at ease on this score. Accordingly, it is nothing short of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the world that could dissuade keenly security conscious states from developing nuclear weapons of their own with a mass destruction capability.

This is the number one dilemma the international community needs to grapple with going forward and it is to the extent to which it resolves it that a nuclear weapons free world could be envisaged. No doubt, an uphill challenge.

Compelling Israel to support the present negotiatory process constitutes another grueling challenge for the US. Currently the Iranian position essentially is that a Middle East peace is inseparable from a normalization of the security situation in Lebanon. That is, the present Israeli attacks on the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon must cease if a comprehensive peace is to be realized in West Asia.

However, Israel is showing no signs of drawing back from its attacks on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon since the security of the Israeli state is being seen as threatened by the militant group. Co-opting Israel into the negotiatory effort therefore would turn out to be a matter of paramount concern for the US.

Moreover, elements in the rightist administration in Israel are seeing the current peace efforts as a ‘sell out’ to the enemies of Israel. They would have none of it. It is left to be seen how the US would be managing these virtual storm centres in the diplomatic process that could very well bring down the overall purported peace drive.

A recent pronouncement by US Vice President J.D. Vance points to yet another problem area in the US’ current peace overtures. He said that, ‘Regional peace and stability includes stopping the funding of terrorist organizations.’ He was obviously referring to the support extended by Iran to Hezbollah when he mentioned ‘terrorist organizations’ but he has given fresh life to the age-old conundrum of ‘Who is a terrorist?’ by these words.

To the Netanyahu government the Hezbollah and other militant organizations fighting Israel are ‘terrorists’ but from the viewpoint of the Iranian regime they are ‘freedom fighters’. This seemingly insurmountable definitional issue would not only stubbornly bedevil the peace effort but could even figure in bringing about its collapse, unless judiciously handled.

Thus, it’s the thorny details that need to be watched to keep the West Asian peace process afloat, once it gets going in earnest. There is no doubt that US President Trump would be receiving a considerable amount of support from the G7 in this historic peace undertaking and his personal appeals to the grouping currently meeting in France for continuous support are likely to elicit a positive response from it.

Likewise, Trump would need to appeal to also the BRICS countries if almost total global support is to be garnered for the peace drive in West Asia. BRICS’ solidarity with the US and the West is likely to carry considerable weight with Iran and other Eastern actors who are key to a sustained peace drive in the Middle East.

Features

Sri Lanka’s elephant paradox: Govt. counts tourism dollars while playing a dangerous numbers game: Expert

Published

3 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

At a time when Sri Lanka is enjoying a resurgence in wildlife tourism, with elephants remaining the undisputed stars of the country’s national parks and one of its most marketable natural assets, elephant conservationist Supun Lahiru Prakash has sounded a stark warning: the nation is in danger of losing the very species that helps attract millions of tourism dollars while sustaining some of the island’s most important ecosystems.

Supun says repeated claims by authorities that Sri Lanka’s elephant population is increasing, despite the absence of a final survey report and amid continuing elephant deaths, risk creating a misleading narrative that could undermine conservation efforts and encourage retaliation against elephants.

According to Supun, the issue is not merely about numbers. It is about political priorities, scientific credibility and the future of one of Sri Lanka’s most iconic species.

“Repeatedly claiming that the elephant population is increasing appears to be an attempt to hide the Government’s inability to manage the rising annual elephant death rate and the complications of human-elephant conflict,” Supun said.

For decades, the Sri Lankan elephant has been a symbol of the country’s rich natural heritage. It is the centrepiece of wildlife tourism, drawing visitors from across the globe to national parks such as Yala, Udawalawe, Minneriya, Kaudulla and Wilpattu. International wildlife documentaries, tourism campaigns and social media promotions frequently place elephants at the heart of Sri Lanka’s nature tourism brand.

Yet, according to Supun, the country’s conservation policies do not reflect the value of the species.

“On one hand, the Government is enjoying increasing tourism revenue, and elephants remain one of Sri Lanka’s most important wildlife attractions. On the other hand, narratives are being promoted that could encourage retaliation against the very species that contributes significantly to the country’s tourism industry,” Supun said.

According to the First Countrywide National Survey of Elephants conducted in 2011, Sri Lanka had 5,879 elephants. However, official statistics show that 4,167 elephants died between 2012 and 2024.

Supun stressed that these figures represent only the deaths officially recorded by the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

“In a context where more than 70 percent of the country’s elephant population reported in 2011 has died within 13 years, it is difficult to accept claims that the population has increased,” Supun said.

The conservationist pointed out that elephants have the longest gestation period among land mammals and that scientific studies have reported increasing interbirth intervals among female elephants together with high calf mortality.

“When such biological realities are taken into consideration, claims of a dramatic increase in elephant numbers become difficult to understand,” Supun said.

Supun believes that repeated references to increasing elephant populations risk fuelling public hostility towards elephants, particularly among farming communities already affected by crop raids and property damage.

“Such claims can create the impression that elephant populations are exploding and thereby promote retaliation against elephants as well,” Supun said.

According to Supun, Sri Lanka’s elephant crisis cannot be understood solely through population estimates. The real issue lies in the country’s failure to address human-elephant conflict through long-term, science-based solutions.

Sri Lanka continues to record among the highest levels of human-elephant conflict in the world. Every year, hundreds of elephants and dozens of people lose their lives as competition for land and resources intensifies.

Despite the scale of the crisis, Supun says authorities continue to rely on strategies that have repeatedly failed.

Lahiru Prakash

These include driving elephants into protected areas, strengthening electric fences to confine them there and allocating additional manpower to maintain fencing systems.

Supun was also critical of several proposals that emerged from district-level discussions on conflict mitigation, including the sowing of paddy and corn using Air Force drones and the planting of fruit orchards within protected areas.

“Such proposals fail to address the real ecological and social dimensions of the conflict,” Supun said.

While welcoming reports that the Government intends appointing a national-level mechanism to tackle human-elephant conflict, Supun said the challenge required intervention at the highest level of government.

“Given the gravity, complexity and geographical spread of human-elephant conflict, appointing any committee other than a Presidential Task Force is not useful,” Supun said.

He argued that a Presidential Task Force chaired by either the President or the Secretary to the President would be better positioned to overcome the bureaucratic delays and institutional fragmentation that have hindered previous efforts.

Supun also stressed the urgent need to restore and protect elephant corridors and home ranges that allow elephants to move safely across landscapes.

He cited the Koholankala elephant corridor in Hambantota as one example where removing obstacles could help reduce conflict while improving habitat connectivity.

At the same time, Supun questioned policies that permit the allocation of forest lands in areas identified by environmental assessments as crucial elephant ranges and movement corridors.

“The opening of elephant corridors and the protection of elephant home ranges must be carried out scientifically and consistently if they are to succeed,” Supun said.

Beyond tourism, Supun emphasised the ecological importance of elephants.

“Elephants are ecosystem engineers. Through their feeding habits and movements, they help maintain habitats that support numerous other species. In many ways, they create safer and healthier environments for wildlife,” Supun said.

According to Supun, protecting elephants means protecting entire ecosystems and the biodiversity upon which Sri Lanka’s wildlife tourism industry depends.

“By protecting elephants, we are also protecting the biodiversity that makes Sri Lanka one of the world’s premier wildlife tourism destinations,” Supun said.

As Sri Lanka seeks to expand tourism earnings and strengthen its reputation as a wildlife destination, Supun believes the country faces a defining choice: continue with policies that have failed to stem elephant deaths and human-elephant conflict, or embrace a science-based conservation strategy that safeguards both people and wildlife.

Without a fundamental shift in policy and political will, Supun warned, Sri Lanka risks losing not only one of its most iconic species but also the ecological and economic benefits that elephants continue to provide.

“The suffering of both farmers and elephants will only intensify unless meaningful action replaces rhetoric,” Supun said.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Top Model of the World 2026

Published

3 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

Back-to-back victory for Colombia

Katherine Castaño of Colombia claimed the Top Model of the World 2026 crown, securing a historic back-to-back victory for her country. Angelica Sanchez of Puerto Rico was named first runner-up, and Eunice Deza of the Philippines finished as second runner-up.

Katherine was crowned by outgoing titleholder Natalia Garizabal Vera of Colombia.

Several special category awards, and subsidiary titles, were also presented during the Top Model of the World 2026 pageant.

These awards recognised excellence in modelling, peer support, and regional representation.

Primary Subsidiary Titles

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage: Top 16 at
the grand finale

Miss Globe 2026: Valentina Tabares (Ecuador) — Awarded to the contestant who perfectly balances fashion modelling with traditional beauty queen qualities.

Queen of Europe 2026: Mia Danielle Williams (United Kingdom) — Given to the highest-ranking candidate from a European nation.

Special Awards Recognition

Audience Iconic Award: Charly (Dominican Republic) — Won via the official public online vote, granting her a fast-track direct entry into the Top 6.

Exotic Model of the World: Angel Emeka (Nigeria) — Awarded for exceptional editorial presence and strong runway performance.

Best Body Award: Thailand — Voted directly by fellow contestants at the Flow Spectrum Hotel. The highest-ranking runners-up for this category included Zambia, South Africa, Colombia, and Ghana.

Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico): 1st Runner-up

Final Placement

Winner: Katherine Castaño (Colombia)

1st Runner-Up: Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico)

2nd Runner-Up: Eunice Deza (Philippines)

Top 6 Finalists: Included contestants from the Dominican Republic, Romania, and Germany.

The pageant, known for focusing on professional modelling careers over just beauty, brought together 36 models from around the globe for two weeks of runway, photoshoots, and cultural events.

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage walked among 36 of the world’s best and powered her way into the Top 16 at the grand finale.