Connect with us

Features

Integrity and Compromise

Published

on

Kadirgamar

Remarks of Professor Rajiva Wijesinha at the celebration of the life of Lakshman Kadirgamar, held at the Women’s International Club in aid of the Peter Weerasekera Home

After those two very scintillating presentations by Sakuntala Kadirgamar and Dayan Jayatilleka, it will be difficult for me to follow, since I cannot claim to understand the personality as much as Saku did or the politics as well as Dayan did. So, let me confine my remarks about a man greatly admired and greatly loved to the last few years of his life when we got comparatively close.

I had first met him much earlier, back in 1973. I had not realized then that he had just come to England when he dropped in when I had my parents in Oxford and stayed for an evening. I saw him on and off after that but suddenly, in 2002, his secretary called me and said that he wanted to re-establish the Board of the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, and he had handpicked half a dozen people. Then he spoke to me himself and he explained what he was trying to do. I have to say that that Board which I served on is really the only Board I served on in which one could respect everybody, listen to everybody and understand and appreciate their contribution. He himself had a great mindset, and guided the meetings impeccably.

That was when I really became very close to Dayan. Also, there was Professor Amal Jayawardena, Lecturer in political science at Colombo University, there was a very professional, quiet Foreign Service representative, Mr. Navaratnarajah, there was Professor Savithri Gunasekera, there was Nanda Godage from the Foreign Ministry and we would meet maybe once a month and it was a really scintillating discussion.

I learnt a lot from him then and this takes up from what Dayan said, that he developed great relationships through the Bandaranaike Centre to fulfill the principles Dayan has laid down, about his liberal but highly principled vision of foreign relations. To me, in an odd way, this was something like coming home because of what had happened way back in 1981, after I had resigned from my university post in protest against the deprivation of Mrs. Bandaranaike’s civic rights. This is something I have never regretted, because though people in the higher echelons of society thought I was eccentric and over-reacting at the time, later they told me you understood what JR was up to, which none of us did at the time.

JR himself understood the importance of my gesture. So a couple of months later he stopped my taking on the post of Director of Studies for which I had been selected by the Board of the BCIS, which included Mrs. Bandaranaike, Mervyn de Silva, a really distinguished Board and the then Director, Dr. Udugama. As Noel Tittawella, a Supreme Court judge he had got rid of, put it to me, JR will never forgive you because you are the only person of his class who kicked him in his teeth, something I feel very proud of still, 45 years later.

So, when Lakshman asked me to sit on the Board, I really felt a sort of fulfillment. He knew exactly what he wanted and made it clear why he had asked me, and my task was to develop the courses of study there, to include more language teaching and I think we did remarkable and innovative work in those years.

What impresses me is that it is because of Lakshman’s leadership, which made us all punch above our weight. Of the then Director, Lakshman told us he is not perhaps the brightest person in the world, but he is hardworking, and he was able to put together a vibrant programme, with lots of excellent speakers, and I believe that since then it has not done the half in any year as happened when Lakshman was in charge.

In those years, we had great links with Indian think-tanks, which held me in very good stead later when I was asked to head the Peace Secretariat and I had to go to India quite often, with Chinese think-tanks and with American think-tanks and it was clear that the leadership of these had total respect for Mr. Kadirgamar. It was a very, very lively period, only about two or three years, in which he was really developing capacity, not only through his Board but also through his trainees, something we are again missing for we do not have enough understanding of the principles of foreign policy that Lakshman Kadirgamar understood so well and which we have not seen replicated.

Because of the foundation he had laid down, which Dayan was able to bring to fruition when he was our ambassador in Geneva, through links with the Indians and the Chinese, and also the Americans, he got on quite well with the Americans before Hilary Clinton turned up and poisoned everything, we had a very successful run at the Human Rights Council. I still recall that the Chinese once told Dayan just make sure the Indians are on board because they understood the realities as well. This brings me to a point that I learnt then, and which I have used since, about how a country like Sri Lanka should conduct its foreign policy.

It arises from a story deriving from Buddhism. Like Lakshman Kadirgamar, I was born a Christian, but I tried to study and understand some of the principles of Buddhism and that has helped in understanding the world at large. One thing that always puzzled me when I was a little boy was the story of how Buddhism came to Sri Lanka. You may remember Arahat Mahinda turned up and met the King and his first question to the King was “What is that tree over there?” And the King said “That is a mango tree.” And then Arahat Mahinda said “Are there any other mango trees?” And the King, now thinking this is a very strange man, said “Yes, can’t you see all the other mango trees around it?”

And then Arahat said “Apart from mango trees, are there any other trees in the world?”. And the King said “But of course, look, there are those trees, and those trees and those trees.” And then Mahinda said to the King “Apart from those other mango trees, and all those other trees that are not mango trees, are there any other trees in the world?”

Perhaps you know the answer. The King thought very deeply and said “Yes, there is that original mango tree you pointed to me.” And the story goes that Arahat Mahinda thought this man was worth teaching and then he taught him the doctrine. I used to think when I was a child that this was a silly story but later I realized what it meant.

It is about the way we should conduct ourselves as individuals, it is about the way a country should conduct itself because our primary responsibility is, as we were told earlier this evening, to “be yourself”.

You are the centre of your understanding and you must not betray yourself but then, there is a circle around you, your family, your friends, you have to think about them as well. As Nimal Cooke said about Trinity, you do not let them down. They are your circle but then apart from those, there is a world around you. Maybe not connected to you but that too has to be registered, understood and served.

That was Lakshman’s fundamental philosophy, that was his foreign policy. As Dayan has so eloquently pointed out, he was absolutely devoted to the concept of national sovereignty and I think it is obvious but, as you know, we lived in a world then in which some people were just saying what is this, why aren’t we going with the West? And others were saying why should we? Why don’t we just stick to brute nationalism, and not look around us, and his line was national sovereignty but then work together with your neighbor, that is why with him the links with India were sacrosanct, he had wonderful relations with Indian politicians, with Indian thinkers. And then with China, he also realized the importance of that, you know, our Asian circle, in which fortunately or unfortunately, these two countries dominate, and we have to learn to live with them. As Dayan said we live in the interstices, we cannot be confrontational, we must stop them being confrontational and using us, this country, to be confrontational.

Then there is the world at large and I think that was the principle of Lakshman Kadirgamar’s foreign policy and that is why and how it was such a rewarding experience to work with him during that all too short period at the Bandaranaike Centre, when he really made it a Centre. It is a pity that it no longer moves in the direction that he laid out, that the country no longer operates on the principles he expounded and exemplified.

Q&A Session

If there is anything you want to ask please raise your hand and we will pass the mic around. Any questions to Dayan, Rajiva or me or comments you feel are appropriate, please ask them now.

Q: What would it have been if he had been alive today in the present political arena? If he was alive today what would his thoughts be in the present political arena today, if he was alive?

Q: Are you referring to the Sri Lankan context or the international context, or both?

A: Sri Lankan.

A: I do not think he would have looked at it in partisan political terms, he would have of course been naturally in sympathy, not politically perhaps, or ideologically but with a younger administration, a younger generation elected to office. He would not have had an attitude of hostility. That said, if I may draw on Rajiva channeling Arahath Mahinda, I think Lakshman Kadirgamar would have totally disapproved of giving the top of this tree to India and the root of this tree to China and keeping back the middle for God knows who. That he would not have done it.

Q: But Dayan you do not answer the question as to whether he would have had a choice about which tree goes to whom because now we are surrounded by predators.

A: Lakshman always found space. It was very difficult to do what he was doing, he managed to keep the Norwegians engaged while drawing certain red lines, as we saw during his controversial stand on the PTOMs which he did not support. So, I think that there is no situation in which Lakshman Kadirgamar would have been incapable of protecting a quintessential autonomous space in which Sri Lanka could have been what we authentically or truly are.

A: I have always thought that the sheer style of the Tigers can be seen in the way they destroyed our best hopes one after the other. Premadasa, whom I think was actually developing areas in the North East where the Tigers’ way did not hold, and where he had a lot of support amongst the Tamils, Vavuniya for instance, Gamini Dissanayake, who was prepared to move on devolution but also had a strong constituency which would enable him to push, Neelan Thiruchelvam whose murder allowed the TNA to welsh on its agreement with President Kumaratunga and Lakshman Kadirgamar, and then finally Lakshman Kadirgamar because, I think, he had the capacity to have kept Mahinda Rajapakse on the straight and narrow because he believed passionately in devolution.

He also believed in crushing the Tigers and elements such as Mahinda Rajapakse’s agreement with the Indians to build on the 13th Amendment which he promptly welshed on and, you know, his votaries said that Dayan Jayatilleke had written it which was all nonsense, I was in Kandy when it was done and Dayan was in Geneva, all that would not have happened if Lakshman had been alive. And they got rid of him at a crucial time. It was perhaps a pity he could not be appointed Prime Minister but that was understandable in that context. I believe Mahinda Rajapakse would have appointed him Prime Minister had he lived.

You know, he was desperate as to what to do. He called Ratnasiri Wickremanayake back. So Lakshman had that capacity. Now, all I can say is while Dayan made the point that he would not have done what this government has done, and Saku made the point, perhaps they had no choice, I think one of the biggest problems is that we do not have the think-tanks which Lakshman would have set up for a government that, perhaps, does not have any resources as to foreign policy that it can call on. So, if proper respect is paid to Lakshman Kadirgamar, perhaps a time will come when there will be an effort to set up thinkers who will follow the guidelines he laid out than which there is nothing better for this country and for individual relations.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

NASA’s Epic Flight, Trump’s Epic Fumble and Asian Dilemmas

Published

on

Epic Crew (L-R): Jeremy Hansen, Victor Glover, Reid Wiseman Christina and Christina Koch

Three hours after the spectacular Artemis II flight launch in Florida, US President Donald Trump delivered a forlorn speech from Washington. Thirty three days after starting the war against Iran as Epic Fury, the President demonstrated on national and global televisions the Epic Fumble he has made out of his Middle East ‘excursion’. It was an April Fool’s Day speech, 20 minutes of incoherent rambling with the President looking bored, confused, disengaged and dispirited. He left no one wiser about what will come next, let alone what he might do next.

There was more to April Fool’s Day this year in that it brought out the nation’s good, bad and the ugly, all in a day’s swoop. The good was the Artemis II flight carrying astronauts farther from the Earth’s orbit and closer to the moon for the first time in over 50 years. The mission is a precursor for future flights and will test the performance of a new spacecraft, gather new understanding of human conditioning, and extend the boundaries of lunar science. It is a testament to humankind being able to make steady progress in science and technology at one end of a hopelessly uneven world, while poverty, bigotry and belligerence simmer violently at the other end.

Terrible Trump

The four Artemis II astronauts, three Americans, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, and one Canadian, Jeremy Hansen, are also symptomatic of the endurance of America’s inclusive goodness in spite of efforts by the Trump Administration to snuff the nation’s fledgling DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) ethos. To wit, of the four astronauts, Victor Glover, a Caribbean American, is the first person of colour, Christina Koch the first woman, and Jeremy Hansen of Canada the first non-American – to fly this far beyond the earth’s orbit. All in spite of Trump’s watch.

Yet Trump managed to showcase his commitment to America’s ugliness, on the same day, by presenting himself at the Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of his most abominable Executive Order – to stop the American tradition of birthright citizenship. He keeps posting that America is Stupid in being the only country in the world that grants citizenship at birth to everyone born in America, regardless of the status of their parents, except the children of foreign diplomats or members of an occupying enemy force. In fact, there are 32 other countries in the world that grant birthright citizenship, a majority of them in the Americas indicating the continent’s history as a magnet for migrants ever since Christopher Columbus discovered it for the rest of the world.

And birthright citizenship in the US is enshrined in the constitution by the 14th Amendment, supplemented by subsequent legislation and reinforced by a century and a half of case law. Trump wants to reverse that. Thus far and no further was the message from the court at the hearing. A decision is expected in June and the legal betting is whether it would be a 7-2 or 8-1 rebuke for Trump. In a telling exchange during the hearing, when the government’s Solicitor General John Sauer quite sillily dramatized that “we’re in new world now … where eight billion people are one plane ride way from having a child who’s a US citizen,” Chief Justice John Roberts quietly dismissed him: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution!”

Trump’s terrible ‘bad’ is of course the war that he started in the Middle East and doesn’t know how to end it. Margaret MacMillan, acclaimed World War I historian and a great grand daughter of World War I British Prime Minister Lloyd George from Wales, has compared Trump’s current war to the origins of the First World War. Just as in 1914, small Serbia had pulled the bigger Russia into a war that was not in Russia’s interest, so too have Netanyahu and Israel have pulled Trump and America into the current war against Iran. World War I that started in August, 2014 was expected to be over before Christmas, but it went on till November, 2018. Weak leaders start wars, says MacMillan, but “they don’t have a clear idea of how they are going to end.”

There are also geopolitical and national-political differences between the 1910s and 2020s. America’s traditional allies have steadfastly refused to join Trump’s war. And Trump is under immense pressure at home not to extend the war. This is one American war that has been unpopular from day one. The cost of military operations at as high as two billion dollars a day is anathema to the people who are aggravated by rising prices directly because of the war. Trump’s own mental acuity and the abilities of his cabinet Secretaries are openly under question. There are swirling allegations of military contract profiteering and selective defense investments – one involving Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

Trump’s Administration is coming apart with sharp internal divisions over the war and government paralysis on domestic matters. There are growing signs of disarray – with Trump firing his Attorney General for not being effective prosecuting his political enemies and Secretary Hegseth ordering early retirement for Army Chief of Staff Randy George. In America’s non-parliamentary presidential system, Trump is allowed to run his own forum where he lies daily without instant challenger or contradiction, and it is impossible to get rid of his government by that simple device called no confidence motion.

Asian Dilemmas

Howsoever the current will last or end, what is clear is that its economic consequences are not going to disappear soon. Iran’s choke on the Strait of Hormuz has affected not only the supply and prices of oil and natural gas but a family of other products from fertilizers to medicines to semiconductors. The barrel price of oil has risen from $70 before the war to over $100 now. After Trump’s speech on April 1, oil prices rose and stock prices fell. The higher prices have come to stay and even if they start going down they are not likely to go down to prewar levels.

There are warnings that with high prices, low growth and unemployment, the global economy is believed to be in for a stagflation shock like in the 1970s. Even if the war were to end sooner than a lot later, the economic setbacks will not be reversed easily or quickly. Supplies alone will take time to get back into routine, and it will even take longer time for production in the Gulf countries to get back to speed. Not only imports, but even export trading and exports to Middle East countries will be impacted. The future of South Asians employed in the Middle East is also at stake.

In 1980, President Carter floated the Carter Doctrine that the US would use military force to ensure the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is now upending that doctrine – first by misusing America’s military force against Iran and provoking the strait’s closure, and then claiming that keeping the strait open is not America’s business. Ever selfish and transactional, Trump’s argument is that America is now a net exporter of oil and is no longer dependent on Middle East oil.

To fill in the void, and perhaps responding to Trump’s call to “build up some delayed courage,” UK has hosted a virtual meeting of about 40 countries to discuss modalities for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. US was not one of them. While Downing Street has not released a full list of attendees, European countries, some Gulf countries, Canada, Australia, Japan and India reportedly attended the meeting. Which other Asian countries attended the meeting is not known.

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has blamed Iran for “hijacking” an international shipping route to “hold the global economy hostage,” while insisting that the British initiative is “not based on any other country’s priority or anything in terms of the US or other countries”. French President Emmanuel Macron now visiting South Korea has emphasized any resolution “can only be done in concert with Iran. So, first and foremost, there must be a ceasefire and a resumption of negotiations.”

Prior to the British initiative focussed on the Strait of Hormuz, Egypt, Pakistan and Türkiye have been playing a backdoor intermediary role to facilitate communications between the US and Iran. Trump as usual magnified this backroom channel as serious talks initiated by Iran’s ‘new regime’, and Trump’s claims were promptly rejected by Iran. There were speculations that Pakistan would host a direct meeting between US Vice President JD Vance and an Iranian representative in Islamabad. So far, only the foreign ministers of Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have met in Islamabad, and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar flew to Beijing to brief his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, of Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts.

The Beijing visit produced a five-point initiative calling for a ceasefire, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and diplomacy instead of escalation. The five-point pathway seems a follow up to the 15-point demand that the US sent to Iran through the three Samaritan intermediaries which Iran rejected as they did not include any of Iran’s priorities. The state of these mediating efforts are now unclear after President Trump’s April Fool’s Day rambling. In fairness, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has announced that his country intends to keep ‘nudging’ the US and Iran towards resuming negotiations and ending the war.

While these efforts are welcome and deserve everyone’s best wishes, they have also led to what BBC has called the “chatter in Delhi” – “is India being sidelined” by Pakistan’s intermediary efforts? Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s rather undiplomatic characterization of Pakistan’s role as “dalali” (brokerage) provoked immediate denunciation in Islamabad, while Indian opposition parties are blaming the Modi Government’s foreign policy stances as an “embarrassment” to India’s stature.

The larger view is that while it is Asia that is most impacted by the closure of Hormuz, with Singapore’s Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan calling it an “Asian crisis”, Asia has no leverage in the matter and Asian countries have to make special arrangements with Iran to let their ships navigate through the Strait of Hormuz. There is no pathway for co-ordinated action. China is still significant but not consequentially effective. India’s all-alignment foreign policy has made it less significant and more vulnerable in the current crisis. And Pakistan has opened a third dimension to Asia’s dilemmas.

In the circumstances, it is fair to say that Sri Lanka is the most politically stable country among its South Asian neighbours. Put another way, Sri Lanka has a remarkably consensual and uncontentious government in comparison to the old governments in India and Pakistan, and even the new government in Bangladesh. But that may not be saying much unless the NPP government proves itself to be sufficiently competent, and uses the political stability and the general goodwill it is still enjoying, to put the country’s economic department in order. More on that later.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Features

Ranjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection

Published

on

Siyambalapitiya’s ancsetral house built on 1923 at Vendala

From Parliament to Fruit Grove:

After more than two decades in politics, rising to the positions of Cabinet Minister and Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ranjith Siyambalapitiya has turned his attention to a markedly different arena — one far removed from parliamentary debate and political intrigue.

Today, Siyambalapitiya spends much of his time tending to a sprawling 15-acre home garden at Vendala in Karawanella, near Ruwanwella, nurturing what has gradually evolved into one of the most remarkable private fruit collections in the country.

Situated in Sri Lanka’s Wet Zone Low Country agro-ecological region (WL2), Ruwanwella lies at an elevation of roughly 100–200 metres above sea level. Deep red-yellow podzolic soils, annual rainfall exceeding 2,500 millimetres, and a warm humid tropical climate combine to create conditions that make the region one of the richest areas in the island for fruit tree diversity.

Within this favourable ecological setting, Siyambalapitiya has become what may best be described as a custodian of a living collection—a fruit grove that now contains around 554 fruit trees and vines, many of them rare or seldom seen in contemporary agriculture.

Of these, 448 varieties have already been properly identified and documented with the assistance of agriculturist Dr. Suba Heenkenda, a retired expert of the Department of Agriculture. Together they have undertaken the painstaking task of cataloguing the plants by their botanical names, common Sinhala names, and the names used in ancient Ayurvedic and indigenous medical texts, assigning each species a unique identification number.

According to Siyambalapitiya, the Vendala estate is possibly the only single location in Sri Lanka where such a large number of fruit varieties—particularly rare and underutilized species—are maintained within one property.

“This garden came down to me through my grandfather, grandmother, mother and father,” he says. “It is a place shaped by three generations.”

The estate, he explains, began as a traditional home garden where crops such as tea, coconut and rubber were cultivated alongside fruit trees planted by family members over decades. Over time, however, it evolved into something much larger: a carefully nurtured grove preserving both common and obscure fruit species.

Siyambalapitiya recalls with affection one of the oldest trees in the garden—a honey-jack tree known locally as “Lokumänike’s Rata Kos Gaha.”

The story behind it has become part of family lore. According to village elders, his grandmother had brought home the sapling after visiting the Colombo Grand Exhibition in 1952 many decades ago and planted it near the house.

The tree soon gained fame in the village. Its tender jackfruit proved ideal for curry and mallum, while the ripe fruit was renowned for its sweetness.

“Ripe jackfruit from this tree tastes like honey itself,” Siyambalapitiya says. “Even the seeds are full of flour and can be eaten throughout the year.”

Yet age has not spared the venerable tree. It now shows signs of disease, and Siyambalapitiya and his staff have had to treat old wounds and monitor unusual bark damage.

“Once lightning struck it,” he recalls. “The largest branch began to die. Saving the tree required what I would call a kind of surgical operation.”

Such care, he says, reflects the deep attachment he feels toward the collection.

His fascination with fruit trees began in childhood. While attending Royal College in Colombo and living in a boarding house he disliked, Siyambalapitiya would insist that the family procure new fruit saplings for him to plant during his weekend visits home.

“That was the only ‘price’ I demanded for going to school,” he laughs.

Over the years the collection expanded steadily as he encountered new plants in forests, nurseries, and rural landscapes across the island.

The result today is a grove that includes traditional Sri Lankan fruit species, underutilized native varieties, forest fruits, and plants introduced from overseas.

Some species originate in Arabian deserts, while others thrive naturally in cooler climates such as Europe. Certain plants require greenhouse-like conditions, while others are hardy forest trees.

Managing such diversity is no easy task.

“One plant asks for rain, another asks for cold, and yet another prefers heat,” Siyambalapitiya explains. “Too much rain makes some sick, too much sun troubles others. The older trees overshadow the younger ones. You cannot feed or medicate them all in the same way.”

He compares the task to caring for a household filled with people from many nations and ages—each with different needs.

Despite the challenges, he believes the effort is worthwhile, particularly because many of the trees are native species that have become increasingly rare.

“If things continue as they are, some of these plants may disappear from our lives,” he warns.

To preserve knowledge about them, Siyambalapitiya is preparing to launch a book titled “Mage Vendala Palathuru Arana” (My Vendala Fruit Grove), which serves as an introductory guide to the collection.

The book, scheduled for release on April 18 at the Vendala estate, will be attended by Ven. Dr. Kirinde Assaji Thera, Chief Incumbent of Gangaramaya Temple,

Uruwarige Wannila Aththo, the leader of the Indigenous Vedda Community,

a long-serving former employee who helped maintain the plantation, and Sunday Dhamma school students from the region, who will participate as guests of honour.

The publication will also mark Siyambalapitiya’s eighth book. Previously he authored seven works and wrote more than 500 weekly newspaper columns offering commentary on politics and current affairs.

While working on the fruit catalogue, he is simultaneously writing another volume reflecting on his 25-year political career, including his tenure as Deputy Finance Minister during Sri Lanka’s most severe economic crisis.

For Siyambalapitiya, however, the fruit grove represents more than a hobby or academic exercise.

“The fruit we enjoy is the result of a tree’s effort to reproduce,” he says. “Nature has given fruits their taste, fragrance and colour to attract us. All the tree asks in return is that its seeds be carried to new places.”

That simple cycle of life, he believes, has continued for tens of thousands of years.

“And those who love trees,” he adds, “are guardians of the world’s survival.”

by Saman Indrajith

Pix by Tharanga Ratnaweera

Continue Reading

Features

Smoke Free Sweden calls out to WHO not to suggest nicotine alternatives

Published

on

It has been reported by the international advocacy initiative, ‘Smoke Free Sweden’ (‘SFS’) that many International health experts have begun criticizing the World Health Organization (WHO) for presenting safer nicotine alternatives rather than recognizing its role in accelerating decline in smoking.

As the world’s premier technical health agency, the WHO is empowered to support strategies that reduce morbidity and mortality even if they do not eliminate the underlying behaviour. Furthermore, it should base its guidance on evolving scientific knowledge, which includes comparative-risk assessments. Equating smoke-free nicotine alternatives with combustible cigarettes, is essentially putting lives at risk, according to the health experts contacted by SFS.

The warning follows recent WHO comments suggesting that vaping and other non-combustible nicotine products are driving tobacco use in Europe. This narrative ignores real-world evidence from countries like Sweden where access to safer alternatives has coincided with record low smoking rates.

A “Smoke-Free” status is defined as an adult daily smoking prevalence below 5% and Sweden is on the brink of officially achieving this milestone. This is clear proof that pragmatic harm-reduction policies work. Sweden’s success has been driven by adult smokers switching to lower-risk alternatives such as oral tobacco pouches (Snus), oral nicotine pouches and other non-combustible products.

“Vapes and pouches are helping to reduce risk, and Sweden’s smoke-free transition proves this,” said Dr Delon Human, leader of Smoke Free Sweden. “We should be celebrating policies that help smokers quit combustible tobacco, not spreading fear about the very tools that are accelerating the decline of cigarettes.”

It is further reported by health experts that conflating cigarettes with non-combustible alternatives risks deterring smokers from switching and could slow progress toward reducing tobacco-related disease.

Dr Human emphasized that youth protection and harm reduction are not mutually exclusive.

“It is critically important to safeguard against underage use, but this should be done by targeted, risk-proportionate regulation and proper enforcement, not by sacrificing the right of adults to access products that might save their lives,” he said.

Smoke Free Sweden is calling on global health authorities to adopt evidence-based policies that distinguish clearly between combustible tobacco – the primary cause of tobacco-related death – and lower-risk nicotine alternatives.

“Public health policy must be grounded in science and real-world outcomes,” Dr Human added. “Sweden’s experience shows that when adult smokers are given legal access to safer nicotine alternatives, smoking rates fall faster than almost anywhere else in the world.”

Continue Reading

Trending