Opinion
Reimagining International Relations from a Global South Perspective
I wish to congratulate Prof. Keerawella, for having undertaken this mammoth task of seeking to capture, from ‘a global south perspective’, the multiple facets of scholarship of International Relations. He has, as always, been meticulous in his research, and also lucid in conveying to the reader, complex ideas and their interconnections, in an uncomplicated way. I am not in the habit of encouraging taking shortcuts, particularly with my students around – but if pressed, here is a book, with references to every major scholar in the 7 areas identified, in 440 pages, at a modest price.
We are honoured that the Prime Minister graced this occasion, and thankful for her inspiring words. She has left much food for thought – which I am hopeful our students will consider engaging with, as they proceed with their presentations and dissertations.
This is the 7th book, in fact the 3rd authored or co-authored by Prof. Keerawella, published under the auspices of the BCIS, over the past couple of years. It is a reflection of BCIS’s continuing commitment to bring into the public domain, quality academic literature that benefits both scholars and Sri Lankan students who pass through these halls and beyond. I want to commend President Kumaratunga, for through the BCIS, continuing to support the publication of such texts, at a time individually doing so is prohibitive and also more costly to the buyer, and the Bandaranaike Memorial National Foundation (BMNF) for making this possible.
Turning to the volume launched today (24 Feb), in ‘Reimagining International Relations from a Global South Perspective’, at the outset, Prof. Keerawella makes clear that a Global South perspective is not simply a matter of geographical focus; it is an epistemic stance that seeks to recover marginalised voices, experiences, and knowledge that have long been silenced or subordinated in mainstream discourse. He goes on to emphasise that, the choice of the phrase “a Global South Perspective” is deliberate. It signals an awareness that there is no single, homogeneous standpoint from which the Global South speaks’. To speak of a perspective, then, is to situate this volume’s argument within that broader, evolving mosaic—to offer one possible articulation among many, without claiming representational authority over them. Prof. Keerawella emphasises, it is an invitation to dialogue, not a declaration of orthodoxy.
As is customary by a reviewer, I intend to take up Prof. Keerawella’s ‘invitation to dialogue’ and commencsation in the latter part of this presentation, but first let me outline the valuable insights contained in this Book, as an appetiser.
The first chapter on IR Theory, points out – in each of the ‘isms’, ingredients as it were, that could contribute to a better understanding of the ‘Global South’. Here he highlights Raúl Prebisch and Andre Gunder Frank’s ‘dependency theory’, Neta Crawford’s ‘normative constructivism’, Sanjay Seth’s ‘Decolonial Critique’ and Amitav Acharya’s concept of ‘Global IR’ as having advanced a reformist, yet transformative agenda for the discipline. He observes that, “Collectively, their respective projects of rethinking, decolonizing, and globalizing International Relations illuminate how the Global South can contribute to the field not merely as a repository of empirical cases, but as a source of conceptual reflection and theoretical innovation”.
The second chapter which examines the transformation of International Security Studies, by foregrounding the lived insecurities of the Global South—ranging from poverty and structural violence to environmental vulnerability and social fragility, demonstrates why concepts such as human security gained salience as corrective and complementary frameworks, concerning the global south.
The third chapter pays analytical attention to the dynamics of regionalism with special focus on South Asia and the experience of the SAARC. It calls for reimagining regional cooperation in South Asia beyond rigid institutional templates, advocating for inclusive, flexible, and people-centered modalities rooted in the specific political and social realities of the Global South.
The fourth chapter addresses international organisations and international regimes as central pillars of contemporary global governance, with particular attention to their implications for the Global South. The chapter reveals how Global South states have simultaneously been constrained by inherited governance structures and mobilized collective strategies to contest inequities and assert greater voice.
The fifth chapter which focuses on Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), situates it within a rapidly evolving global environment shaped by globalisation, technological transformation, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, paying particular attention to the strategic choices made by Global South states.
The sixth chapter traces the long historical arc of diplomatic practice, demonstrating how modes of representation, negotiation, and cooperation have evolved in response to changing political, social, and technological contexts. From a Global South perspective, the chapter underscores both the opportunities and constraints of particularly science diplomacy.
In the final chapter, Prof. Keerawella discusses the notion of national self-determination.
He underscores its contradictions in theory, and its praxis in the post-Cold War context, tracing the ways in which self-determination has been invoked and contested in modern international relations.
Besides joining a very small league of international scholars (some already referred to) who have dared to challenge Western theoretical approaches in the study of IR and sub-fields and emphasised the need for an alternative ‘Global South’ reading, Prof. Keerawella becomes the first Sri Lankan to do so in any considered manner. His volume is also rare, in that in general, few Sri Lankans have sought to engage with and contribute to the theoretical literature of International Relations and Foreign Policy. His book has the additional advantage of being released at a time ‘International Relations’ – as we have been taught it and understood it, is under severe strain to explain contemporary developments in a conceptual and theoretical manner, and there is a serious vacuum to be filled, not just in understanding, but in order to change the currentpredicament.
While the book reaffirms the ‘global south’ as a certain collective sentiment, assembling many of the conceptual building blocks and empirical insights necessary for its articulation, what it leaves to us is the task of synthesising these elements into a coherent and operational set of principles that can foster a unified front amongst the Global South, despite the vast diversity of the actors and states involved.
While I have no disagreement with Prof. Keerawella’s starting premise and end goal of the desirability of having ‘a Global South Perspective’ in the areas under study, however, as an observer and practitioner of international relations for most of my professional life since 1980
– 9 years as a journalist, 33 years as a diplomat, and post-retirement, and over 4 years from the vantage point of running IR and Strategic Studies focused institutions, while also teaching, and engaging in my own research, I do encounter some difficulty, and lament that operationally little has or is being done, to evolve a strategy that addresses the shortcomings so carefully pointed out in Prof. Keerawella’s book.
Looking back, I do not see a single cohesive ‘Global South’ consistently in play. Rather, I see a multitude of ‘Global Souths’ –depending on the issue, competing opportunistically and often working at cross purposes, and all eventually getting played out by the continuing structural heft of the ‘Global North’.
This is no fault of Prof. Keerawella, or of the rich ingredients he brings together in this volume. Rather, it reflects the political reality that the‘Global South’ recipe has not yet been fully translated into an appetising dish.
I am no chef, and time does not permit me to elaborate from the different vantagespoints
I have experienced it from – but I do believe there is a compelling case that could be made for action, which needs serious reflection and attention.
To put it another way, without making value judgements on the rights and wrongs of the respective action, I wish to pose two sets of questions, confining myself to events of the past 4 years or so;
First, what did the ‘Global South’ do in the cases of Ukraine since 2022, of Gaza since 2023, of Sudan since 2023, on actions in the South-China Sea in recent times, following the imposition of ‘Reciprocal Tariffs’ throughout 2025, or in the case of Venezuela last month?
* Did they speak together?
* Did they vote together?
* Did they fight together?
Similarly, second, what will the ‘Global South’ do, God forbid, if there is to be a conflict on Iran, Cuba, the Panama Canal, Morocco-Algeria, DRC-Rwanda, or Taiwan, tomorrow?
* Will they speak together?
* Will they vote together?
* Will they fight together?
If I were to play devil’s advocate, I would be tempted to ask: if these coalitions neither speak, vote, nor act together, what kind of analytical and normative work can the category ‘Global South’ realistically achieve? Rather than assuming a unity that does not yet exist, how might we need to refine it?
To this end, I wish to posit, that the category of ‘Global South’ could be analytically more useful, if, as Max Weber suggested, it be used as an ‘ideal type’ – that might not be realized, but must be sought to be approximated.’Global South’ functions best as a Max Weber-inspired ‘ideal type’: an abstract model used not as a description of an existing state, but as a heuristic tool to clarify the degree to which specific regions approximate or diverge from its core characteristics.
Such an approximation cannot merely be imagined; it has at least to be attempted in practice.
What I am suggesting is not utopian. Historically, there is precedent that has been realized by the Non-Aligned group of countries – which by no means perfect, but was effective in its heyday duringthe 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s. Unfortunately, rather than being reformed and modified at the end of the Cold War, it has been tossed away.
Admittedly, those were different times, but for purposes of encouraging the dialogue and debateProf. Keerawella wanted us to have stemming from his book, and in order to draw inspiration, let me suggest 4 factors that made Non-Alignment work as an operational strategy, while it did;
* There was a clearer ‘Framework of Operation’ – the Non-Aligned MOVEMENT, which incidentally in this year we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the hosting of the 5th Summit in Sri Lanka in 1976 at this very venue the BMICH.
* There was also a clear ‘Other’ – the cold War driven Western alliance on the one hand, and the Warsaw pact countries, which had competing ideologies–and which broadly Non-Aligned countries preferred not to emulate in toto.
* There was further an alternate Politico-Economic and Legally grounded Agenda – which saw expression through the UN Special Session on Disarmament, an operationally stronger UNCTAD, and a international legal regimethe UN Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), inwhich NAM countries played crucial roles.
* There was also ‘a like-minded collective leadership’ – which, spare a few, more often than not, dared to demonstrate objectivity between the West and the East – and resisted being unquestioning followers. Though they might not have been loved by the ‘West’, or for that matter by the ‘East’, but they were broadly respected by both.
While newer formations such as the G77, the BRICS, the SCO, alongside regional groupings such as the RCEP, the ASEAN, the AU, the GCC, and BIMSTEC have sought to fill this space, they remain, at best, partial substitutes, lacking the normative coherence and political solidarity that characterized the early NAM efforts that resulted in effective collective action demands.
It is ironic, that at a time when the ‘Global North’ is in disarray, and some its own constituents have made bold to say that this is not a “transition” but a “rupture” of the US-led rules-based international order, that there is no cohesive ‘Global South’ alternative.
The real question before the ‘Global South’ today should be, as to what conditions and mechanism could lead us to position ourselves better, to consolidate such a collective, and most importantly whether there is the political will to do so?
If not, we must at least be honest about current limits – that many states with even some capacity, are compelled to hedge, while those without meaningful leverage remain largely ‘bystanders’ in the global order.
However, if we recognize that this situation is not tenable and that we wish to serve a higher cause, we should do something about it and try to create ‘sufficient conditions’ that could more actively and tangibly approximate ‘a Global South’- which can ‘bracket’ its differences, find unity in what is most important, and avoid the temptation of flirting for temporary gain or glory.
This is the thought I wish to leave you with today in the hope that, as envisaged by Prof. Keerawella, this volume will not be the last word on ‘a Global South perspective’, but a starting point for precisely the kind of critical, self-reflective conversation that can turn it into a more grounded, plural, and effective practical programme and call to action.
Speech delivered by
by Ambassador (Retd.)
Ravinatha Aryasinha,
former Foreign Secretary and Executive Director, Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), at the launch of
Prof. Gamini Keerawella’s book ‘Reimagining International Relations from a Global South Perspective’,
at the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS), Colombo on 24 February 2026)
The resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody comes after several weeks of controversy over his ministerial role. The controversy sharpened when the minister was indicted by the Commission on Bribery and Corruption for a transaction he was involved in ten years ago as a government official in the Fertiliser Corporation. The other issue was the government’s purchase of substandard coal from a new supplier. Minister Jayakody’s resignation followed the appointment of a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate coal and petroleum purchases. The minister who resigned, along with the Secretary to the Ministry of Energy, Udayanga Hemapala, stated that they did not wish to compromise the integrity of the investigation to be undertaken by the Commission of Inquiry.
The government’s initial resistance to holding the minister accountable for the costly purchase was based on the argument that the official procedure had been followed in ordering the coal. However, the fact that the procedure permitted a disadvantageous purchase which has come to light on this occasion suggests a weakness in the process. The government’s appointment of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry to examine purchases as far back as 2009 follows from this observation. In this time 450 purchases are reported to have been made, and if several of them were as disadvantageous as this one, the cost to the country can be imagined. The need to investigate transactions since 2009 also arises from the possibility that loopholes in official government procedures in the past would have permitted private enrichment at a high cost to the country.
Concerns have been expressed in the past that the purchase of coal and petroleum, often on an emergency basis, enabled the use of emergency procurement processes which do not require going through the full tender procedures. The government has pledged to eradicate corruption as its priority. As a result, the general population would expect it to do everything within its power to correct those systems that permitted such corruption. Accountability is not only forward looking to ensure non-corrupt practices in the present, it is also backward looking to ensure that corrupt practices of the past are discontinued. This would be a matter of concern to those who headed government ministries and departments in previous governments. Those who have misapplied the systems can be expected to do their utmost to resist any investigation into the past.
Politically Astute
One of the main reasons for the government’s continuing popularity among the general population, as reflected in February 2026 public opinion poll by Verité Research, has been its willingness to address the problem of corruption. Public opinion studies have consistently shown that corruption remains one of the top concerns of citizens in Sri Lanka. The arrests and indictments of members of former governments have been viewed with general satisfaction as paving the way to a less corrupt society. At the same time, the resignations of Minister Kumara Jayakody and Secretary Udayanga Hemapala are an indication that not even government members will be spared if they are found to have crossed red lines. This is an important signal, as public confidence depends not only on holding political opponents to account but also on demonstrating fairness and consistency within one’s own ranks.
There appears to be a strategy on the part of the opposition to target government leaders and allege corruption so that ministers will be forced to step down. Organised protests against other ministers, and demonstrations outside their homes, are on the rise. The government appears not to want to give in to this opposition strategy and therefore delayed the resignation of Minister Jayakody until it had itself established the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry. It enabled the minister to step down without it seeming that the government was yielding to opposition pressure. In political terms, this was a calibrated response that sought to balance the need for accountability with the need to maintain authority and coherence in governance.
The demand by opposition parties to focus attention on the coal problem could also be seen as an attempt to shift the national debate from the corruption of the past to controversies in the present. The opposition’s endeavour would be to take the heat off themselves in regard to the corruption of the past and turn it onto the government by making it the focus of inquiries into corruption. The decision to set up a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry accompanied by the resignation of the minister and the ministry secretary was a politically astute way of demonstrating that the government will have no tolerance for corruption. It will also help to remind the general public about the rampant corruption of past governments which prevents the opposition’s corruption accusations against the government from gaining traction amongst the people.
New Practice
The resignation of a government minister who faces allegations but has not been convicted is still a relatively new practice in Sri Lanka. The general practice in Sri Lanka up to the present time has been for those in government service, if found to be at fault, to be transferred rather than removed from office. This is commonly seen in the case of police officers who, if found to have used excessive force or engaged in abuse, are transferred to another station rather than subjected to more serious disciplinary action. A similar pattern was seen in the case of former minister Keheliya Rambukwella, who faced allegations of corruption in the health field but was reassigned to a different portfolio rather than removed from government.
Against this background, the present resignation assumes greater importance. It signals a willingness to break with past practices and to establish a higher standard of conduct in public office. However, a single instance does not in itself create a lasting change. What is required is the consistent application of the same principle across all cases, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. This is where the government has an opportunity to strengthen its credibility. By ensuring that the same standards of accountability are applied to its own members as to those of previous governments, it can demonstrate that its commitment to good governance is not selective.
The establishment of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry, the willingness to accept ministerial resignation, and the recognition of systemic weaknesses in procurement are all steps in the right direction. The challenge now is to ensure that these steps are followed through with determination and consistency. If the investigations are conducted impartially and lead to meaningful reforms, the present controversy could mark a turning point. The resignation of the minister should not be seen as an isolated event but as the beginning of a new practice. If it becomes part of a broader pattern of accountability, it can contribute to a new political culture and to restoring public trust in government.
by Jehan Perera
The Island newspaper’s lead news item on the 12th of April 2026 was on the CEB request to shut down rooftop solar power during the low demand periods. Their argument is that rooftop solar panels produce about 300 MW power during the day and there is no procedure to balance the grid with such a load.
We as well as a large academic and industrial consortium members have been trying to promote solar energy as a viable and sustainable power source since the early 1990’s. We formed the Solar Energy Society and made representations to Government politicians about the need to have solar power generation. This continuous promotional work contributed to the rapid increase in PV solar companies from three in the early 1990’s to over 650 active PV solar companies established today in the country. These companies have created tens of thousands of high-quality jobs, as well as moving in the right direction for sustainable development.
However, all these efforts appear to have been in vain since the CEB policy makers have continuously rejected solar energy as a viable alternative. Their power generation plans at that time did not include solar energy at all but only relied on imported coal power plants and diesel power generation. Even at the meetings where CEB senior staff were present, we emphasised the importance of installation of battery storage facilities and grid balancing for which they have done nothing at all over the past three decades. Now they have grudgingly accepted the need to include solar energy, which was an election promise of the present government. The government policy is that Sri Lanka should go for renewables to satisfy 70% of its energy needs by 2030 and soon move towards the green hydrogen technology by using solar and wind energy.
The question is why the diesel generators and hydropower stations cannot be shut off one by one to accommodate the solar power generated during the daytime. Unlike a coal-fired plant, diesel generators and hydro power plants can be shut off in a relatively shorter period of time. Norochchalai Lakvijaya power plant produces around 900 MW of power while the total country requirement is 2500 MW on a daily basis. The remainder is provided by diesel generators, hydro and other renewable energy sources.
The need for work to achieve this goal of grid balancing should be the primary responsibility of the CEB. Modern grid balancing systems are in operation in countries such as Germany where around 56% of its energy come from renewable sources. They also plan to increase this to reach 80% of the energy required through renewables by 2030. Our CEB is hell bent on diesel power plants. Who benefits from such emergency power purchases is anybody’s guess?
The Government and the CEB should realise that all roof top solar plants are privately financed through personal funds or bank loans with no financial burden on the Government. It is a crime to request them not to operate these solar panels and get the necessary credits for the power transmitted to the national grid. It appears that the results of CEB’s lack of grid balancing experience and unwillingness to learn over three decades have now passed to the privately-funded rooftop solar panel owners. It is unfortunate that the Government is not considering the contributions of ordinary individuals who provide clean power to the national grid at no cost to the Government. Over 150,000 rooftop solar panels owners are severely affected by these ruthless decisions by the CEB, and this will lead to the un-popularity of this new government in the end.
by Professors Oliver Ileperuma and I M Dharmadasa
It was with shock that I realized that the article in the Sunday Island of April 5 about the winsome graduate gazing serenely at her surroundings was, in fact, an obituary about Nilanthi Jayasinghe, a former colleague who I had held in high esteem. I had lost touch with Nilanthi since my retirement and this news that she had passed away, saddened me deeply
I knew and had worked with Nilanthi – Mrs Jayasinghe as we used to call her – at the Open University of Sri Lanka in the 1990s. As Director, Operations, she was a figure that we as heads of academic departments, relied on; a central bastion of the complex structure that underpinned academic activities at Sri Lanka’s major distance education provider. Few people realize what it takes to provide distance education in an environment not geared to this form of teaching/learning – the volume of Information that has to be created, printed and delivered; the variety of timetables that have to be scheduled; the massive amount of continuous assessment assignments and tests that have to be prepared and sent out; the organization of a multitude of face-to face teaching sessions; the complex scheduling of examinations and tests – all this needed to be attended to for a student population of more than 20,000 and for 23 centres of study dotted across Sri Lanka.
It was an unenviable task but Nilanthi Jayasinghe with her flair for organization, handled it all with aplomb and a deep sense of commitment. If there were delays and inconclusive action on our part, she never reprimanded but would work with us to sort things out. Her work as Director, Operations brought her into contact with staff across the spectrum-from the Vice-Chancellor to the apprentice in the Open University’s Printing Press. Nilanthi treated everyone with dignity and as a result, was respected by all at the university. She was sensitive, kind-hearted, a good friend who would readily share problems and help to solve them. The year NIlanthi retired, I was out of the island. When I came back to the Open University, I felt bereft without the steadfast support of her stalwart presence .
The article in the ‘Sunday Island’ describes her life after retirement, looking after family members and enjoying the presence of a granddaughter.
After a lifetime of commitment to others, Nilanthi Jayasinghe truly deserved this happiness.
May she be blessed with peace.
Ryhana Raheem
Professor Emeritus
Open University of Sri Lanka.
Advisory for Severe Lightning issued to the Western, Sabaragamuwa, Central, North-western, North-central, Southern, Uva provinces, and Mannar, Vavuniya, Ampara, Batticaloa districts
US, Iran exchange threats as fragile ceasefire set to expire
Six Foreign Envoys Present Credentials to President Dissanayake
Tilak ends Mumbai Indian’s losing streak with 45-ball century
Showers or thundershowers will occur at most places of the island after 1.00 pm
Rs 13 bn NDB fraud: Int’l forensic audit ordered
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#SundayIsland 17th December – Headlines
Sunday Island – 28th March
Sunday Island Headlines – 21 March
Sunday Island – 21st February – Headlines
-
News6 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT set sail from Colombo
-
Business4 days agoHarnessing nature’s wisdom: Experts highlight “Resist–Align” path to resilience
-
News4 days agoGratiaen Trust announces longlist for the 33rd Annual Gratiaen Prize
-
News3 days agoFrom Nuwara Eliya to Dubai: Isha Holdings markets Agri products abroad
-
News4 days agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract
-
Latest News5 days agoSingapore Zoo’s first Sri Lankan leopard cubs make their public debut
-
Opinion2 days agoShutting roof top solar panels – a crime
-
News2 days agoChurch calls for Deputy Defence Minister’s removal, establishment of Independent Prosecutor’s Office