Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

1 month ago

2026/03/12

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.

All News Advertisement

Features

Rethinking global order in the precincts of Nalanda

Published

15 hours ago

2026/04/21

Thilina Walpola

It has become fashionable to criticise the US for its recent conduct toward Iran. This is not an attempt to defend or rationalise the US’s actions. Rather, it seeks to inject perspective into an increasingly a historical debate. What is often missing is institutional memory: An understanding of how the present international order was constructed and the conditions under which it emerged.

The “rules-based order” was forged in the aftermath of two catastrophic wars. Earlier efforts had faltered. Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for a League of Nations after World War I was rejected by the US Senate. Yet, it introduced a lasting premise: International order could be consciously designed, not left solely to shifting power balances. That premise returned after World War II. The Dumbarton Oaks process laid the groundwork for the UN, while Bretton Woods established the global financial architecture.

These frameworks shaped modern norms of security, finance, trade, and governance. The US played the central role in this design, providing leadership even as it engaged selectively- remaining outside certain frameworks while shaping others. This underscored a central reality: Power and principle have always coexisted uneasily within it.

This order most be understood against the destruction that preceded it. Industrial warfare, aerial bombardment, and weapons capable of unprecedented devastation reshaped both the ethics and limits of conflict. The post-war system emerged from this trauma, anchored in a fragile consensus of “never again”, even as authority remained concentrated among five powers.

The rise of China, the re-emergence of India, and the growing assertiveness of Russia and regional powers are reshaping the global balance. Technological disruption and renewed competition over energy and resources are transforming the nature of power. In this environment, some American strategists argue that the US risks strategic drift Iran, in this view, becomes more than a regional issue; it serves as a platform for signalling resolve – not only to Tehran, but to Beijing and beyond. Actions taken in one theatre are intended to shape perceptions of credibility across multiple fronts.

Recent actions suggest that while the US retains unmatched military reach, it has exercised a level of restraint. The avoidance of escalation into the most extreme forms of warfare indicates that certain thresholds in great-power conflict remain intact. If current trends persist-where power increasingly substitutes for principle — this won’t remain a uniquely American dilemma.

Other major powers may face similar choices. As capabilities expand, the temptation to act outside established norms may grow. What begins as a context-specific deviation can harden into accepted practice. This is the paradox of great power transition: What begins as an exception risk becoming a precedent The question now is whether existing systems are capable of renewal. Ad hoc frameworks may stabilise the present, but risk orphaning the future. Without a broader framework, they risk managing disorder rather than designing order. The Dumbarton Oaks process was a structured diplomatic effort shaped by competing visions and compromise. A contemporary equivalent would be more complex, reflecting a more diffuse distribution of power and lower levels of trust Such an effort must include the US, China, India, the EU, Russia, and other key powers.

India could serve as a credible convenor capable of bridging divides. Its position -engaged with multiple powers yet not formally aligned – gives it a degree of convening legitimacy. Nalanda-the world’s first university – offers an appropriate symbolic setting for such dialogue, evoking knowledge exchange across civilisations rather than competition among them.

Milinda Moragoda is a former cabinet minister and diplomat from Sri Lanka and founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, a strategic affairs think tank could be contacted atemail@milinda.org. This article was published in Hindustan Times on 2026.04.19)

By Milinda Moragoda

Features

Father and daughter … and now Section 8

Published

15 hours ago

2026/04/21

Thilina Walpola

Members of Section 8

The combination of father and daughter, Shafi and Jana, as a duo, turned out to be a very rewarding experience, indeed, and now they have advanced to Section 8 – a high-energy, funk-driven, jazz-oriented live band, blending pop, rock, funk, country, and jazz.

Guitar wizard Shafi is a highly accomplished lead guitarist with extensive international experience, having performed across Germany, Australia, the Maldives, Canada, and multiple global destinations.

Shafi: Guitar wizard, at the helm of Section 8

Jana: Dynamic and captivating lead vocalist

He is best known as a lead guitarist of Wildfire, one of Sri Lanka’s most recognised bands, while Jana is a dynamic and captivating lead vocalist with over a decade of professional performing experience.

Jana’s musical journey started early, through choir, laying the foundation for her strong vocal control and confident stage presence.

Having also performed with various local bands, and collaborated with seasoned musicians, Jana has developed a versatile style that blends energy, emotion, and audience connection.

The father and daughter combination performed in the Maldives for two years and then returned home and formed Section 8, combining international stage experience with a sharp understanding of what it takes to move a crowd.

In fact, Shafi and Jana performed together, as a duo, for over seven years, including long-term overseas contracts, building a strong musical partnership and a deep understanding of international audiences and live entertainment standards.

Section 8 is relatively new to the scene – just two years old – but the outfit has already built a strong reputation, performing at private events, weddings, bars, and concerts.

The band is known for its adaptability, professionalism, and engaging stage presence, and consistently delivers a premium live entertainment experience, focused on energy, groove, and audience connection.

Section 8 is also a popular name across Sri Lanka’s live music circuit, regularly performing at venues such as Gatz, Jazzabel, Honey Beach, and The Main Sports Bar, as well as across the southern coast, including Hikkaduwa, Ahangama, Mirissa, and Galle.

What’s more, they performed two consecutive years at Petti Mirissa for their New Year’s gala, captivating international audiences present with high-energy performance, specially designed for large-scale celebrations.

With a strong following among international visitors, the band has become a standout act within the tourist entertainment scene, as well.

Their performances are tailored to diverse audiences, blending international hits with dance-driven sets, while also incorporating strong jazz influences that add depth, musicianship, and versatility to their sound.

The rest of the members of Section 8 are also extremely talented and experienced musicians:

Suresh – Drummer, with over 20 years of international experience.

Dimantha – Keyboardist, with global exposure across multiple countries.

Dilhara – Bassist and multi-instrumentalist, also a composer and producer, with technical expertise.

Features

Celebrations … in a unique way

Published

15 hours ago

2026/04/21

Thilina Walpola

The attraction on 14th July

Rajiv Sebastian could be classified as an innovative performer.

Yes, he certainly has plenty of surprises up his sleeves and that’s what makes him extremely popular with his fans.

Rajiv & The Clan are now 35 years in the showbiz scene and Rajiv says he has plans to celebrate this special occasion … in a unique way!

According to Rajiv, the memories of Clarence, Neville, Baig, Rukmani, Wally and many more, in its original flavour, will be relived on 14th July.

“We will be celebrating our anniversary at the Grand Maitland (in front of the SSC playground) on 14th July, at 7.00pm, and you will feel the inspiration of an amazing night you’ve never seen before,” says Rajiv, adding that all the performers will be dressed up in the beautiful sixties attire, and use musical instruments never seen before.

In fact, Rajiv left for London, last week, and is scheduled to perform at four different venues, and at each venue his outfit is going to be different, he says, with the sarong being very much a part of the scene.