Features
Sri Lanka sails into murky waters in the Red Sea
By Uditha Devapriya
Speaking at an awards ceremony on Wednesday, January 3, President Ranil Wickremesinghe announced that the government would be deploying a Navy vessel to the Red Sea. Wickremesinghe pointed out that the disruption of shipping lanes in the region would lead to increased freight charges and cargo costs, increasing import prices in the country. Arguing that this was not in Sri Lanka’s interest, he declared that the government would do what it could to contribute to stability in the region.
The announcement came as a surprise to many, not least since the President revealed it only towards the tail-end of his speech. Soon after, the government launched a feasibility study for the proposal. The President had earlier admitted that deploying a vessel would cost the government Rs 250 million every fortnight, while a Navy spokesman stated that the Red Sea operation required clear “logistics supplies” and “a robust weapon outfit.” Meanwhile, on social media and in the press, commentators and analysts weighed in on the proposal, many expressing scepticism at and condemning the move.
The Sri Lanka Navy has since confirmed that it will be despatching a number of vessels to the region. While no date has been finalised yet, the Navy has stated that the deployment will be in support of Operation Prosperity Guardian, the United States led initiative combating Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. The rebels have vowed not to back down until Israel ends its attacks on Palestine. Since December, they have planned and carried out a series of drone and missile strikes which have forced cargo ships to reroute. In response, several countries, including India, have deployed vessels to the region.
Sri Lanka is the latest country to join these efforts, but its entry seems to have left more questions than answers. For one thing, the Red Sea operation marks the first major military confrontation between the US and the Houthi rebels. This has several crucial geopolitical implications.
On the one hand, the US and its allies have justified their intervention on the grounds of protecting international trade and shipping lines, while the Houthis have justified their attacks as a show of solidarity with Palestine and Gaza. On the other, the rebels are allegedly backed by Iran, which has so far belittled or ignored US warnings, and has gone so far as to deploy a warship in response to escalating tensions.
Complicating matters further, US allies themselves seem less than forthcoming about their involvement. When Washington launched Operation Prosperity Guardian in December, the Pentagon announced a united campaign of several countries, many from Europe. Yet apart from a few like the UK, most of them have kept their participation under wraps. The more forthcoming among them have made relatively modest contributions, while key allies such as Germany have been ambivalent about the extent of their intervention.
On the face of it, Europe’s indecisiveness has left an opening for US allies in other regions to assert their strength in the Red Sea operation. India, for instance, has despatched escorts, including frigates and destroyers, for Indian container ships.
The United States has invited Delhi to join its coalition, the Combined Maritime Forces, expanding its reach in the Red Sea as well as in adjacent regions. Yet while India has been willing to commission vessels to the Red Sea, it has preferred to maintain its own presence rather than joining a coalition. As of now, tellingly, no Asian country apart from Bahrain – the sole Gulf country to join – has deployed vessels for the operation; Singapore and Seychelles have agreed to take part, but only to contribute to information sharing.
Sri Lanka’s willingness to join with US forces is hence perplexing. Ostensibly, it is filling a gap no other Asian country has: in December, it became the 39th country to join the Combined Maritime Forces partnership. While details of the vessels that will be despatched to the Red Sea have yet to be confirmed, reports indicate they will be stationed outside the immediate Houthi weapons range, given the near absence of air defence and counter-missile systems in Sri Lankan Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs). When these vessels enter the Red Sea, they will be placed under the command of US Task Force 153.
Yet, however perplexing these developments may be, they are hardly unpredictable. The Sri Lankan and the US Navies have been engaging and cooperating with each other for a fairly long time. Last year, for instance, they embarked on a series of training sessions to prepare for disaster relief and “maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific.” These exercises and sessions will be conducted this year as well.
The US Navy has also handed over ships and coastguard cutters to the Sri Lankan Navy. In fact, two of the three ships which have been proposed for the Red Sea operation, SLNS Gajabahu and SLNS Vijayabahu, were gifted by the US in 2018 and 2021 respectively. Given these engagements, the Sri Lankan Navy’s willingness to deploy ships to the Red Sea under the US Fleet’s command is not entirely surprising.
There are arguments for and against the proposal on both the domestic and foreign policy front. On the domestic front, perhaps the biggest concern is cost. The operation is expected to burn up LKR 250 million or USD 777,000 every two weeks. The government has justified the expense on the basis that securing the Red Sea would help stabilise import prices. On the face of it, this is true. Marine insurance rates have more than tripled since the rebels began their campaign in the Red Sea, while at least one major shipping line has diverted to the longer alternative route around the Cape of Good Hope.
But Opposition lawmakers, critics of the government, and ordinary citizens have denounced the proposal on the grounds that it brings no immediate benefit to Sri Lanka. The Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa, for instance, questioned the need for such a campaign at a time when people were reeling from grinding austerity, including an unpopular Value-Added Tax which has led to massive price hikes nearly everywhere, and on every item.
Predictably, the move has also been condemned as hypocritical: while forcing Sri Lankans to practice economies at home, the government is doing the exact opposite abroad, and what’s worse, as the country’s leading political and foreign policy commentator Dr Dayan Jayatilleka observes, in a conflict that is “not our fight.”
According to political researcher and archivist Uthpala Wijesuriya, however, the problem hasn’t just to do with cost, but also with capability. While there has been no shortage of supporters of the proposal who confidently point at the Sri Lankan Navy’s past successes, including its operations against illegal drug peddling in the Arabian Sea and its supposedly untarnished historical record, the Navy relies almost exclusively on vessels gifted by foreign governments which have the latest capabilities. “The question in that sense isn’t whether we have money for these kinds of operations, but whether we have the capabilities we need and if not, who is going to give them to us,” Wijesuriya argues.
This is a valid concern. On the other hand, though, former Chief Hydrographer of the Sri Lankan Navy Rear Admiral Y. N. Jayarathna (Retd.) sees the proposal as a massive investment opportunity for the country’s military. He estimates that Sri Lanka’s OPVs require equipment like thermal cameras and stabilised platforms, and argues that the government’s decision could spur investments in such “operational necessities.” While conceding that the media may portray the government as a “US partner” vis-à-vis its operations in the Red Sea, he contends that it is time the Navy extends its activities to areas like the Gulf of Yemen and the Arabian Sea in partnership with other countries.
At the same time, however, international relations commentator Rathindra Kuruwita argues that there is a manpower problem in the military. “Motivation is at an all-time low in the army and the navy, because their members are feeling the impact of austerity, reduced food rations, and so on.” Against such a backdrop, Kuruwita says that no number of investments would motivate them to embark on such a risky mission in the Red Sea.
Moreover, perceptions of the Sri Lankan government joining up with US forces could make Sri Lanka vulnerable to attacks abroad, especially since the Houthis have vowed retaliation on anyone joining the US coalition. This has only been compounded by what Kuruwita views as Sri Lanka’s problematic stance on the Gaza issue.
“On the one hand, we are voting with the rest of the Global South on Palestine at the UN,” he says. “Yet on the other, we are sending our youth to Israel to meet labour shortages there after they expelled Palestinian workers.” According to Kuruwita, the Gaza issue has become particularly sensitive for Muslims in Sri Lanka and everywhere else. “The government is now acting in a way that is hurting their feelings. That could generate a backlash in the not-too-distant future.” All that, he concludes, could boomerang on the country, particularly as the Houthis have vowed to attack any ship connected to Israel, and the Sri Lankan government is about to join the US, Israel’s number one military partner, in the Red Sea.
These developments underlie the immense complexities that Sri Lanka faces in the current geopolitical context. The decision to deploy vessels to the Red Sea has turned the Sri Lankan Navy into more than just a passive bystander; it has turned it into an active participant in the tensions erupting in the region. While supporters of the decision may make grandiose claims about the Navy’s past successes, there is no doubt it has opened a can of worms in Sri Lanka, the full repercussions of which will be felt in the months to come.
A version of this article appeared in The Diplomat on January 11, 2024.
The writer is an international relations analyst, independent researcher, and freelance columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
Features
US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world
‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.
Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.
Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.
If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.
Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.
It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result for this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.
If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.
Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.
Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.
However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.
What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.
Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.
Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.
Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.
For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.
The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.
Features
Egg white scene …
Hi! Great to be back after my Christmas break.
Thought of starting this week with egg white.
Yes, eggs are brimming with nutrients beneficial for your overall health and wellness, but did you know that eggs, especially the whites, are excellent for your complexion?
OK, if you have no idea about how to use egg whites for your face, read on.
Egg White, Lemon, Honey:
Separate the yolk from the egg white and add about a teaspoon of freshly squeezed lemon juice and about one and a half teaspoons of organic honey. Whisk all the ingredients together until they are mixed well.
Apply this mixture to your face and allow it to rest for about 15 minutes before cleansing your face with a gentle face wash.
Don’t forget to apply your favourite moisturiser, after using this face mask, to help seal in all the goodness.
Egg White, Avocado:
In a clean mixing bowl, start by mashing the avocado, until it turns into a soft, lump-free paste, and then add the whites of one egg, a teaspoon of yoghurt and mix everything together until it looks like a creamy paste.
Apply this mixture all over your face and neck area, and leave it on for about 20 to 30 minutes before washing it off with cold water and a gentle face wash.
Egg White, Cucumber, Yoghurt:
In a bowl, add one egg white, one teaspoon each of yoghurt, fresh cucumber juice and organic honey. Mix all the ingredients together until it forms a thick paste.
Apply this paste all over your face and neck area and leave it on for at least 20 minutes and then gently rinse off this face mask with lukewarm water and immediately follow it up with a gentle and nourishing moisturiser.
Egg White, Aloe Vera, Castor Oil:
To the egg white, add about a teaspoon each of aloe vera gel and castor oil and then mix all the ingredients together and apply it all over your face and neck area in a thin, even layer.
Leave it on for about 20 minutes and wash it off with a gentle face wash and some cold water. Follow it up with your favourite moisturiser.
Features
Confusion cropping up with Ne-Yo in the spotlight
Superlatives galore were used, especially on social media, to highlight R&B singer Ne-Yo’s trip to Sri Lanka: Global superstar Ne-Yo to perform live in Colombo this December; Ne-Yo concert puts Sri Lanka back on the global entertainment map; A global music sensation is coming to Sri Lanka … and there were lots more!
At an official press conference, held at a five-star venue, in Colombo, it was indicated that the gathering marked a defining moment for Sri Lanka’s entertainment industry as international R&B powerhouse and three-time Grammy Award winner Ne-Yo prepares to take the stage in Colombo this December.
What’s more, the occasion was graced by the presence of Sunil Kumara Gamage, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs of Sri Lanka, and Professor Ruwan Ranasinghe, Deputy Minister of Tourism, alongside distinguished dignitaries, sponsors, and members of the media.
According to reports, the concert had received the official endorsement of the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, recognising it as a flagship initiative in developing the country’s concert economy by attracting fans, and media, from all over South Asia.
However, I had that strange feeling that this concert would not become a reality, keeping in mind what happened to Nick Carter’s Colombo concert – cancelled at the very last moment.
Carter issued a video message announcing he had to return to the USA due to “unforeseen circumstances” and a “family emergency”.
Though “unforeseen circumstances” was the official reason provided by Carter and the local organisers, there was speculation that low ticket sales may also have been a factor in the cancellation.
Well, “Unforeseen Circumstances” has cropped up again!
In a brief statement, via social media, the organisers of the Ne-Yo concert said the decision was taken due to “unforeseen circumstances and factors beyond their control.”
Ne-Yo, too, subsequently made an announcement, citing “Unforeseen circumstances.”
The public has a right to know what these “unforeseen circumstances” are, and who is to be blamed – the organisers or Ne-Yo!
Ne-Yo’s management certainly need to come out with the truth.
However, those who are aware of some of the happenings in the setup here put it down to poor ticket sales, mentioning that the tickets for the concert, and a meet-and-greet event, were exorbitantly high, considering that Ne-Yo is not a current mega star.
We also had a cancellation coming our way from Shah Rukh Khan, who was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka for the City of Dreams resort launch, and then this was received: “Unfortunately due to unforeseen personal reasons beyond his control, Mr. Khan is no longer able to attend.”
Referring to this kind of mess up, a leading showbiz personality said that it will only make people reluctant to buy their tickets, online.
“Tickets will go mostly at the gate and it will be very bad for the industry,” he added.
-
News7 days agoStreet vendors banned from Kandy City
-
Sports4 days agoGurusinha’s Boxing Day hundred celebrated in Melbourne
-
News2 days agoLeading the Nation’s Connectivity Recovery Amid Unprecedented Challenges
-
News7 days agoLankan aircrew fly daring UN Medevac in hostile conditions in Africa
-
Sports5 days agoTime to close the Dickwella chapter
-
Features3 days agoIt’s all over for Maxi Rozairo
-
Features7 days agoRethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya
-
Opinion7 days agoAre we reading the sky wrong?



