Features

The Delcy Doctrine

Published

2 months ago

2026/04/26

Delcy Rodríguez

Real politics is always played in grey areas; decisions are not made in parliamentary chambers or presidential palaces but in hotel corridors, private aircraft, and the quiet geometry of negotiated survival. What is presented as constitutional order is often only the visible skin of a deeper machinery where power is not declared but assembled. Most commentary on Venezuela portrays the removal of Nicolás Maduro as a sudden rupture that dismantled an entrenched centre of authority and rapidly produced a new governing nucleus around Delcy Rodríguez, reframing the state not as continuity but as immediate reconfiguration under a new operational centre of power.

The claim is simple in outline and explosive in implication: Maduro removed, detained abroad, his political inner circle dismantled; Rodríguez elevated from vice-presidential operator to acting head of state, inheriting not a ceremonial vacancy but a fractured state requiring immediate recomposition. Whether one treats this as confirmed fact, speculative journalism, or a constructed political scenario, the effect is the same in analytical terms. It produces a vacuum, and in politics vacuums are never empty. They are filled immediately, often brutally, and almost always by those closest to the mechanisms of control rather than the symbols of legitimacy.

Rodríguez, in this framing, is not behaving like a transitional leader waiting for instructions. She is behaving like an administrator of consolidation. Her public language repeatedly returns to a controlled moral vocabulary: Venezuela, she insists, is “forging a path of national reunification”, “free from the divisions of classism and racism”, and rooted “in the pursuit of peace.” It is a carefully constructed grammar of stabilisation. Nothing in it is accidental. Reunification replaces rupture. Peace replaces conflict. Inclusion replaces accusation. It is the language of systems attempting to re-legitimise themselves after fracture.

Yet language in moments like this does not describe reality so much as attempt to discipline it. Every invocation of unity implies prior fragmentation. Every appeal to peace implies a preceding logic of coercion. What is being built is not only a political order but an interpretive frame in which that order can survive scrutiny.

Reports associated with this narrative describe rapid administrative restructuring: ministerial changes, security realignments, and renewed engagement with global financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund. The return of financial dialogue after years of rupture is framed as a restoration of economic normality, yet it also functions as something more fundamental: conditional recognition. Access to financial systems is never neutral. It is a form of admission into an international order that confers legitimacy as much as liquidity.

A frequently cited poll attributed to this period places Rodríguez at 73 per cent approval among Venezuelans. Whether statistically rigorous or politically constructed, the number itself performs a different function. It stabilises perception. In transitional environments, polling is rarely about measurement alone; it is about producing the sensation of consensus in moments where consensus is structurally fragile. Numbers become instruments of narrative control rather than reflections of social reality.

What emerges across these accounts is a dual reading of Rodríguez’s role. For supporters, she is the stabiliser of a collapsing system, the figure capable of converting disorder into administrative continuity. For critics, she is the executor of elite reconfiguration, replacing one closed network with another while maintaining the architecture of concentrated power. Both readings contain truth, not because they agree, but because transitional power almost always generates contradictory interpretations of the same actions.

The deeper logic resembles a familiar political pattern: when central authority collapses, the question is not who is most legitimate but who is most capable of controlling institutions that actually matter. Security structures, financial channels, energy infrastructure, and diplomatic access become the real terrain of power. Ideology becomes secondary to control of operational systems. In that sense, Rodríguez is not an anomaly but a product of a very old political problem: how to maintain state coherence when legitimacy is contested and authority has been disrupted.

There is a long historical memory for this kind of moment. Rome did not end its republic through a single act but through incremental consolidation, where Augustus transformed emergency authority into a permanent structure while preserving republican language. Power changed form without changing vocabulary. In post-revolutionary France, figures like Talleyrand survived every ideological shift by treating loyalty as subordinate to institutional survival. The pattern is not moral; it is structural. Systems under stress reward adaptability over conviction.

The uncomfortable implication is that such transitions rarely offer clean moral categories. The language of betrayal and loyalty becomes unstable when applied to environments where institutional survival itself depends on the reconfiguration of alliances. What appears as betrayal from one perspective can appear as necessity from another. Politics in such contexts is not a question of ethical clarity but of functional continuity under pressure.

Even the symbolic inheritance of Chávez-era rhetoric complicates interpretation. His denunciation of Western power as “the devil” once represented ideological confrontation with global systems of influence. In the current configuration of events, however, the same state tradition appears to be engaging selectively with those same systems through financial reintegration and diplomatic recalibration. The contradiction is not unique to Venezuela; it is a recurring feature of states that move from confrontation to survival pragmatism. Ideological purity rarely survives institutional stress.

Rodríguez, within this contested framing, operates at the intersection of these contradictions. She is simultaneously presented as guardian of sovereignty and manager of reintegration into the Western financial structures. She speaks in the language of resistance while engaging in the mechanics of external normalisation. That duality is not incoherence; it is the condition of governance under constraint, where no single ideological position can fully account for the demands of survival.

It is tempting to describe this as either redemption or capture, but both interpretations flatten the reality of transitional authority. What exists instead is a corridor of constrained decision-making, where every action is shaped by pressure from multiple directions: internal fragmentation, external expectation, institutional inertia. Within that corridor, politics becomes less about declaring direction and more about preventing collapse.

This is why the figure of Rodríguez generates such divergent readings. She is not operating in a stable system where legitimacy is settled. She is operating in a system where legitimacy itself is part of the struggle. Every reform is also a negotiation. Every consolidation is also a risk. Every gesture of unity is also an act of exclusion somewhere else in the structure.

The deeper political lesson is that modern state transitions rarely resemble the narratives used to describe them. They are not clean breaks or linear progressions. They are layered adjustments in which old structures are partially dismantled, partially preserved, and partially repurposed. The result is not resolution but managed ambiguity.

In that sense, Rodríguez is not an exception but an expression of a broader political condition: the necessity of governing through instability rather than after it. Whether one interprets that as betrayal or transformation depends less on evidence than on political positioning. The structure itself does not resolve the ambiguity; it produces it. The irony is that political systems often attempt to justify themselves through historical memory while simultaneously repeating its most uncomfortable patterns. When power changes hands, justice changes meaning. As the old saying goes, in politics, loyalty is a currency that devalues quickly.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

All News Advertisement

Features

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

Published

8 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Features

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

Published

8 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lahiru Prakash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond tourism, Supun emphasised the ecological importance of elephants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Top Model of the World 2026

Published

8 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

Back-to-back victory for Colombia

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

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

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

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

Primary Subsidiary Titles

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

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

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

Special Awards Recognition

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

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

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

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

Final Placement

Winner: Katherine Castaño (Colombia)

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

2nd Runner-Up: Eunice Deza (Philippines)

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

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

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