Political Asylum Must Not Become a Shield Against Accountability
We respectfully call upon foreign governments, the European Union, and the United Nations to apply the highest level of scrutiny when considering asylum or protection requests from former public officials, law-enforcement officers, prosecutors, or politically involved persons.
This appeal is made under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which allow protection from persecution while providing exclusion where there are reasons to consider involvement in serious politically-motivated crimes, abuse of office, or acts contrary to UN principles.
Political asylum is a vital safeguard for genuine victims of persecution, but it must not undermine accountability for actions taken while in public office.
International refugee law also includes exclusion clauses requiring careful assessment of credible allegations of serious misconduct through due process and relevant judicial or investigative mechanisms.
A key concern is that some individuals who hold or have held significant public authority may abuse their positions and then seek to use international asylum mechanisms to avoid domestic judicial accountability for their actions.
This creates a structural gap between international asylum systems and domestic judicial accountability frameworks.
We therefore urge decision-makers to assess:
• Level of public authority or influence exercised
• Allegations of abuse of office or misuse of state power
• Existence of credible judicial or investigative proceedings
• Whether asylum claims are linked to avoidance of accountability
• Findings of courts, commissions, or parliamentary bodies
This appeal does not oppose the right to seek asylum or to prejudge individual cases. It calls for enhanced due diligence in cases involving senior public officials whose conduct is under serious scrutiny and even recommended for penal code actions.
International protection systems must not operate as de facto immunity from accountability, and must ensure that protection is not extended to those seeking to evade lawful processes.
The credibility of international protection depends on careful and principled application — ensuring protection for those in genuine need while preventing misuse that may undermine the rule of law or turn foreign jurisdictions into safe havens for those attempting to avoid accountability.
Justice must protect the innocent — not shield impunity.
Modern day Ehelapolas are not in governance like in the days of the Kandyan Kingdom but in Cricket. The recruitment of a White South African legal malpractitioner David Becker (born and bred in the ‘Apartheid’ er) who blocked Sri Lanka from gaining due credit from the ICC for innovation of Player – Referral (DRS) is the greatest betrayal in the Cricket History of Sri Lanka.
The so-called Cricket Transformation Committee are the modern day traitors of Sri Lanka. Instead of backing their own man who game changed international Cricket ( and several other sports) with the revolutionary concept of Player – Referral ( DRS), and brought world wide recognition to Sri Lanka, the Chairman of the Committee and his Committee have chosen to pay the very lawyer who authored the legal briefs against their own countryman. [1, 2, 3]
Both David Richardson ( Mastermind of the ICC scam ) and David Becker followed by Jonathan Hall ( General Counsel of ICC) have a lot to answer for their fraud, misrepresentation, and professional malpractice that has impacted on Sri Lanka, a near bankrupt country, in multiple ways. The fact that they can walk laughingly to the Bank with the money that has been generated by illegal use of DRS is not only a display of their cunning but the lack of due diligence on the part of Sri Lanka’s Cricket Administrators, then and now.
The DNA of Ehelapola appear to run in the veins of some of our Cricket Administrators. By this very insensitive act without vetting the background of the South Africans such as David Becker and David Richardson who are co – religionists, the Chairman of the Committee (a man with a Chequered past in evangelical work) has shown that he has scant regard for the high end achievements of people of his own country that unfortunately belong to another faith. I hope that this interpretation of religious prejudice is wrong. But the primary blame for such thoughts to arise in others must be borne solely by Mr. Eran Wickremaratne, the Chairman of the Committee who has yet to show the spirit of cricket, fairplay and justice in the handling of the DRS issue.
Eran Wickremaratne calls himself an Evangelist. Such a man can never be neutral or trustworthy. A mindset focused solely on religious conversion can view other traditions as flawed. His choice of David Becker, a South African lawyer with a track record of misrepresentation and professional negligence and depriving Sri Lanka of due rewards, says it all. DRS does not interest Eran Wickremaratne for reasons best known to him.
He is duty bound however to ensure that Justice is done to the claimant of the invention ‘ Player – Referral’ – A Sri Lankan.
AI response
Local advocates frequently invoke the historical imagery of Ehelapola—a reference to Ehelapola Nilame, a prominent historical figure associated with internal betrayal in the Kandyan Kingdom—to describe local officials whom they believe failed to fiercely defend Sri Lankan intellectual property. Critics argue that both Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) and successive sports ministries have not adequately lobbied the ICC to secure formal national accolades or potential financial royalties for Weeraratna’s foundational blueprint. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
The term “Modern Day Ehelapolas” in the context of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) is a scathing historical metaphor used by local fans, journalists, and politicians to describe cricket administrators, officials, and occasionally players accused of institutional betrayal, corruption, and selling out the national game for personal gain. [1, 2]
The moniker draws directly from Ehelepola Nilame, the infamous 19th-century Kandyan courtier who allied with the British colonial forces to overthrow King Sri Wikrama Rajasinha, inadvertently leading to the downfall of the last independent Sri Lankan kingdom. In contemporary cricket discourse, calling someone an “Ehelapola” means accusing them of stabbing the nation’s beloved sport in the back for financial or political kickbacks. [1, 2]
Why the Metaphor is Used in SLC
The Vote-Buying “Kingdom”: Critics frequently compare the SLC administration to a feudal kingdom. Because of a constitutional system requiring 147 votes from localized clubs to win board elections, the same individuals have maintained power for decades by alleged vote-buying, creating an untouchable inner circle.
Misuse of National Wealth: Much like historical courtiers depleting royal coffers, modern SLC administrations face intense scrutiny over financial irregularities. Official Auditor General reports have cited massive corruption, including using cricket funds for luxury family travel, rigged procurement of stadium equipment (like Super Soppers), and the mishandling of international tournament tickets.
Inviting Foreign Interference (The ICC Ban): Just as Ehelepola invited a foreign power (the British) into Kandy, ousted SLC officials have historically been accused of running to the International Cricket Council (ICC) to trigger global bans on Sri Lanka as a weapon against domestic government oversight. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Sociological studies indicate that exclusive religious dogmas can directly contribute to mistrust and prejudice toward out-groups.
Key Instances Labeled as “Betrayals”
The “Ehelapola” tag is usually thrown around during major institutional crises:
Following disastrous World Cup outings, the Sports Ministry labeled the entrenched SLC board as “traitorous and corrupt.” Former President Shammi Silva and his committee faced fierce public backlash for defending their positions through courts rather than conceding to national interest.
The 2026 Government Takeover
In April 2026, under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the government stepped in forcibly to dissolve the board over fresh corruption storms. This forced a structural reset, installing a Cricket Transforming Committee led by Eran Wickramaratne to purge the “modern day traitors” from management.
Domestic Match-Fixing Cartels
The title is heavily pinned on local match-fixers and bookmakers. The recent criminal convictions under Sri Lanka’s tough anti-corruption laws—such as the High Court sentencing local cricketers and Lanka Premier League (LPL) team associates—are viewed as modern instances of individuals trading national pride for illegal betting money.
The Pakistan Tour Pull-out Scare
In late 2025, a quiet crisis emerged where several senior players reportedly attempted to coax teammates into abandoning a high-profile tour of Pakistan due to sudden financial and security manipulation, nearly sabotaging crucial sports diplomacy.
The Moving Front: Cleansing the Game
Driven by public disgust, Sri Lanka has enacted rigid legislation that criminalizes sports corruption. The current trajectory involves handing the reins over to respected cricketing legends like Kumar Sangakkara, Roshan Mahanama, and Sidath Wettimuny under the 2026 interim reforms—an explicit attempt to rid the administration of its “Modern Day Ehelapolas” and restore public trust.
Embracing David Becker without a ‘ De- Nazification ‘ vetting process the ICC allowed a man later discovered to be intellectually dishonest, professionally negligent in giving flawed advice to the ICC and indulging in Malpractice to embarrass the ICC. The Sri Lanka Cricket ( SLC) ( Cricket Transformation Committee) has repeated that mistake. Unfortunately.
The recent protests by rice farmers across Sri Lanka once again highlight the deep crisis facing the agricultural sector. Thousands of paddy farmers are voicing their anger over the government-announced purchase price of paddy, claiming that it does not even cover the cost of production.
The cost of cultivation has risen sharply over the past few years. Fertiliser prices have increased substantially, while farmers also have to bear the costs of seed paddy, labour, machinery, irrigation, transportation, and interest on borrowings. Many small-scale farmers have mortgaged their jewellery or borrowed money from informal lenders just to cultivate their fields. For them, a low paddy price is not merely an economic issue; it is a question of survival.
At the same time, the country witnesses the phenomenal rise of a handful of large rice millers. There are reports of these business magnates importing luxury vehicles and even rumours of plans to acquire helicopters.
Whether such reports are accurate or not, they have fuelled public perception that enormous profits are being made by purchasing paddy from farmers at low prices and later selling rice at significantly higher prices to consumers.
This disparity raises an important question: who really benefits from the nation’s rice economy? The farmers who toil under the scorching sun and depend on uncertain weather conditions, or the intermediaries and mill owners who dominate the market?
The government has both a moral and economic responsibility to protect paddy farmers. One possible approach would be to conduct thorough audits of the tax returns and financial declarations of major rice millers to ensure full compliance with tax laws. Sri Lanka collects substantial revenues through import duties and taxes paid by these large businesses. A portion of such revenue could be earmarked to establish a sustainable paddy purchasing mechanism and support scheme for farmers.
The state can intervene through agencies to purchase paddy at a reasonable guaranteed price, maintain buffer stocks, and prevent market manipulation by a few dominant players. Such an intervention would not be a handout but an investment in food security and rural livelihoods.
Rice farmers are the backbone of Sri Lanka’s food supply. They ensure that millions of families have their daily meal on the table. They are, in every sense, the breadwinners—or rather the rice winners”—of our nation. If the country fails to protect them today, it risks undermining both its agricultural heritage and its future food security.
A nation that values its farmers is a nation that safeguards its own survival. The cries of the protesting paddy farmers should not be ignored. They deserve a fair price, dignity for their labour, and policies that ensure prosperity rather than poverty.
The story concocted by Revisionists that Prince Siddhartha (later Gautama the Buddha) was born in Sri Lanka, which is rejected by the entire Buddhist world, if it takes hold, can lead to Sri Lanka being treated like a pariah state by the entire global Buddhist community.
The damage done to Sri Lanka would be colossal and inestimable. The Govt. of Sri Lanka must invoke Article 9 of the Constitution and nip this de-construction in the bud.
Accepting the historical revisionist claim that Gautama Buddha was born in Sri Lanka would cause severe diplomatic, economic, and cultural crises for the island nation. Because the global Buddhist community and modern scholarship universally recognize Lumbini, Nepal as the Buddha’s actual birthplace, promoting this alternative narrative isolates Sri Lanka on the world stage. [1, 2]
📉 Devastation of Religious Tourism and the Economy
Loss of Pilgrims: Millions of Buddhist pilgrims from Thailand, Japan, South Korea, and China would avoid Sri Lanka out of protest or structural distrust.
Economic Downturn: A collapse in arrivals would cripple the tourism sector, devastating hotels, local guides, and aviation revenue.
Loss of Foreign Aid: Wealthy Buddhist nations and international organizations could withdraw funding for heritage preservation and local infrastructure.
🏛️ Complete Loss of Academic and Cultural Credibility
Academic Isolation: Sri Lankan historians, archaeologists, and universities would face a loss of credibility, leading to exclusion from global research projects and international journals.
UNESCO Sanctions: Knowingly promoting fabricated historical claims regarding ancient sites could jeopardize the status of Sri Lanka’s current UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
Loss of Soft Power: Sri Lanka would lose its respected status as a custodian of Theravada Buddhism, diminishing its cultural influence in global forums. [1]
🌍 Diplomatic Fallout and Geopolitical Strain
Rift with Nepal and India: Falsely claiming the birthplace of the Buddha directly undermines the cultural heritage and historical sovereignty of Nepal and India, severely fracturing bilateral relations.
Strained Regional Alliances: Traditional allies in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with strong Buddhist identities would distance themselves diplomatically from Sri Lanka. [1]
⚡ Internal Social and Religious Polarization
Domestic Theological Rifts: The local Buddhist clergy (the Maha Sangha) would face severe internal division, pitting traditionalists against radical revisionist factions.
Rise in Extremism: Fabricated historical narratives often fuel ethnocentric extremism, which could worsen domestic social instability and fracture relations with non-Buddhist minority communities in Sri Lanka. [1, 2]
Would you like to explore how the Sri Lankan government and mainstream clergy are currently responding to these revisionist claims, or do you want to look into the archaeological evidence that establishes Lumbini as the official birthplace?
SLC seek expertise of David Becker, former ICC Legal Head on key reforms while facing intense public and legal allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and professional malpractice.
SLC accused of Betrayal of Sri Lankan inventor of Player – Referral (DRS)
Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) has enlisted the services of former ICC Head of Legal, David Becker, to help draft its proposed new constitution as part of critical governance reforms. Ironically, Becker is a central figure in the long-standing intellectual property dispute surrounding the Umpire Decision Review System (DRS), which Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna claims to have invented in 1997 under the name “Player Referral”. Local critics and intellectual property advocates view SLC’s hiring of Becker as a deep betrayal of Weeraratna, given Becker’s history of legally blocking the Sri Lankan inventor’s claims at the international level. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
🏛️ The Constitutional Reforms and David Becker’s Role
Sri Lanka Cricket’s current Transformation Committee, chaired by Eran Wickramaratne, is driving structural adjustments to ensure the board complies with International Cricket Council (ICC) standards. [1, 2]
The Mandate: Becker, a prominent South African sports lawyer, was brought to Colombo to establish a governance structure aimed at eliminating vote-buying, political interference, and manipulation in cricket administration.
The Goal: Finalizing a transparent constitution that can pass local parliamentary approval and satisfy the ICC so that fresh democratic board elections can take place. [1, 2]
🏏 The Controversy: Senaka Weeraratna and the “Player Referral” System
Senaka Weeraratna, a Colombo-based lawyer, formally proposed the concept of a “Player Referral System” in 1997 through international publications like The Australian. [1, 2]
The Appellate Framework: Applying legal concepts to sports, Weeraratna argued that the absolute finality of an on-field umpire’s decision should yield to an appellate review by a third umpire using video technology. He also conceived strategic limits to avoid delaying the game.
The ICC Rollout: The ICC introduced this exact conceptual framework in 2008–2009 as the Umpire Decision Review System (DRS). While technologies like Hawk-Eye or Hot Spot are third-party engineering feats, the rules governing how players challenge decisions belong to Weeraratna’s conceptual blueprint.
The Anomaly: Unlike the rain-calculated Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (DLS) method, the ICC has refused to credit Weeraratna or attach any inventor’s name to the DRS. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The decision by SLC to seek Becker’s expertise has sparked heavy backlash from local legal and sports circles due to his past defense of the ICC against Sri Lankan intellectual property: [1, 2]
As ICC Head of Legal, Becker issued an opinion stating the ICC Cricket Committee independently came up with DRS and was entirely unaware of Weeraratna’s work.
It effectively blocked Weeraratna from receiving initial international accolades and royalties.
The “Waiver” Defense
Becker argued that because Weeraratna published his idea openly in newspapers without a formal patent, he had “waived his right to confidentiality”.
This legal technicality allowed the ICC to commercialize and license the system globally without paying or recognizing the composer.
The Question of Notice
Becker’s stance relied on a “No Awareness” defense. However, evidence later emerged that a dossier of Weeraratna’s work was hand-delivered to former ICC GM David Richardson in Colombo in July 2008.
Legal critics argue Becker’s advice bypassed the Doctrine of Constructive Notice, making the hiring of him by SLC highly offensive to local IP advocates.
Cricket advocates in the country express disappointment that while Weeraratna has approached SLC countless times for support to secure global recognition, the local board has maintained a “deafening silence”—and has now instead chosen to pay the very lawyer who authored the legal briefs against their own countryman. [1, 2, 3]
https://share.google/aimode/fWwl6NbIWEZxpmWNc
Source: AI Overview
Former ICC Head of Legal David Becker faces intense public and legal allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and professional malpractice stemming from a controversial 2010 legal opinion. This opinion systematically denied intellectual property credit to Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna, who conceptualized the “Player Referral” framework that forms the core architecture of cricket’s modern Umpire Decision Review System (DRS). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The controversy has escalated due to new evidence indicating that cricket authorities had direct, physical knowledge of Weeraratna’s work before implementing the system. This development has shifted the discourse from institutional oversight to potential criminal negligence. [1, 2]
The Core of the Accusations
The ongoing legal dispute and allegations of malpractice against David Becker center on the following core elements:
The “No Awareness” Defense: In 2010, Becker issued an official ICC legal stance asserting that the governing body was completely unaware of Weeraratna’s 1997 concept during their internal deliberations. He argued that by widely publishing the concept in international newspapers, Weeraratna had waived his rights to confidentiality.
Oversight of “Constructive Notice”: Legal experts and advocates for Weeraratna argue that Becker’s opinion fundamentally misapplied intellectual property principles. They assert that because the four-pillar “Player Referral” system was published globally in prominent media outlets nearly a decade before the ICC’s 2006 trials, the ICC is legally deemed to have had constructive notice of the concept.
Actual Physical Notice Discovered: Recent documentation reveals that in July 2008, the then-ICC General Manager of Cricket, David Richardson, was handed a comprehensive dossier on Weeraratna’s innovation during an official visit to Colombo. A second copy was delivered directly to the ICC in Dubai in 2009. Critics argue that maintaining a denial of knowledge while holding physical proof exposes Becker and the ICC legal team to liability as accessories to fraud and material misrepresentation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8]
Parallel Developments in Sri Lanka
The public backlash against Becker has reached a unique intersection with local cricket administration. Even as these serious malpractice allegations circulate on independent forums like LankaWeb, Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) has independently engaged David Becker’s consulting expertise. He was brought on by the SLC Transformation Committee to advise on drafting a new, transparent constitution aimed at eliminating vote-buying and ensuring compliance with international sports governance standards. [1, 2, 3]
This dual role—being accused of subverting a Sri Lankan innovator’s rights while simultaneously drafting the national cricket board’s foundational governance document—has fueled significant institutional friction and debate regarding vetting standards within global cricket administration. [1]
To bypass internal ICC committees and challenge the legacy of Becker’s legal opinions, intellectual property advocates are recommending several tiered remedies: [1]
Professional Malpractice Lawsuits: Initiating formal misconduct complaints with statutory law societies against the advising attorneys for professional negligence.
Sovereign Intervention: Pressuring the Sri Lankan government to elevate the dispute to a state-level intellectual property protection issue.
Arbitration: Pushing both parties to mutually submit the authorship timeline to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne for a neutral verdict. [1, 2, 3]
If you would like to look closer into this dispute, let me know if you want to explore the specific timeline of Weeraratna’s 1997 media publications or the technical similarities between his original “Player Referral” architecture and the current DRS rules. [1, 2, 3]
Colombo National Hospital currently provides treatment to retired Major General Tuan Suresh Sallay following a hunger strike in Criminal Investigation Department custody under detention orders, amidst a refusal by authorities to grant him access to legal counsel.
Criminal Investigation Department Director Shani Abeysekera and Manori Sallay, the wife of Tuan Suresh Sallay, exchanged letters regarding the matter. Manori Sallay requested that her husband see his lawyer, Asitha Siriwardhana, five days a week. Replying yesterday, Senior Superintendent of Police Shani Abeysekera stated that because Tuan Suresh Sallay undergoes hospitalisation away from investigative activities, a need for legal advice does not arise at this time.
The Director noted that constant legal meetings could deprive the suspect of mental rest and adversely affect his health, adding that court orders restrict lawyer visits to Wednesdays only. Furthermore, daily access remains blocked for the lawyer because the family receives permission to visit daily.
Responding today, Manori Sallay labelled the denial of legal assistance due to hospitalisation illegal and deeply concerning. She emphasised that legal counsel represents a fundamental right of a detained person rather than a privilege withheld at the discretion of the department.
The hunger strike stems from physical, mental, and emotional pressure endured whilst in custody, placing the full responsibility for his safety on the Director. Despite a two-month detention, questioning occurred only on limited occasions, suggesting the prolonged custody serves to exert severe pressure rather than fulfil an investigative requirement. Rejecting the claim that the block protects his health, she insisted decisions regarding representation rest with the family and lawyers, not the accusing institution, and requested the immediate provision of legal assistance.
‘Before you study the economics, study the economists!’
e-Con e-News 07-13 June 2026
While the USA’s & India’s warships (& related NGOs) keep barging into & out of the country’s ports, bearing second-hand gifts and dishing out third-rate sermons about human rights, devolution, the rule of law, free & open oceans, etc., Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya was gracing the opening of the new Nippon Office Building, commissioned by the Sasakawa Memorial Trust, on Ward Place, Colombo 7. The trust is in memory of Ryōichi Sasakawa, a convicted Japanese Class A war criminal.
The day before the Sasakawa event, Amarasuriya informed Parliament that 267,138 children had dropped out of the school system between 2018-24 – many because the school system could not accommodate their needs, or their parents could not afford to keep them there. What perhaps-inadvertent yet subconscious messaging by the PM does this sequencing of events mean to convey? A country that cannot nurture or employ its people, let alone with dignity, must get rid of them somehow. Migration is not a possibility for everyone. Ryōichi Sasakawa’s answer to unemployment was to wage war, becoming part of an imperialist project that killed millions of Asians – genocidal acts Japan still refuses to apologize for, to Asians at least (see ee23May 2026). Despite Sasakawa’s support for Japan’s attack on the USA’s Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, the USA still pardoned him and recruited him into their post-1949 Anti-China lobby.
The siting of the ‘Nippon Office Building’ on Ward Place is also redolent of history. Ward Place also sites the ‘Eye Hospital’, that has helped give sight to many an awkward eye. Ward Place also sites ‘Braemar’, the last residence of President JR Jayawardene. The now-deceased Jayawardene is credited with misusing the Buddha’s words to rehabilitate Japan (as well as forgive England’s reparations to Sri Lanka) at that 1951 San Francisco Conference, that excluded the USSR and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
*
On that same June day last week that PM Amarasuriya met the war criminal Ryōichi’s son – Nippon Foundation Chairman Yohei Sasakawa – the Daily Mirror published an interview with the Ambassador of Japan to SL Akio Isomata, ‘warning’ Sri Lanka, ‘that opportunities for investment & export-led growth cannot be delayed indefinitely.’ Sri Lanka has to ‘capitalize on a Japanese-backed export-oriented industrialisation initiative designed to integrate Sri Lankan manufacturers into regional supply chains linked to India, Japan & wider Asian markets’ (see ee Business, Walk the Talk: Japan urges…). Indeed, their plan is to install ‘an economic caste system: Sri Lanka has to only produce ‘inputs’, India will capture ‘assembly margins’, and Japan shall capture ‘technology rents & FDI returns’ (see ee 23 May 2026).
Two days prior to the Sasakawa launch, Sri Lanka’s cabinet announced a new Japanese program called the ‘Employment Program for Skill Development’ to send workers to unnamed ‘key sectors, as [Japan] faces a shortage of local labor force due to declining population, and an increasing ageing population’ (see ee Workers).
Amarasuriya heads the ruling NPP government in parliament, which is unable (or does not wish) to control the merchants and moneylenders that have driven the country’s economy into a dead end. Instead, the government’s judicial tools are actively prosecuting leaders & officials of the previous government who had brought an Indian-sponsored terrorist war to an end, accusing them of numerous crimes, corruption & terrorism. Such acts appear bound to create an endless revolving door of revenge, as one government replaces another, in this expensive game of electoral roulette, where the unregistered Merchant Capitalist Party (MCP) always ends up the winner.
Meanwhile, the merchant media keep deploying euphemisms about ‘conflict’ & ‘oil crisis’ & ‘supply-chain disruption’, too afraid to name the perpetrators: that it is the USA & its armed poodles (EU+Japan) that are wreaking chaos around the world, and profiting handsomely, too.
*
‘From its creation to modern times, the USA
has been defined as a racial project’
Europe slaughtered 100 million indigenous Americans, and enslaved 4 million Africans, to brand that continent ‘The New World.’ Thus, begins ee’s 5th instalment of the Tricontinental Institute (TI)’s ‘Hyper-Imperialism: A Dangerous Decadent New Stage’. This excerpt of their monumental essay, details ‘The Evolution of Imperialism – the New Stage of Imperialism,’ pointing out that the US ruling class structure can only be understood by recognizing its white supremacist patriarchal character. Defining ‘Hyper-Imperialism’ by this history of genocide & enslavement, they track the concept’s core to the transition from England to the USA as an ‘Anglo-American Project’ (see ee Focus).
TI traces the modern origins of the term, imperialism, to the work of Hilferding & Lenin, and its basis in the domination of the economy by monopolies (which were anyway always the basis of ‘free trade’), and the switch from steam to electric power, which led to superprofits. TI describes the reorganization of the financial system after World War 2, with the formation of the World Bank & IMF, to enforce the convertibility of all currencies into the USDollar, and of the dollar into gold. NATO, formed in 1949 to dominate Europe and overthrow socialist countries, using ‘soft power’ at first (nominal independence, & economic subordination). In 1971 the US unilaterally suspended the US$’s convertibility into gold. Since the 1980s they have been moving to the overt genocide again, that they enact before our eyes alongside ‘neoliberalism’, whose features such as privatization, debt bondage, & the rigid enforcement of ‘intellectual property rights’, TI describes, culminating in the ‘rise of digital monopoly capital, exemplified by Google seeking to dominate the whole world (except for China, Russia, Iran, DPR Korea, Cuba, & a few others). They also examine the rise of imperialist ‘cultural, political & foreign policy hegemony’ made possible by the monopoly status of US technologies, including Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, X…’
*
‘Why don’t the educated have a public consciousness, a national & a social consciousness?’, mused SBD de Silva. ‘We lack a social & political history of the character of the local bourgeoisie, of the absence of nationalism & of the role of the bourgeois’ – there is no such account. English colonial governor Henry McCallum (1907-13) ‘hacked the unprogressive nature of the local bourgeoisie, saying they were not concerned about the rural masses, and only concerned about their private interests’.
England’s Donoughmore Commission (1927-31) reforms were implemented and a State Council was elected under universal suffrage in 1931. This ‘bourgeoisie’ in Sri Lanka had opposed the recommended grant of the franchise:
‘There is no compare to the rise of the Indonesian elite
who were nationalist, or to Kenya, or the Indian bourgeoisie.
Our local bourgeoisie had opposed the franchise, played
politics based on caste, & were collaborationist, despite
Kumari Jayawardena’s claim of their role in the independence
movement. It was not in the character of these bourgeoisie,
they were not one bit radical. The Left, the LSSP, was quite
overconfident about the anti-imperialism of the masses, and
its leadership. Outside the ranks of the Left, the bourgeoisie
were rentiers & traders, refusing to make concessions to the
masses. & they were caste-ridden. The politician Ponnambalam
Ramanathan opposed universal franchise as he felt that the caste
system was an integral part of the Hindu way of life. He informed
London, that he would change his political allegiance, if he
& his family were photographed with their queen.
*
Of course, it is curious why the English were so eager to ‘grant’ the franchise here, long before doing so in their other colonies. Certainly, the mass of workers & peasants remained unorganized after England’s savage repressions of the 19th and early 20th century (1818, 1848, 1915). We are also unclear about whether this fraction of ‘rentiers and traders’ could be called a ‘bourgeoisie’, like the ‘middle class’ that emerged in western Europe between their peasantry and landed gentry, to establish modern (machine-making) industrial capitalism. The ruling merchants and moneylender in Sri Lanka, sought quick profits, and feared industrialization would shape an organized working class.
*
The nature of Sri Lanka’s ruling class (ie, if they really do ‘rule’, and not merely ‘perform’) and the new fraction of ‘schooled’ wannabes that have emerged since 1948 (& 1956, in particular), is examined in the recently translated excerpt (see ee Focus) of Sena Thoradeniya’s keynote at the 2013 launch of Gunadasa Amarasekera’s novel Roopantharanaya. Thoradeniya, novelist & controversial author of Galle Face Protest; Systems Change or Anarchy? exposes the narrow criticisms of his positive reviews of Amarasekera’s literary takes on ‘the evolution of Sri Lanka’s middle class’. Thoradeniya’s analysis is exceptional for he examines literature & literary criticism through an unabashed Marxist-Leninist sweep of history & society. He criticizes false claims to a ‘political art’ and exposes the hubris of wannabes in a hurry to abandon their cultural ethos through the eponymous ‘hero’ of Gunadasa’s novel, who rises via infantile adventurism & NGO patronage to become a professor & diplomatic envoy.
The shallowness of Sri Lanka’s intellectual production is unbared by our degreed scholars (who revel in decorating themselves with such appellations as ‘Doctor’ minus the prescriptions & prognoses) who energetically manoeuvre to bask in borrowed feathers by adopting relatively unknown European role models. The more-obscure sophists adopt the fascist Heideggers & opportunistic Arendts & opaque Lacans; the more-shallow adopt the superficial Zizeks, while the old run-of-the-mill quote such anti-communist luminaries as Orwell. Economic analysts stick to limited framings of Adam Smith (minus his appeal to morality) & Maynard Keynes (minus his welfare to military budgets), and the more-untried utopias of Friedrich Hayek. Then there are those who love to repeatedly quote Lee Kwan Yew (minus acknowledging industrial city-state Singapore’s highly statist economic underpinnings) especially to hit out at the depredations of our purportedly Sinhala-Buddhist policies. Still more are those who declare Marxism dead, and when confronted with the reality of an insistently Marxist-Leninist People’s Republic of China, seek to divide that country into pre- & post-Mao Zedong, turn 1978 against 1949, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution vs the Reform & Opening-up.
Shiran Illanperuma (see ee Focus) concludes ‘only now do we have the data & empirical tools to begin to answer’ such riddles as to whether China’s Reform & Opening-up process in 1978:
‘Was a capitulation to imperialist capital & neocolonial globalization,
or part of a long-game to develop China’s productive forces so as to create
the material conditions for economic sovereignty & common prosperity.’
*
Illanperuma offers China’s story as a ‘model for Sri Lanka’ to adapt. With intricate statistics, he shows that ‘China has both integrated into the global cycle of accumulation and ‘delinked’’. Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin proposed the concept of ‘delinking’, stressing that ‘delinking was not autarky; it was the subordination of external relations to the imperatives of internal accumulation.’ Indeed, our media economists must repeatedly parrot the need for ‘exports’ failing or unable to explain that everything and at all times must be based on the long-term goals of the nation.
*
One of the more popular myths about plantations claim that they use the most advanced production techniques, even as the bulk of their workers still use methods (plucking, tapping, etc) 100s of years old. They even claim modern technological & management practices are demanded by their foreign ownership. Examine the repeated whingeing by the EU about food safety, the World Bank about food processing, and the USA about forced labor (see ee Sovereignty, Do-or-Die EU GSP+ bid spurs major reforms, etc). None of their pronouncements point out that the most basic human rights are the ‘right to develop’ & the ‘right to enjoy happy lives’, as China recently declared.
This ee Focus begins Chapter 11 of SBD de Silva’s 1982 classic The Political Economy of Underdevelopment, a chapter that focuses on ‘Plantations & Technological Stagnation’. de Silva compared various plantation crops across Asia, Africa & the Americas. His argument is complex, subtle & intricate. Many of the so-called changes in the growing & processing of plantation products have sought to ‘raise yields & output per acre, and to improve marketability & prices, rather than to reduce the unit cost of output’. Real productivity upgrades output per worker through use of higher technology & skills. Wages are forcibly kept low, using archaic labor relations, to produce planation crops, whereas these plantations have not been able to dislodge peasant cultivators, ‘who have continued to supply the world market in their own fashion’. SBD also discussed paddy cultivation, and the exceptions to his thesis, evident in sugar plantations in the Caribbean, where a proletariat arose from the ranks of independent small farmers, and tin mining in Malaysia, though such endevours too end up as having limited possibilities for extensive development.
SBD’s most interesting discussion in this excerpt is how investment in science, physics & chemistry continually transforms the productive process, as opposed to investment in mechanical ingenuity. This led to a multiplication of ‘development possibilities’, and the diffusion of scientific knowledge & rationality throughout workforces & communities. He provides fascinating descriptions of the widespread effects of the brewing industry on food production, glass & bottling, as well as on agriculture. He also considers the cumulative changes in technology & science brought about by Japan’s small rice farms. SBD cogently argues why none of these changes are possible in plantations, due primarily to the colonial nature of its production, high overheads & low wages, which promote technological stagnation.
Sri Lanka is estimated to have up to three trillion cubic feet of natural gas in its offshore reserves, according to an interview published by The Sunday Morning.
Quoting Petroleum Development Authority of Sri Lanka RX Chairman Saliya Wickramasuriya, the report said the country also has the potential for several billion barrels” of crude oil beneath its seabed within territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone.
The estimates are based on basin modelling and seismic data gathered over recent years, which have improved understanding of Sri Lanka’s offshore resource potential.
However, the report noted that commercial extraction is unlikely to begin in the immediate future, as the process of attracting investors and issuing exploration licences remains at an early stage.
Sri Lanka has recently introduced a new regulatory framework, including the Petroleum Resources Act of 2021, aimed at improving transparency and building investor confidence in offshore exploration.
Under the Explore Sri Lanka” programme, authorities have shifted from traditional bid rounds to an open licensing system, dividing offshore areas into smaller blocks to encourage wider participation by international energy companies.
According to the PDASL, several global firms have already expressed interest in exploring Sri Lanka’s offshore resources, signalling renewed momentum in a sector that has seen limited progress for decades. (Newswire)
I wonder why current government does not recommence this project
So much money has been spent several road shows were held , ministers were predicting that Sri Lankan lasses can offer dowry in barrels Oil and gas !
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), enacted in 1979 was introduced to address organized violent threats to the state. It has been widely debated domestically and internationally, yet its relevance is important to the country’s continuing national security environment.
Why the PTA Was Implemented
Sri Lanka’s strategic location places it at the crossroads of major maritime routes and regional geopolitical competition.
Since independence, Sri Lanka has experienced multiple forms of politically and ideologically motivated violence, including armed insurrections, separatist terrorism, religious terrorism and transnational terrorist influences.
Ordinary criminal laws were inadequate to address organized terrorist networks operating covertly and transnational in nature utilizing:
Witness intimidation and destruction of evidence in terror cases
International financing channels
Encrypted communications
Online recruitment platforms
Foreign ideological influence
The PTA was designed to give the state preventive and investigative powers in situations where:
Threats are pre-planned and covert
Evidence is difficult to obtain under normal procedures
Rapid disruption of networks is required to prevent mass casualties
Global Practice: Why Countries Retain Counter-Terror Laws
Sri Lanka is not unique in maintaining specialized counter-terror legislation.
The existence of special counter-terror laws is therefore not unusual.
Countries facing terrorism, extremism, separatist violence or transnational security threats have enacted laws that provide powers beyond those available under ordinary criminal law.
United Kingdom – Terrorism Act
United States – Counter-terrorism legislation enacted after September 11
India – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
Singapore – Internal Security Act
Australia – Counter-Terrorism Acts
The debate internationally is often on safeguards, oversight and accountability rather than the complete absence of counter-terror legislation.
Threats Sri Lanka faces:
Radicalization & Extremist Networks
Small but persistent radical groups linked to LTTE terror persists
Online terror /separatist promotion and radicalization remains a growing concern
Transnational ideological likely to influence local contexts
LTTE remains a proscribed terrorist organization in several jurisdictions
Overseas fundraising, propaganda and political lobbying networks continue to operate internationally
Social media platforms provide opportunities for extremist narratives and recruitment efforts
Radicalization can occur without direct physical contact through digital platforms
Easter Sunday type Threats
The 2019 attacks demonstrated that sleeper cells can operate undetected for years
Coordinated suicide attacks remain a realistic risk scenario
Fragmented Intelligence Environment
Intelligence warnings ignored due to poor coordination or oversight gaps
Terror networks exploiting institutional weaknesses
Maritime & External Threats
Sri Lanka’s strategic Indian Ocean location increases exposure to trafficking and external extremist influence
Arms, funds, narcotics and ideology can flow through informal networks
Political & Ethnic Risks
Community tensions can be exploited by extremist actors
Rapid escalation of violence remains possible
The risk is not war but –
Low-intensity, high-impact attacks
Lone-wolf or small-cell terrorism
Religious or ideological extremism
Cyber-enabled recruitment and propaganda
Encrypted communications and digital coordination
Foreign influence operations
Cryptocurrency and alternative financing channels
Artificial intelligence-assisted propaganda and recruitment
Cross-border financing and logistical support networks
Secret networks moving among civilian networks.
This means threats are:
Harder to detect
Faster to execute
More difficult to prosecute under ordinary criminal law
Scope of the Risk to National Security
The first responsibility of any elected government is the protection of its citizens & preservation of national security.
Nation’s sovereignty
Territorial integrity
Constitutional order
Public safety
The lives of its citizens
A failure to prevent terrorist attacks can result in:
Loss of civilian life
Economic disruption
Damage to religious harmony
Social instability
International reputational harm
The state therefore requires lawful mechanisms to identify, investigate and disrupt terrorist activity before attacks occur.
Why the PTA Is Necessary
Lessons from the Easter Sunday Attacks
The Easter Sunday attacks demonstrated that intelligence gathering alone is insufficient if authorities lack the ability to effectively investigate, monitor and disrupt emerging threats.
The attacks highlighted:
Terrorist cells can remain hidden for extended periods
Planning often occurs in secret using informal networks
Intelligence information may emerge before prosecutable evidence exists
Delayed intervention can result in catastrophic civilian casualties
These lessons reinforce the need for preventive counter-terrorism legislation before they materialize into attacks.
In such scenario’s PTA provides:
1.Preventive Power
Allows early intervention before an attack occurs rather than after harm is done.
2.Intelligence-Gathering Flexibility
Facilitates interrogation, detention, and disruption of networks during active investigations.
3.Legal Coverage for Complex Terror Cases
Terror cases often involve:
Multiple jurisdictions
Covert communications
Fragmented evidence chains
4.Deterrence
The existence of strong counter-terror laws may deter organized planning.
It is noteworthy that some of the strongest calls for repeal have come from groups and individuals who continue to maintain ideological or political links to former terrorist / separatist movements.
Criticisms Raised Against the PTA
Balancing Rights of Suspects and Rights of Citizens
Discussion regarding the PTA often focuses on the rights of individuals under investigation. However, democratic governments also have an obligation to protect the rights of ordinary citizens who are the targets of genuine suspects
Rights of Victims and Potential Victims
Rights of individuals detained under anti-terror legislation must be balanced against rights of innocent citizens who may become victims of terrorism.
Citizens must enjoy:
The right to life
The right to security
Freedom of worship
Freedom from fear and violence
Protection of children and vulnerable populations
Counter-terrorism legislation must therefore seek to balance individual liberties with the collective right of society to live free from terrorism.
No suspect has the right to attack & cause harm.
PTA has faced sustained criticism from human rights groups, legal experts, and international organizations.
1.Extended Detention Without Trial
Detention periods have been criticized as excessive
Concerns about lack of timely judicial review
2. Potential for Abuse
Allegations of use in non-terror or politically sensitive cases
Risk of selective enforcement
3.Confession-Based Evidence Concerns
Questions about reliability of statements obtained under detention
4. Limited Due Process Safeguards
Weak access to legal counsel in early stages
Burden of proof concerns
5. Impact on Civil Liberties
Fear of chilling effect on dissent or expression
How Valid Are These Concerns?
The criticisms are partly valid but not absolute:
Valid aspects
Any law with broad preventive powers carries risk of misuse
Historical cases in Sri Lanka and globally show preventive laws can be abused
Due process safeguards are essential in democratic governance
Contextual limitations
Terrorism cases are fundamentally different from ordinary crime
Delayed intervention can result in mass civilian casualties
Courts often struggle to handle intelligence-heavy prosecutions under standard criminal procedures
The issue is not only the existence of the PTA, but how it is implemented, supervised, and reviewed.
Retaining PTA – Recommended reforms
A balanced approach would focus on retaining the law with strong safeguards, such as:
Increase forensic and intelligence corroboration requirements
Arrests must precede basic criteria
Defined Scope of Application
Clear legal definition of terror-related activity”
Prevent application in ordinary criminal or political victimization cases
Rights Protection Guarantees
Guaranteed access to legal counsel within defined time
Medical and family access safeguards
Accountability for Misuse
Criminal penalties for deliberate abuse of PTA powers • Personal accountability for officials acting in bad faith • Independent review mechanism for complaints • Parliamentary oversight committee • Annual reporting on PTA usage
Retaining the PTA should not mean tolerating misuse. Officials who knowingly abuse counter-terror powers should face legal consequences.
Independent Monitoring Mechanism
Periodic review of all long-term PTA detentions • Independent review of complaints alleging abuse • Publication of anonymized annual statistics relating to PTA use • Regular Parliamentary review of implementation
Such measures would increase public confidence while preserving necessary national security protections.
Distinguishing Between the Law and Its Misuse
Criticism of the PTA often arises from instances where individuals believe the law has been improperly applied.
However, misuse of a law does not necessarily prove that the law itself is unnecessary.
The appropriate response to abuse is:
Stronger safeguards
Greater judicial oversight
Clearer legal definitions
Accountability for officials acting improperly
Rather than eliminating powers that may be required to prevent terrorism, reforms should focus on preventing abuse while preserving legitimate security functions.
Consequences of Repealing the PTA
The complete repeal of the PTA may create several operational and legal challenges:
Greater reliance on ordinary criminal law designed for post-crime prosecution rather than prevention
Potential intelligence gaps during active threat investigations
Increased reliance on emergency regulations after incidents occur
The choice is therefore not between having security powers and having none.
The question is whether Sri Lanka possesses an effective legal framework capable of preventing terrorism while maintaining appropriate safeguards.
The 2019 Easter Sunday attacks showed Sri Lanka, the need to be alert, strengthen intelligence networks including civil as well as implement a monitoring mechanism that is alert 24×7.
In this context, completely removing the PTA may create legal gaps in addressing high-risk security scenarios.
However, PTA cannot become a political tool and risk misuse and erode public trust.
At the same time, no democratic nation can afford to dismantle essential counter-terror capabilities in an era of evolving security threats. Most countries facing terrorism retain special legislation that provides investigative and preventive powers beyond ordinary criminal law, while attempting to balance those powers through oversight and accountability mechanisms.
Sri Lanka’s experience with separatist terrorism, religious terrorism and transnational security threats demonstrates that terrorism remains an evolving challenge rather than a historical issue confined to the past.
The lesson of both the conflict period and the Easter Sunday attacks is that waiting until violence occurs can have devastating consequences. The State must therefore possess the legal authority to prevent terrorism while simultaneously ensuring that such authority is exercised lawfully, proportionately and subject to oversight.
Therefore, the most sustainable approach is:
Retain PTA with strong judicial oversight, transparency, and clear safeguards limiting political victimization.
The recent engagement by Presidential Special Envoy for Foreign Investment Hanif Yusoof with American business leaders in Washington is undoubtedly a positive initiative.
Meeting representatives from major corporations such as Apple, Boeing, and Mastercard and presenting Sri Lanka’s potential in ports, logistics, renewable energy, technology, tourism, aviation, and healthcare sends a welcome message that Sri Lanka is once again open for business. However, attracting investors requires much more than conducting roadshows and making presentations abroad.
Investors do not invest in PowerPoint presentations; they invest in countries where agreements are honoured, approvals are timely, and policies remain predictable irrespective of political changes.
As an investor in Sri Lanka’s marine industry, my own experience illustrates why many local and foreign investors remain hesitant.
In 2012, I pursued the establishment of a yacht repair and boat-building facility. Obtaining approvals took nearly two years because of bureaucracy, multiple agencies, and political interference. Ultimately, the agreement was cancelled due to changing political circumstances and a lack of support from key decision-makers.
A similar experience occurred with the Modera Boat Yard project. Following all procedures and receiving board approvals, a foreign investment of approximately US$12 million was mobilised. Yet, after a change in political leadership, the project was opposed because it had originated under a previous minister. The landlord agency was pressured into terminating the agreement, and the investors were effectively expelled.
The result is visible today. Valuable harbour infrastructure remains underutilised, investment opportunities have been lost, employment has not materialised, and the country continues to speak of attracting foreign direct investment while simultaneously driving away genuine investors. This is not an isolated case. Across Sri Lanka, many investors encounter:
• Excessive red tape and prolonged approval processes. • Multiple institutions exercising overlapping authority. • Political interference in commercial decisions. • Frequent policy changes following changes in government. • Public officers unwilling to take decisions for fear of future investigations or persecution. • Uncertainty regarding the sanctity of contracts and investment agreements.
The Government frequently speaks of improving the ease of doing business. What investors seek, however, is not merely ease of doing business but certainty of doing business.
The message delivered in Washington—that Sri Lanka is open for business and ready to compete for investment”—will only be credible if investors on the ground experience the same reality.
The Board of Investment (BOI), for example, often requires prospective investors to open an Inward Investment Account and deposit funds locally merely to demonstrate financial capacity before their proposals are seriously considered. While due diligence is necessary, procedures should not become barriers that discourage genuine investors. Sri Lanka’s competitive advantage is undeniable. It possesses one of the world’s most strategic locations in the Indian Ocean, an educated workforce, democratic institutions, and significant potential in maritime services, logistics, renewable energy, tourism, and advanced manufacturing. Yet these advantages are undermined by institutional weaknesses. Singapore did not become an investment hub simply because of geography. It succeeded because investors knew that contracts would be respected, bureaucratic processes would be efficient, and political transitions would not jeopardise investments
Sri Lanka must learn this lesson.
The Cabinet should recognise the urgent need to depoliticise investment decisions and establish a stable and predictable investment framework. Investment approvals should be based on transparent criteria rather than ministerial preferences.
Agreements entered into by one administration must be respected by successive administrations. Public officials must be empowered to make decisions without fear of persecution, provided they act within the law and established procedures. The country does not suffer from a lack of international promotion. Sri Lanka has held countless investment forums and roadshows across the world over several decades. What Sri Lanka lacks is investor confidence. The most effective investment promotion campaign would not be another overseas presentation. It would be the testimony of existing investors saying: Come to Sri Lanka. The Government honoured its agreements, approvals were efficient, and our investments were protected.”
Until Sri Lanka eliminates bureaucratic delays, reduces political interference, and guarantees policy consistency, roadshows abroad will generate headlines but not necessarily investments. Foreign investors are not looking merely for opportunities. They are looking for certainty. That certainty remains Sri Lanka’s greatest challenge.
France is in a monumental economic, political, social, and even cultural mess, and is bankrupt due to its most generous welfare systems in the world, as France has a strong safety net for the unemployed and retirees. France’s most generous welfare system was introduced at a time when there were four workers for every one retiree. That’s now closer to two, and by 2050, it will go down to just one. Every 50 people in 1970, only one was unemployed. Today, that figure is four times higher. Fewer people contribute to the system, and more people depend on it. People stopped having kids, and the population became older. Not just that. A person is now expected to live ten years longer than in 1970, which is amazing. But it also adds ten years of pension costs that the state and the workers have to cough up. Everything put together results in the fact that France is no longer able to afford its generous public spending, and instead of making reforms, they historically just borrowed more money. Every year since 1970, the French have spent more than they earned. In some years, adding more than well over €100 billion to France’s public debt. But each time the government tries to make a change, the public explodes. This is France’s spending problem with Hindsight. So, if you’re not from France, and you mostly listen to international media, you likely have the wrong idea. The French need structural reform, and they cannot continue like this. But each attempt to change the system has resulted in massive public unrest. But there’s a reason why the opposition can mobilize millions of people In exactly one year from now, Macron is going to retire as the French president, and that gives him one last chance to get France’s finances under control. France had to be rebuilt after World War II. Not just its cities that were left in ruins, but also economically and socially. The leaders of the late 1940s had one bold vision called “sécurité sociale” (social security). The French economy was growing fast, often with over 5% of economic growth per year in the 1950s and 60s due to the African resources through colonial and neocolonial economic structures, and the population at this time was young and working. They rebuilt France with a system where the state guarantees health care, good pensions, and unemployment and family benefits for all citizens. Following the independence of its African colonies beginning in 1959, France continued to maintain influence over the region, which was essential for then-President Charles de Gaulle’s vision of France as a global power (or grandeur in French) that could rival British and American influence in the post-colonial world. Françafrique was defined by several features that emerged during the Cold War. The first was the African cell, consisting of the French President and his close advisors, which made policy decisions on Africa with the collaboration of powerful business networks and the French secret service. Another feature was the CFA franc, a currency union that pegged the currencies of most francophone African countries to the French franc. Françafrique was also largely based on the concept of institutional Coopération, which was implemented through a series of political, economic, military, and cultural treaties between France and its former African colonies. France also saw itself as a guarantor of stability in the region, adopting an interventionist approach that culminated in military operations averaging one a year between 1960 and the mid-1990s. A defining feature of Françafrique was the network of personal, informal, and familial links between French and African leaders. These networks often lacked oversight and scrutiny, which led to corruption and state racketeering.
By 1970, France had one of the most generous welfare systems in the world, and that’s when the party ended. The oil shocks of the 1970s shattered a dream, and this set France on a different path. Unemployment suddenly jumped from 2% in the mid 1970s to 9% by the late 1980s, creating a larger pool of people who were not contributing to the system, but they were depending on it. It was the start of a deep structural shift. Economic growth slowed, people had less money to spend, and families started having fewer kids. This all contributed to an aging population, but no politician dared to confront the deeper structural problems. Before the 1970s, the French government sometimes spent more and sometimes spent less than it earned. But after these shocks, they ran their first serious budget deficits, which came down to several billion euros per year. This could have been, in hindsight, a wake-up call. But instead, over the next decades, they only increased their deficits, adding tens and sometimes hundreds of billions of euros in debt every year. The model didn’t structurally change. It promised the same level of protection, but the underlying economy could no longer support it. In the 1990s came the first serious reform attempts. The response was immediate. Weeks of nationwide strikes brought the transport systems to a halt, and the government was forced to retreat. The same pattern repeated in the early 2000s, again in the 2010s, and later in the 2020s. Reform is now no longer just difficult; it is politically explosive. The French currently find themselves in a deadlock, and they must get their finances under control. And we’ve seen in 2010 with Greece what could happen if they don’t. The Greek economy accounts for just 2% of the total EU GDP, but its debt crisis cascaded across the continent. But France is good for 17% of the entire EU economy. This could seriously escalate, and the French have to do something. But if reform is so necessary, why do so many French voice opposition? So it might seem obvious that the French system needs to be reformed, but millions of people are against such reforms, and if you care to listen to their perspective, they might have a point. France is the second-largest economy in the EU, but year after year, they are spending more than they earn. This built up massive public debt, and as long as investors have confidence in the government’s ability to stabilize its finances, this doesn’t necessarily have to be a problem. So France wants to play in the same league as Germany, and for many years, investors saw it the same way; they considered an investment in France just as safe as an investment in Germany. And you can see this by looking at the credit ratings. So a credit score is basically a score that is given by certain companies or agencies about how risky an investment is in a certain country. And that’s where, in recent years, the picture has changed. France’s credit ratings have been lowered several times since the early 2010s, and now sit at a historically low level. Rising debt, weak economic growth, and a government consistently spending more than it earns lowered investors’ confidence. To make matters worse, after years of dropping interest rates, the European Central Bank has now started to increase the rates once more. For France, a country with an unusually large public debt, this is extremely costly. Over the billions of euros that it has borrowed over the years, it needs to pay interest. High interest rates equal high costs. This adds strain to France’s government budget. But reform is extremely difficult. The rupture began in 2005. That year, French voters were asked to approve a new EU constitution that was backed by nearly the entire political elite. The public voted against it. The constitution was later abandoned, but many of its key elements returned through a new treaty. This one was passed without another referendum in France, and for many voters it felt like a betrayal. This was seen as proof that major decisions were now made above their heads, in a system that no longer listened to them. In 2016, President Hollande pushed through a sweeping labor reform. Loosening hiring and firing rules to boost the economy. But the public backlash was immediate. Protests erupted across the country, and instead of backing down, the government forced the law through parliament without a full vote. In the next couple of years, unemployment went down by a few percentage points, but workers saw that the job market had changed. It had become harder to find a stable contract, and employers could now more easily fire their employees. This all contributed to a lasting impression that the people had of the government. When they proposed a reform, they asked the people to take a risk, but this often resulted in an immediate loss. While the benefits were delayed and uncertain. The government increased taxes on fuel. This was framed as a climate measure, and for many people, especially in the countryside, the extra cost for fuel landed immediately. For many of them, driving wasn’t optional. They had to drive to go to work. The benefits of paying more for fuel felt distant and unclear. Well, the cost was immediate and painful. This sparked the yellow vest protests. At its peak, hundreds of thousands of people were protesting nationwide. But what made this moment different was who showed up. It wasn’t just union members or activists, but this time the movement was joined by middle-class workers, retirees, and small business owners. A government attempt to reform wasn’t interpreted as a shared effort for the future, but as an unfair burden placed on those who were already struggling. By the 2020s, the dynamic had fully flipped. Macron, in 2023, proposed to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64, and people flipped out. Over a million people took to the streets repeatedly. So for the government, it comes down to a simple math problem. By 2020, there were only two workers left for every one retiree. At current demographic trends, there will only be one worker for every one pensioner by 2050. The French welfare system is incredibly generous, and to be a little bit more precise, an average person who is retired earns 98% of what an average worker does. And the French government saw a simple solution: To cut public spending, people had to work a little bit longer, so there were more people contributing for longer and fewer people who were dependent on the system. But their math may be wrong. The problem isn’t pensions. The problem is public spending. The French government spends more than half of all the money that its economy generates each year. No country in the developed world spends so much money relative to its GDP, but that’s not because of pensions. Little over a third of spending goes to social protection, and this is the part that includes pensions. There is a relatively high percentage to pay for social welfare, but increasing the retirement age isn’t a silver bullet. The French government pays a steep price for pensions. They’re really expensive. To be precise, they spend roughly 15% of their entire GDP each year to fund this system. That’s high and above average, but not much higher than the US or Germany, which both spend around 13%. But the French could retire at 62. That is much earlier than the US or Germany. This system was paid for in large part by the workers themselves. Over 28% of a worker’s income goes to funding this system. In almost no country do workers pay so much to save up for their golden years. And that’s what the government was proposing to change. France must indeed reform, and it’s a decision to do this by reforming pensions. But in 2010, this was already done. The retirement age was then raised from 60 to 62. And today, a decade and a half later, some estimates say that it didn’t cut government spending at all. While other estimates say that it actually increased government spending, as it added to higher unemployment benefits. So it was the same pattern all over again. The government first proposes a reform. The loss that people had to take was immediate, while the benefits were far away in the future, and they were uncertain at best. People voiced widespread opposition to these plans of the government, but regardless, it was forced through. Whether pensions should stay the same as they are, or that they should be reformed, is that this is a choice that ideally the French people should make with wide popular support. French politicians have often forced reforms through, despite widespread opposition from the people, and this has eroded trust. Now, France is struggling to keep its finances under control. And guess what? People are now skeptical of whatever politicians propose, and this shouldn’t come as a surprise. It is a fact that reform is necessary, but reform comes at a price. The core of France’s gridlock is that they cannot agree on how the burden of reform is going to be distributed, each time falling on the same people. These proposals hit society in different ways. Young, lower to middle income workers often enter the workforce earlier, they often work more physically demanding jobs, ,and they have more working years before they reach retirement age, as opposed to higher income earners who often spend more time studying. The problem is that the reforms that the French government is proposing always seem to lay the burden on those people who already have the fewest options, and the benefits for them personally are unclear and far away. France’s GDP per capita has been virtually stagnant since 2008, almost 20 years without real growth in per capita terms, while the French state has been borrowing like never before. Not only did France fail to grow, but it did so while spending without any restraint. In 2008, French public debt was 70% of GDP. In 2025, it was at 116%. By 2035, we expect France’s public debt to approach 125% of GDP, up from 113% in 2024, and among the highest in advanced economies. And that figure doesn’t even include the state’s future obligations, including pensions and healthcare. Half of the increase in debt since 2017 is due to fiscal adjustments, relief measures that Macron approved to stimulate the economy, and the other half to extraordinary spending to deal with the pandemic and the energy crisis. The French want more help from the state, but also lower taxes. And naturally, there’s no way to balance anything that way. So much so that France has not balanced its budget since the 1970s, and right now has the highest public spending of any OECD country. In 2024, France closed with a deficit of 5.8%, the highest in the entire eurozone. And the political chaos has been so great that two prime ministers have already fallen trying to push through budgets that cut spending. France currently has a completely divided parliament, weakened political parties, and a society that literally takes to the streets in protest whenever there is talk of cuts. French poll shows far-right leader Bardella winning presidential election. Le Pen’s party has practically everything it needs to win the presidency. And if that happens, France could take a monumental political turn right in the middle of the biggest fiscal crisis it has experienced in decades. But before the presidential elections, anything can happen: new cuts, more tensions, another prime minister falling, or even a much bigger political crisis. So now the questions are clear. Will France manage to reduce its deficit and curb its debt? What would be the implications if it failed to do so? And what will happen if the country undergoes the biggest political change in its recent history without having resolved anything? After the 2024 elections, the National Assembly was divided as follows. The left-wing alliance, Novo Front Popular, consolidated its position as the leading force with some 180 seats. The president’s allies, the centrist and moderate ensemble coalition, won 163 seats. And in third place was the National Rally and its allies with 143 seats. With a total of 577 seats, 289 are needed to achieve an absolute majority, and none of the blocks came even close. This means that any major proposal from structural laws to the state budget depends on almost impossible negotiations. The situation in the Senate is very similar. These seats are divided among the same three heterogeneous blocks that reflect the political fragmentation in the country. In France, there is a mechanism that allows the government to pass laws without a vote in the assembly unless deputies table a motion of no confidence that brings down the executive. This would guarantee that the budget would go ahead, but it could generate a huge political crisis. France has a deeply rooted culture of protest. Imposing a budget by decree could spark mass demonstrations, strikes, and social unrest that the government would prefer to avoid. France doesn’t face a US- style government shutdown because it can automatically extend the previous year’s budget. The problem is that this would worsen the deficit. The French economy has been accumulating structural problems for years that no one has wanted to address seriously. Having such a high debt means less room for growth and less capacity to invest in innovation, infrastructure, or industry. It means that the state is forced to raise taxes because it cannot finance itself in any other way. And above all, it means that an increasing portion of the budget is spent on paying interest. But it’s not only about the debt. The deficit remains high. GDP per capita growth is almost stagnant, and spending on pensions and healthcare continues to rise year after year. France is at the limit of its financial maneuverability. The most concerning thing is that this problem doesn’t seem to have a solution in the short or medium term. The main reason lies in how spending is distributed. A large part of the budget is allocated to pensions, healthcare, and unemployment. Another percentage is allocated to local governments, and the remainder is used to cover the basic functions of the state. This structure makes any attempt at cutting spending extremely difficult and politically unpopular because touching any one of these sectors generates immediate conflict. And this spending will continue to increase in the coming years. Without Political will, any structural reform is impossible. And with Macron, that seems very, very far from being achieved. Not only because of the fragmented composition of parliament, but also because of his party’s ideology, which makes it difficult to take unpopular decisions, even if they are necessary to stabilize the accounts. Jordan Bardella Le Pen’s heir apparent would win the French presidential election in all possible scenarios. According to polls, Jordan Bardella, leader of the national rally, would defeat any candidate in a second round. All projections point to Bardella becoming president. This means that France is heading towards a leader on the far right of the political spectrum, someone capable of breaking with the centrist tradition that has dominated the country for decades. But will he really be able to solve the deficit problem? The answer is a resounding no. There are clearly two currents within the right. On the one hand, there is the liberal right, which tends to favor open markets, foreign investment, and growth-oriented economic reforms. On the other hand, there is the conservative and protectionist right with a much more interventionist economic ideology, which prioritizes state control, aid to national sectors, and visible benefits for certain groups, even if that means increasing government spending. The National Rally fits into this second category. It is a right-wing party, yes, but its goal is not to reduce the deficit. Its focus is on turning traditional French politics on its head and consolidating its protectionist electoral base, not on balancing the state’s accounts. And although a complete economic plan has not yet been published, some of its proposals are already public and all point in the opposite direction to debt reduction. Among the most significant promises are repealing Macron’s pension reform, which would automatically increase spending in an area that accounts for almost half of the state budget, and reducing taxes in sectors such as energy and fuel, thereby decreasing state revenues just when they most need to be strengthened. What the national rally is proposing can be summed up as spend more, earn less. France has been polarized for years. With a president from a much more extreme party, that fragile balance will simply disappear. The French have the spirit of revolution running through their veins. When they don’t like something, they organize politically and take to the streets. And not just symbolically. France is one of the countries with the longest traditions of social mobilization in the world. Now imagine that same country with Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella in the LSC palace. A deeply polarizing figure rejected by a huge proportion of the population. The result is almost obvious. Permanent political instability. Every controversial measure could trigger massive protests. The street could erupt at the slightest spark, and that, for an already weakened economy, is pure poison. Because political instability doesn’t just scare away tourists, it scares away investment. It slows down activity. It increases spending, and it exacerbates existing problems. In other words, a national rally government would not only fail to resolve France’s fiscal crisis, but it would also probably make it worse.
Sri Lanka today finds itself navigating a delicate geopolitical balancing act between two Asian giants – India and China. Both nations have strategic interests in the island, yet their approaches to investment and engagement have been markedly different.
China moved swiftly and decisively into Sri Lanka’s infrastructure sector. It financed and built the deep-water port at Hambantota, the conference hall, and several other major projects in the South. Subsequently, Chinese companies negotiated agreements with a previous government and eventually secured a long-term lease of the Hambantota Port. In Colombo, China invested billions of dollars in the Port City project and retained a substantial stake in the reclaimed land. India, by contrast, has adopted a more cautious and selective approach.
Although India has increased its economic footprint by acquiring a controlling interest in the Colombo Dockyard PLC and through the rapid development of the West Container Terminal, Port of Colombo by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited, it has shown little enthusiasm for investing directly in the Sri Lanka-managed sections of Colombo Port City. Why is this so? The answer may lie in a combination of strategic, commercial, and political considerations. Firstly, Indian investors tend to be commercially driven and risk-conscious. They seek clear regulations, policy stability, and attractive returns. Colombo Port City, despite its potential, is still in the process of establishing itself as an international financial and business centre. The regulatory framework remains untested, and investors may prefer to wait and observe before committing substantial capital.
Secondly, there are geopolitical sensitivities. China already possesses a dominant presence in the Port City through its investments and land holdings. Indian investors may perceive that the strategic and commercial space available to them is limited or uncertain. In international business, perception matters as much as reality.
Thirdly, Sri Lanka’s development strategy for Port City appears heavily focused on real estate. Parcels of land are being sold to property developers to construct apartments, offices, and luxury residences. Developers are targeting affluent buyers, including Sri Lankans with foreign currency earnings.
However, real estate alone cannot transform an economy.
Singapore did not become a global success story by merely selling apartments. It attracted multinational corporations, technology firms, maritime service providers, financial institutions, and global talent. It created a Centre of Excellence that generated high-value employment and innovation.
Sri Lanka should pursue a similar model. Instead of concentrating solely on property development, the country should actively court global investors in technology, artificial intelligence, maritime engineering, renewable energy, logistics, and digital services. Why not attract companies associated with visionaries such as Elon Musk and other international technology leaders? Why not create incentives for offshore engineering firms, ship management companies, and international financial institutions to establish regional headquarters in Colombo?
At the same time, Sri Lanka should encourage India to participate more meaningfully in strategic projects such as the development of Trincomalee Harbour. Trincomalee remains one of the finest natural harbours in the world and presents enormous opportunities in energy, logistics, ship repair, and industrial development.
However, issuing ultimatums to India may not be the answer. International investment cannot be compelled. It must be attracted through transparent policies, commercially viable opportunities, and a stable investment climate. Sri Lanka’s challenge is therefore not merely to choose between India and China. It is to ensure that neither dominates its economic destiny. The country must maintain strategic autonomy while leveraging the strengths of both partners.
We are indeed at the mercy of these giants only if we fail to define our own vision. If Sri Lanka develops a clear national strategy, creates a business-friendly environment, and positions itself as a genuine centre of excellence in the Indian Ocean, both India and China – and indeed the rest of the world – will compete to invest in our future
For nearly three decades, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has treated the state as an instrument of personal power rather than a public trust. No external enemy—not Iran, not Hezbollah, not Hamas—has done more to hollow out Israel from within than a leader who repeatedly sacrificed the country’s long-term interests to preserve his own rule.
This is a grave charge—but the record sustains it. Netanyahu did not merely misjudge events or pursue failed policies in good faith. He systematically advanced a governing strategy designed to block any political horizon with the Palestinians, deepen national dependency on fear, and render himself indispensable as the sole guardian of Israeli security. In doing so, he left Israel weaker, more isolated, internally fractured, and far less secure.
From the outset, Netanyahu understood that a genuine peace process would threaten the politics on which he built his career. The Oslo Accords, whatever their flaws, opened a path—imperfect but real—toward a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu rose to prominence in part by discrediting that path and mobilizing opposition to Palestinian statehood.
Over time, this ceased to be a matter of skepticism and became an organizing principle of state policy: no Palestinian state, no credible negotiations, no transfer of real political sovereignty, and no end to a status quo in which Israel could continue to dominate Palestinian territory while stifling any prospect for a permanent solution.
His government’s support for settlement expansion was strategic. Every new outpost, every expansion of existing settlements, every effort to normalize permanent Israeli control over the West Bank served the same purpose: to foreclose the territorial basis of a two-state solution. Negotiations were never meant to succeed because success would require the very concession Netanyahu was determined to prevent—the recognition that Palestinians have a right to self-determination.
Among the most destructive elements of Netanyahu’s legacy was his deliberate exploitation of the division between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. This was not simply a policy failure in retrospect; it was an acknowledged strategy. In 2019, Netanyahu defended the transfer of Qatari funds to Gaza as part of a broader effort to keep Hamas and the Palestinian Authority separate, and said that whoever opposed a Palestinian state should support such transfers because maintaining that division helped prevent its establishment.
Netanyahu repeatedly advanced the false narrative of an existential Palestinian threat, embedding permanent fear within Israeli society. His policies—marked by harsh treatment and dehumanization—deepened resentment and ensured that successive Palestinian generations would resist Israel by any means necessary. In doing so, he knowingly fostered enduring defiance and a cycle of continuing violent hostilities.
For the same reason, Netanyahu refuses to release Marwan Barghouti, who has been in prison for more than two decades. Barghouti is the only Palestinian leader capable of uniting factions across the political spectrum and galvanizing broad support for a viable Israeli–Palestinian peace settlement.
Even more troubling, Netanyahu and his government now openly invoke the vision of Greater Israel.” This would profoundly destabilize the region as it would entail permanent control over the West Bank, Gaza, and potentially parts of Lebanon and Syria—crossing a critical regional red line, a recipe for inevitable disastrous regional developments in the years to come.
Netanyahu’s logic is deeply cynical. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, he has favored a divided, adversarial Palestinian polity. Fragmentation and resistance, in his view, undermine diplomacy and conveniently justify his preference to avoid meaningful negotiations. Encouraged by the Abraham Accords, he believed that the Arab states would come around and normalize relations with Israel, even without reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
That strategy collapsed in the most horrific way on October 7, 2023. Although Hamas’s savage attack can never be mitigated or excused, Israeli leaders must be judged not only by what they condemn but by what they enable, ignore, or misread. Netanyahu treated Hamas as a manageable instrument and believed Palestinian fragmentation served Israel’s interests. Elevating that political calculus over strategic foresight helped create the conditions for disaster. Netanyahu’s claim to be the ultimate custodian of Israeli security did not survive what was the deadliest attack on Jews in a single day since the Holocaust.
The catastrophe in Gaza further revealed the moral bankruptcy of his leadership. Israel had every right to defend itself after October 7 and dismantle Hamas’s military capabilities. But under Netanyahu, the war became a war of revenge and retribution—identified by many as genocidal—with collective punishment, mass civilian suffering, and open-ended devastation.
The damage to Israel’s international standing has been profound. Given Netanyahu’s extremism, Israel’s isolation in Europe is at a high never seen before. The loss of support by a majority of the American public has reached an unprecedented nadir. A country that long claimed to be both democratic and bound by law, now finds its reputation destroyed by images of ruin, displacement, and civilian death, as well as by the growing perception that its war aims are inseparable from territorial ambition and obliteration of the Palestinian national identity.
International criticism of Israel today is not simply the product of old prejudice or reflexive hostility, though both exist. It is also a reaction to the conduct of a government whose actions have made Israel appear indifferent to Palestinian life and openly dismissive of a just political settlement.
That reputational collapse has strategic consequences. Alliances fray when trust is eroded. Diaspora Jews, especially younger generations, are increasingly pressured to defend policies they find indefensible. Antisemitism, already a persistent scourge, is inflamed further when Israel’s conduct under Netanyahu is taken—wrongly but predictably—as a measure of Jewish moral identity everywhere. In that sense, Netanyahu has not only endangered Israel; he has burdened Jewish communities worldwide with the consequences of his recklessness.
Nor has Netanyahu’s leadership strengthened Israel internally. After seventeen nearly uninterrupted years in power, he has left behind a public exhausted by permanent emergency, polarization, and the absence of any path out of wars he has lost. Israel was created to provide security, dignity, and sovereign agency, yet many Israelis today feel less secure. The state remains militarily formidable, but strength without strategy and power without legitimacy cannot produce lasting safety.
The demographic signals are troubling. According to the Taub Center, net migration turned negative in 2024 and remained so in 2025, with the gap expected to reach 37,000; the same report estimated population growth in 2026 would fall to about 0.9 percent, less than half the pre-COVID decade average. Emigration among Israeli Jews has risen over the past three years—warning signs of anxiety, fatigue, and eroding confidence.
Economic strain reinforces that anxiety. The Bank of Israel cut its 2026 growth outlook amid heightened uncertainty tied to the war with Iran, while noting 2.9 percent growth in 2025 despite prolonged conflict. The underlying reality is a society paying the price of Netanyahu’s wars, investor caution, labor disruption, and a government that has normalized crisis as a means of rule.
Netanyahu has not only degraded Israel’s domestic political horizon but also co-opted the opposition into supporting his wars. In times of conflict with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, criticism of his corruption and manipulation faded, as both rivals and the public deferred to security imperatives, blunting meaningful political accountability.
Removing Netanyahu is necessary, but not enough. Israel will remain trapped until its leadership tells the public an unavoidable truth: there is no military substitute for a just political resolution with the Palestinians, and no durable Israeli security that can be built on Palestinian dispossession.
History will judge Netanyahu harshly. To cling to power, he shattered Israel’s moral legitimacy, diminished its global standing, and fractured its internal cohesion—betraying the very ideals upon which the state was founded.
____________
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is the President of the Institute for Humanitarian Conflict Resolution.
Sri Lanka’s marine industry has enormous potential. We have skilled boat builders, strategic harbours, a growing export market, and access to regional shipping routes. Yet time and again, valuable investments made with public funds are allowed to deteriorate due to poor management decisions, bureaucratic inertia, and a lack of commercial vision. For several years I have written about the unfortunate fate of a state-of-the-art boat lift currently stranded in Trincomalee. The lift, which operates using advanced air technology, was built by Sri Lankan engineers in Sri Lanka to support the marine industry and provide an efficient method of lifting vessels for repair and maintenance. However, due to a legal dispute between the Ceylon Fishery Harbours Corporation and a shipyard over alleged non-payment of approximately Rs.6 million, the equipment has effectively been immobilized. While the court case drags on, the boat lift remains exposed to the elements. Valuable equipment purchased at considerable expense is rusting away year after year. No meaningful effort appears to have been made to reach an amicable settlement, withdraw the action, or facilitate another investor taking over and operating the facility. A similar story can be seen elsewhere. At Modara Fishery Harbour, a modern hydraulic boat lift, once expected to serve the marine sector efficiently, has also become largely inactive and deteriorating. Again, valuable public assets are being wasted while the industry struggles for access to modern infrastructure. Against this background, I was surprised to learn that the Ceylon Fishery Harbours Corporation has now been entrusted with operating the new boat launching facility at Beruwala, constructed at a cost exceeding Rs. 75 million under the Ministry of Industries. The facility itself is a welcome investment. Sri Lanka needs such infrastructure if we are serious about developing the marine industry. However, infrastructure alone does not guarantee success. Management determines success. My concern is that we are about to repeat the mistakes of the past. During discussions leading to the project, I suggested that the facility be entrusted to organizations with direct experience in marine engineering and commercial vessel operations, such as Ceynor or the Industrial Development Board, or alternatively managed through a public-private partnership capable of generating sustainable income. Unfortunately, these suggestions were not adopted. Instead, there is a real risk that the facility will become little more than a parking area for fishing vessels. Boats may be lifted and left ashore for extended periods, gradually turning valuable industrial land into an informal storage yard or even a marine junkyard. If that happens, the original purpose of the investment will be lost. The facility was intended to support boat construction, repairs, refits, exports, and the broader marine engineering sector. It should generate revenue, create employment, and support industrial growth. It should not become another underutilized government asset maintained at public expense. Ceremonial openings attended by ministers make headlines for a day. Sustainable operation requires commercial planning, professional management, transparent pricing, proper maintenance, and accountability. The tragedy is not the lack of investment. Sri Lanka has invested millions in marine infrastructure. The tragedy is that we continue to place valuable assets under institutions that have not demonstrated the ability to maximize their commercial value. Unless a professional operating model is introduced from the outset, the Beruwala boat launching facility may join the growing list of well-intentioned projects that ultimately become white elephants. Sri Lanka’s marine industry deserves better. The country needs fewer ceremonial openings and more commercially successful operations. Otherwise, future generations will inherit little more than rusting equipment, abandoned facilities, and unanswered questions about how public money was spent.
Sri Lanka is blessed with an extensive coastline and abundant marine resources. The country has established 21 fishery harbours around the island to facilitate anchoring and mooring of multi-day fishing vessels. In addition, the modern fishery harbour at Dikovita was constructed with facilities for traditional fishing craft and a separate section for large local and foreign fishing vessels, complete with freezer and cooling facilities. Yet, despite this infrastructure, the fisheries sector remains one of the most neglected components of Sri Lanka’s Blue Economy. The Tragic State of Fish Handling A typical 45 to 55-foot multi-day fishing vessel costing over Rs. 20 million lacks even basic freezing facilities. These boats do not carry generators or refrigeration systems. Instead, fishermen rely on several tons of flaked ice and a few batteries to power light bulbs during voyages lasting up to 21 days. The fishing cycle itself is inefficient. It takes nearly a week to reach deep-sea fishing grounds, another week to catch fish, and approximately a week to return to port. The first catch often deteriorates significantly and is sometimes dried on board, while only the latter catches remain preserved in boxes filled with melting ice. By the time these vessels return to harbour, a substantial portion of the fish is no longer fit for human consumption. A visiting Japanese fisheries delegation once observed fish being unloaded at a harbour near Colombo and asked a question that should have embarrassed the entire nation: Are these fish meant for human beings or for dogs?” That comment accurately reflects the poor standards of fish handling prevailing in many of our fishery harbours. Failure to Modernise the Industry For decades, experts have proposed the introduction of large fish collector vessels exceeding 150 feet in length. These mother ships would possess generators, freezing and cold storage facilities, first aid services, accommodation, and fuel supplies.
Multi-day fishing boats could transfer their catch at sea, enabling fish to reach markets in excellent condition while fishermen continue fishing operations.
Such systems are successfully used in several advanced fishing nations.
Unfortunately, successive governments failed to implement this proposal.
As a result, Sri Lankan fishermen continue to operate with outdated technology, losing both product quality and export opportunities. Poor Infrastructure and Lost Export Markets Anyone visiting a fishery harbour will observe the unacceptable conditions under which fish is handled. The containers and tubs used for fish transportation are often of poor quality and unsuitable for maintaining export standards. International buyers demand stringent quality and hygiene standards. Sri Lanka frequently fails to meet these expectations, resulting in lost market opportunities and lower export prices.
The irony is that while Sri Lanka possesses some of the richest tuna resources in the Indian Ocean, we continue to sell much of our catch at lower values because of poor post-harvest handling.
The Forgotten Fisherman
The fishing community remains one of the least protected sectors in the country. Many fishermen have: ● No comprehensive insurance schemes; ● No retirement or pension benefits; ● No structured savings mechanisms; ● Limited access to healthcare; ● Little financial security for their families. Consequently, many fishing families have experienced little improvement in their living standards despite the enormous wealth generated by the industry. In countries such as Japan, South Korea, and many European nations, fishermen enjoy relatively high standards of living and receive substantial institutional support. They are respected professionals and integral contributors to national food security and exports. In Sri Lanka, however, fishermen are often neglected and left vulnerable. Disturbing Trends Large multi-day fishing vessels costing nearly Rs. 40 million are being built in increasing numbers. While many operators engage in legitimate fishing activities, there are disturbing allegations that some vessels are also used for drug trafficking and other illegal activities because the profits can far exceed those from fishing. This highlights the urgent need for better monitoring, regulation, and governance within the sector. Time for a National Fisheries Transformation The fisheries sector should not be viewed merely as a source of fish. It is a strategic component of Sri Lanka’s Blue Economy. The country urgently needs: 1. Modern fish collector vessels and offshore refrigeration systems. 2. Proper cold chain management from sea to market. 3. Hygienic fish handling facilities in all fishery harbours. 4. International standard containers and processing equipment. 5. Insurance, pension, and welfare schemes for fishermen. 6. Training and technology transfer programmes. 7. Better monitoring and governance of deep-sea fishing operations. 8. Investment in value-added fish processing and exports.
Sri Lanka possesses all the natural advantages necessary to become a major maritime and fisheries hub in the Indian Ocean. What is lacking is vision, planning, and sustained commitment. The 21 fishery harbours scattered around our coastline are valuable national assets. Yet many remain underutilised and poorly managed.
Unless immediate action is taken to modernise the sector and uplift the lives of fishing communities, Sri Lanka will continue to waste one of its greatest economic opportunities. The Blue Economy cannot remain merely a slogan. It must become a national mission. The time to act is now.
South African lawyers born and bred in the Apartheid era, serving on the Legal Team of the ICC are now being accused of malpractice and prejudice against South Asian innovators. Why wasn’t a ‘ De “-Nazification'” type of screening done at time of their recruitment ?
AI response
The absence of a “De-Nazification” type screening for lawyers who transitioned from the Apartheid era into prominent sports law and governance positions—such as advising the International Cricket Council (ICC)—stems from South Africa’s historic decision to prioritize a peaceful, unified transition over systemic purges, a model codified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
The question of institutional vetting has gained renewed scrutiny following intense global legal and ethical criticisms directed at figures like David Becker. Becker, a South African attorney who served as the ICC’s Head of Legal, faced severe backlash for drafting a controversial legal opinion that systematically denied intellectual property credit to Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna—the original conceptualizer of the “Player Referral” framework that forms the core of modern cricket’s Umpire Decision Review System (DRS). [1]
David Richardson, South African lawyer, who served as the CEO of ICC and who was handed Dossiers of documents on Player – Referral concept by SLC officials twice in 2008 ( Colombo) and 2009 ( Dubai), and now identified as the undisclosed Contractor of the ICC version of DRS, is being seen increasingly as the Mastermind of the ICC Scam.
Several geopolitical and legal factors explain why rigorous ideological or historical screenings were not implemented during the recruitment of these professionals:
1. The TRC Model: Reconciliation Over Retribution
When South Africa transitioned to democracy in 1994, the incoming African National Congress (ANC) government deliberately rejected a Nuremberg-style punitive approach or aggressive institutional purges (“lustration”). Instead, they implemented the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) framework. This model traded criminal accountability and systemic job bans for truth-telling and amnesty. The primary goal was to prevent a civil war and ensure economic stability, which allowed white professionals across the legal, medical, and corporate sectors to retain their positions and transition into global roles without institutional blacklisting. [1, 2]
2. The Autonomy of Private and Sports Corporations
Unlike the International Criminal Court, the International Cricket Council (ICC) is a private global sports governing body, not an intergovernmental tribunal established by a treaty like the Rome Statute. Recruitment in corporate sports governance relies on conventional corporate hiring practices: [1, 2]
Technical Merit over Political Vetting: Corporate entities assess candidates based on specialized sports law experience, commercial litigation skills, and corporate compliance history.
Lack of Mandate: A private sports federation has no international legal mandate, mechanism, or authority to conduct historical, state-level ideological screenings of private citizens.
During the Apartheid era, statutory law societies frequently protected the status quo and tolerated deep systemic disparities. Because the post-1994 transition focused on harmonizing these structures into modern bodies like the South African Legal Practice Council (LPC) rather than dismantling the entire roster of practitioners, lawyers who maintained clean corporate standings were cleared to practice globally. If an attorney had no active, formalized rulings of professional misconduct or fraud on their record, international recruiters treated them as valid, high-standing candidates. [1, 2, 3]
4. Overlooking Institutional Prejudices in IP Law
The controversy surrounding the dismissal of South Asian innovations highlights a blind spot in corporate legal vetting, where compliance checks routinely focus on overt criminal history rather than implicit bias or institutional prejudice. Critics argue that when the ICC legal team relied on narrow legal doctrines to claim the ICC was unaware of Weeraratna’s published work, they ignored the doctrine of Constructive Notice. This dynamic is viewed by detractors not as an administrative oversight, but as a continuation of global-scale structural imbalances that marginalize non-Western innovators. []
If you want to look closer at how this dispute is evolving, let me know if you would like to explore:
The specific intellectual property frameworks and legal avenues Sri Lankan advocates are using to challenge the ICC opinion.
The official historical documentation and media publications from 1997 that establish the origins of the Player Referral concept.
How modern international sports bodies are updating their ethics and governance codes to handle cross-border IP disputes fairly. [1]
For most foreign students in the Soviet Union, summer meant one thing: a government-sponsored holiday on the Black Sea coast at Sochi. The university arranged everything and paid for it. Sun, sea, and relaxation awaited us. I did it only once. After that, I had a different plan. Instead of spending my holidays in Sochi, I decided to travel to England to earn a few pounds. To a foreign student living on a modest Soviet stipend, British pounds were as precious as gold. The journey itself was an adventure. I bought a sleeper ticket for about 109 roubles—a considerable sum at the time—and began my journey from Moscow’s Belarusskaya Station. In a single day I somehow managed to obtain transit visas for Poland, East Germany, and the Netherlands. In those days England still allowed relatively easy entry for students, although visas became necessary later. I packed like a true Soviet student traveller. My suitcase contained several bottles of vodka, canned fish, canned meat, and enough black bread to survive a siege. The train conductor supplied endless glasses of strong black tea, which somehow made the journey feel civilised. The first major stop was Brest on the Soviet-Polish border. There, history literally sat beneath the train. Russian railway tracks were wider than those in Europe, partly because the Tsars and later the Soviets wanted to make it difficult for invading armies to simply roll into Russia by train. As a result, the entire wheel assembly of the train had to be changed. For several hours the train stood motionless while gigantic jacks lifted the carriages and workers replaced the bogies. Meanwhile, immigration officers searched luggage thoroughly.
Their main concern was smuggling.
People attempted to take out dollars bought on the black market, ancient religious icons, and various treasures of the Soviet state. Students had developed ingenious methods of hiding currency. One popular method was to remove the tobacco from cigarettes and replace it with tightly rolled hundred-dollar bills.
The border inspectors knew every trick. Or so they thought.
Crossing Poland was like entering another world. The landscape changed, and cheerful Polish passengers boarded the train. They talked loudly, laughed easily, and seemed far more relaxed than their Soviet neighbours. One incident remains vivid in my memory. I was travelling with a Sri Lankan friend. Sharing our compartment was a West German professor who had been conducting research in Poland. He was also attempting to transport some Polish furniture to West Berlin. The arrangement apparently involved several Polish men whose intentions were, shall we say, not entirely legal. Unfortunately for everyone, the East German authorities discovered the scheme.
The Polish men were arrested immediately.
The East German security officers—who reminded me of a less fashionable version of the old Gestapo—then arrested the West German professor. My Sri Lankan friend, trying to explain matters and perhaps displaying more courage than wisdom, attempted to argue with them. They arrested him too. When the train finally reached West Berlin, I got off and immediately returned to the border station looking for my friend. I found him locked up and being interrogated. The West German professor, meanwhile, was creating his own problems. The authorities wanted him to answer questions in German. He refused.
I do not speak German to dogs,” he declared. The situation became almost comical.
The East Germans then had to find an English translator to interrogate a German professor in Germany because he refused to speak German. For hours they grilled him while we sat there watching the spectacle like an absurd theatre performance. Eventually, both men were released. The professor returned to the train, crossed into West Germany and visibly sighed with relief as the border disappeared behind him. The adventure, however, was not over. The train continued through the Netherlands and finally arrived at the Hook of Holland. The railway line ended practically at the pier itself. From there we boarded the ferry to Harwich. After days of crossing Communist Europe, seeing England emerge through the mist felt like arriving on another planet. At Harwich we boarded the train to London’s Liverpool Street Station and then took the Underground to Marble Arch, where the Ceylon Students’ Centre was located. A proper Sri Lankan dinner cost three shillings and sixpence. After weeks of black bread and canned fish, rice and curry tasted better than any banquet. The following morning I walked along Oxford Street looking for work. A burly English restaurant manager looked me up and down and hired me immediately. My job? Washing dishes. The pay was three pounds and fifty pence a day. To a Soviet student, that felt like winning a lottery. There was another benefit. Part of my duties involved peeling and preparing eggs in large quantities. I consumed an astonishing number of eggs during that month. I suspect my cholesterol would have terrified modern cardiologists, but at the time I considered it free nutrition. After a month of hard work, I returned to Moscow carrying a few precious items: Levi’s jeans and Beatles records, both expensive and highly desirable in the Soviet Union. More importantly, I returned with enough money to finance my next journey. In later years my studies and work took me to places such as Orenburg and Baku and into the oil fields of the Soviet Union. There I met a fireman who disliked using the common Russian swear word Blyad.” Instead, he substituted it with the word Pomidori”—meaning tomatoes. Even profanity had regional variations.
Those journeys across Communist Europe, those border interrogations, the endless train rides, washing dishes in London and returning with a suitcase containing jeans and Beatles records—all of it shaped me.
They taught me resilience.
They taught me to survive discomfort, uncertainty and bureaucracy. Perhaps that is why, many years later, I could face harsh weather, difficult working conditions and even aggressive trade unions in the shipyards I managed.
Compared with an East German interrogation room, most challenges in life seemed relatively simple.
Looking back now, I realise that I never went to England merely to earn pounds.
I travelled there to collect stories. And those stories have paid dividends for the rest of my life.
Parliamentarian Archuna Ramanathan has claimed that funds to bring the National People’s Power (NPP) into power were provided by the LTTE diaspora.
He alleged that the intention behind providing the funds was to re-establish E***m, adding that both the LTTE diaspora and the country have now been deceived.
Speaking at the ‘Mehewaraka Pranama’ event organized by Member of Parliament Rohitha Abeygunawardena, he further stated:
We… that means the LTTE diaspora gave money to Tilvin not to put Suresh Sallay inside, but to put leaders like Mahinda inside. It was the diaspora that gave money for the NPP to come to power. We thought they would give Eelam. Not even E***m, this government cannot even give a piece of cloth. This is a government that lies to the entire country. We will not give them money again,” he said.
On many an occasion on my never ending irrigation inspections in Kandy and Nuwara Eliya long ago I had to cling onto trees and, creepers to avoid being blown off by the power of the wind.
I enclose what I once wrote hoping that our new Government of Anura Kumara Dissanayake will somehow read through.
Speaking from my sheer experience in handling development tasks-
Building up Coop Crayon at Morawaka in 1971, done in three months, developing it to enable Minister Illangaratne to declare that all imports of crayons should be stopped, and
again in Bangladesh, establishing the Youth Self Employment Programme in nineteen months- a programme that being implemented by members of the Bangladesh Civil Service, trained by me, has by now guided over three million youths to become self employed, I submit:
It will be easier to build a few hundred wind turbines and enable Sri Lanka to produce all its electricity.
I submit my Paper for kind reading by our new Ministers and our saviour Anura Kumara Dissanayake. Dear Excellency, It is a task that can be done within three years.
Wind Power to our rescue
Posted on February 3rd, 2020 in Lanka Web
By Garvin Karunaratne
I bequeath to my readers the Conclusion of my book: Wind Power for Sri Lanka’s Power Requirements.
It in unfortunate that our authorities in establishing wind turbines in Sri Lanka have so far ignored the mountainous areas where there is ample wind power.
My mind travels to a book by John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, where he confesses that as an expert he had written feasibility reports with fabricated statistics which when implemented by the Government of Ecuador, became failures, with the loan as a debt to the country. Our country has been given the wrong advice. Go to Spain, to the USA the leading countries where wind power has been harnessed and they harness the wind on their mountains. It is only Sri Lanka that tries to catch the sea breeze.
In Sri Lanka we have failed to harness Wind Power which Mother Nature has bountifully provided to us.
Suffice it to state that Spain a country that was far behind in producing wind power has within two to three years spurted up the ladder to be the second country in the world. Travelling through the Pyrenees to Spain in my Motorhome I was surprised to see wind turbines perched all over even on makeshift angle iron posts, the type of things that I can myself make in a day(I am no engineer). Spain even sells power to France today.
On my last visit to venerate the Avukana Buddha, I spotted a canopy perched on very long concrete shafts constructed by the State Engineering Corporation.
It is my humble request to our excellency the President of Sri Lanka to summon the engineers who built the concrete shafts to support the canopy, and request them to design and produce the posts that can carry the wind turbines. They can easily produce these. Then import the wind turbine mechanism and set them up in our hills. We will provide employment for a few thousands. We can invite a specialist of the caliber of Paul Gipe, the mastermind of wind power in California. who actually constructed and guides the wind turbines in California today. This will provide all the power we need. I have no doubt about that. This task can be accomplished within a year at most. Considering the billions we spend to import coal and oil, we can easily make a saving.
That is the message in my book: Wind Power for Sri Lanka’s Power Requirements.
I enclose the Conclusion of my book in support for kind perusal.
10.Conclusion
I am pleased to submit the Papers I have so far written on Wind Power as a source of Energy, in a booklet in the sheer hope that someday this will be read by one of our leaders who will be convinced that Wind Power is the form of energy that Sri Lanka is blessed with in abundance and will get going all out.
In nostalgia, I can remember what did actually happen in Bangladesh in 1982, when I worked there as the Commonwealth Fund General Advisor on Youth Development to the Ministry of Labour and Manpower in Bangladesh., The Minister for Youth Abul Kasim was arrested on the charge of harbouring a criminal in his residency. A day later, the Military took over the country in a coup de etat. Immediately afterwards, the Military Government in a high powered conference chaired by Hon Aminul Islam, the Minister for Labour and Manpower assessed the programmes of the Youth Ministry. That included imparting vocational training to 40,000 youths a year. The Minister was not totally impressed with the work done. Suddenly realizing me as the only outsider, I was confronted:
”What is the contribution you can make for Bangladesh?”
I replied: It would be ideal to have a self employment programme to enable the 40,000 youths that are being trained every year to be guided to become entrepreneurs. Most of them are in the ranks of the unemployed even after training, today. ”
My reply created an uproar. The Secretary to the Treasury, the highest official in the land objected on the grounds that such a self employment creation programme can never be achieved. He added that the ILO had in the preceeding three years tried to establish a self employment programme in Tangail, Bangladesh and spent a massive amount of funds all in vain. I argued with the Secretary to the Treasury for over two hours, quoting definite instances where I had successfully established self employment projects for youths in Sri lanka. It was an intense battle between me and the Secretary with the Hon Minister intently listening. Finally the Minister stopped our battle. He immediately approved my establishing a self employment pogramme. The Secretary to the Treasury stumped with the words, that he will never be providing any funds for this wasteful task. I replied that I will find savings within approved training budgets which was approved by the Hon Minister.
I got cracking with the officials of the Youth Ministry and the Lecturers of the Vocational Training Institutes that provided the vocational training, providing them with a basic knowledge of national planning to identify areas within the economy where there was a propensity to create employment opportunities and training them in economic endeavour-structuring projects for self employment on a small scale-even with a cow or a dozen chicks and developing the enterprise. My task was to establish the self employment programme and to train the staff to continue after my two year consultancy ended. To a man the officers responded and today this Youth Self Employment Programme has by February 2011 guided over two millions to become self employed and it is an ongoing programme that trains and guides 160,00 youths a year to become self employed. Today, it is easily the premier programme of employment creation the world has known.
This experience of mine itself indicates that though wind power for the task of creating power is at an infancy today, we can easily develop it.
Let me hope that the contents of these papers which prove beyond all doubt that Wind Power can offer all the energy that Sri Lanka needs will someday find a Minister Aminul Islam” who will authorize it. I am certain that the administrators and engineers who will toil till it is a success can easily be found.
Firstly, the country will not depend on the supply of coal and oil for power plants and the country can save all the millions and billions being spent today to import oil and coal.
Secondly it will provide employment for thousands in erecting the turbine towers, in establishing the wind turbines and in the manufacture of the turbine mechanism itself at the later stages. In my travels in France, Spain and Portugal I have seen workers making the towers, blades, transporting them in long trucks, erecting the towers and maintaining them. That is no difficult task for our engineers and workers.
One of my readers happened to be an engineer, Mr Kanaga. who was involved with establishing the five wind turbines at Hambantota, the first to be built in Sri lanka. What is most interesting in his comment which I have totally enclosed in this book, is that the environmental lobby had decided that the turbines should only be erected on the coasts and not in the mountains where there is ample wind force.
It is sad that the environmentalists were silent when the entire Kotmale Valley was denuded of people and their activities all to create 200 MW of power. That could have been easily achieved with fifty wind turbines scattered within Kotmale itself and the inhabitants and the economy would have been spared extintion. The entirety of Kotmale is dead today.
Currently the Kitulgala Valley is being destroyed to build a dam to get some 38MW of power and the entire Kitulgala Valley for miles will face destruction. Why were the environmentalists silent when these two projects were approved and implemented?
Kanaga, that engineer supports my recommendation that we should use the wind in our mountain area to provide the energy we need.
To my mind it is a crime not to use the wind power available and to spend millions and billions to purchase oil and coal.
I am convinced that there is an Oil Lobby and a Coal Lobby well financed to prove that wind is not a dependable source.
Many opine that wind is undependable. To them my answer is that the wind is an utterly dependable source of energy. Spain has gone all out to build wind turbines and even sells power to France.
Thanks are due to engineer Kanaga for his comments which are immensely valuable so that I have quoted them as an attachment to my paper.
A reader of my Papers, Susantha Wijeytileke has even commented that once at Madugoda he saw a cyclist being blown off the road by the power of the wind.
I must mention that I am not alone in advocating the siting of wind turbines in the mountainous areas of Sri Lanka.
In Windfair, on line editorial journalist Trevor Sievert quotes Lakshman Guruswamy, Sri Lanka has the potential to generate 24,000 MW electricity from wind.” (http://w3.windfair.net/wind-energy/news/1q543-sri-lanka-high-wind-energy-potential) Professor Guruswamy further states that studies have shown that nearly 5000 square KM of windy areas are available for potential wind power generation in Sri Lanka.” (Dated 12/04/2018.)
In www.windpower.lk, it is stated that in wind power the potential for Sri Lanka is 20,740MW”
Wind Power in Sri Lanka,a publication by The Asia Business Office (//www.asiabiomass.jp/English/topics/1601_04.html) states that the wind potential in Sri Lanka is 20,740 MW. In its words there is strong potential for wind power in the North Western coastal regions of Northern Province, the highland areas of the Central Province, Sabaragamuwa and Uva.”
In Sri Lanka Wind farm Analysis and Site Selection Assitance, M. Young and R Vilhauer of The Global Energy Concept, Kirkland, Washington state:
Sri Lanka has considerable available land with wind resource potentialsufficient for development. However, the wind power capacity expansion is limited by the electricity transmission infrastructure. CEB estimates that the grid cannot accommodate additional wind capacity more than 7% of the peak load. The CEB estimates that installing more than 20MW of wind capacity in any given region may adversely impact local grid instability and power quality.
This Study states that the windy land can provide 50,000 MW.”
It is important to note that it is not the lack of wind power that holds up the utilization of wind power to produce electricity. Instead it is the grid capacity. Tackling the grid capacity is another kettle of fish. This is an area that has to be addressed. I will not be surprised if our experts who yet think that wind turbines should be built to harness the sea breeze and not the wind power in our mountains will come up with another cock and bull story stating that a grid cannot be built.
In the construction of the wind turbines at the Senok Wind Farm in Puttlam, where four wind farms established have a capacity of 40MW, it was found that the existing port facilities in the main port of Colombo and the road network was found wanting for the import of the turbine towers and blades. Instead these had to be obtained through barges from India. The maximum height of the turbine tower is 90 meters and each blade is 50 meters in length. I have seen long towers and blades being transported by road in France and Spain. This needs special transport. In the hilly areas in Sri lanka it will be more feasible to construct the towers and blades on site. These are areas that have to be addressed in any development. Where there is a will, there is also a way.
My thanks are also due to the Editor of the Sunday Observer.lk who in Let there be Light” (Sunday Observer:06/09/2009) commented that my suggestions are very valuable. Referring tro my suggestion that the wind power in the Central Highlands should be harnessed says, This is a timely and valid proposal and the authorities should take appropriate action to locate wind turbines in areas which will enable them to reach their maximum potential.”
I am also thankful for Noor Nizam for his Wind Energy Electricity generation is a reality” (Sri Lanka Guardian:27/08/2009) In his words, Garvin should be commended for his boldness to take to task the lethargic and selfish bureaucrats on this issue of renewal energy development of electricity energy in Sri Lanka…. His message should be well taken by others too handling national planning and development strategies to assist the little island of 21 million to come out of the rut of poverty, misery, the destruction of the civil war and the dependence on foreign powers.” He adds in the affirmative, As Garvin Karunaratne wishes Wind Energy Electricity Generation will be a reality in Sri Lanka for the next generation”. It is my fervent hope that this will be realized.
The last paper states of how the new owner of the Hambantota Port has insisted on a massive payment as ground rent for the five wind turbines. The CEB has decided to dismantle the five wind turbines. This is a sad epitaph for wind power use in Sri Lanka.
However the contents of this book convinces any sane thinking person that wind power can be harnessed. We have to learn from mistakes, not make the mistakes rule us. As a country we have to find ways and means of forging ahead, heedless.
This study proves beyond all doubt that there is ample wind capacity in Sri Lanka for self sufficiency in our power requirements through harnessing the wind.. There is no question about this. However, as in any field of development, be it agriculture or industry, there are problems that have to be surmounted. As stated the national grid has to be developed to carry the power from areas where it is generated to the areas where the power is consumed. Perhaps there can be local grids to carry the power generated from a local wind farm to a local district capital. For instance if wind farms are located in Dela on the Kirigalpotta hillock, a grid can carry the power to the town of Ratnapura.
Sri Lankan engineers have in ancient times done wonders. The gradient of the Jaya Ganga that carried the waters of the Kala Weva to the tanks in Talawa and Anuradhapura has been constructed at a gradient of six inches in a mile, a gradient that baffles the irrigation engineers of today.
I am dead certain that Sri Lanka can become self sufficient in all its power requirements not for its present stage but also for its future development through using wind power. The wind power in the Central and Sabaragamuwa Hills is vast. Methods and systems have to be found to harness this energy. However as long as we build wind turbines on the coastal areas and ignore the areas where there is real wind power and satisfy ourselves with studies of the difficulties and constraints, our attempt will be like that of a squirrel trying to empty the water in the ocean , carrying a bit of water on its tail, endless.
THE END
Garvin Karunaratne Ph.D. Michigan State University
Author of How the IMF Ruined Sri Lanka & Alternative Programmes of Success(Godages:2006), How the IMF Sabotaged Third World Development(Kindle/Godages:2017)
