SL defends legality of operations amid India protest
30 January 2025 DARSHANA SANJEEWA BALASURIYA
Colombo, January 30 (Daily Mirror) - While defending the legality of the Sri Lanka Navy's conduct amid strong protests with Sri Lanka over an incident of firing by the Sri Lankan Navy, Defence Secretary Air Vice Marshal (Rtd) Sampath Thuyacontha said that Sri Lanka will continue to search vessels entering its waters, regardless of their country of origin, in accordance with legal protocols to prevent illegal activities.
He made these remarks after India lodged a strong protest on Tuesday following an incident in which the Sri Lankan Navy opened fire during the apprehension of 13 Indian fishermen near Delft Island in the early hours of January 28.
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs said Sri Lanka’s acting High Commissioner was called into the foreign office to lodge the protest. “Our High Commission in Colombo has also raised the matter with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Sri Lankan government,” the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said.
In a media briefing, the Defence Secretary explained that the Sri Lankan Navy conducts round-the-clock operations to combat illegal trafficking, human smuggling, illegal fishing, drug smuggling, and weapons smuggling in Sri Lankan waters.
He said that these searches are carried out in a legal manner, and reiterated that there will be no confrontations if the respective parties allow Sri Lankan authorities to perform their duties.
He also pointed out that the Sri Lankan Navy had recently seized a significant drug haul during its continuous operations.
“We have to search any vessel entering Sri Lankan waters, irrespective of the vessels country of origin. As a respected Navy, we are carrying out these searches legally. We can assure that there will be no confrontation if parties permit us to conduct our searches,” Thuyacontha said, stressing that such incidents have been rare in recent times.
Meanwhile, the Sri Lanka Navy's Commander said that initial investigations revealed the two Indian fishermen who were injured during the apprehension of a fishing boat near Kankesanthurai (KKS) were wounded by an accidental discharge of a Navy officer’s firearm. The Navy had launched a special operation on January 27 to disperse a group of Indian fishing boats caught poaching in Sri Lankan waters near Valvettithurai, Jaffna.
During the operation, the Navy seized an Indian fishing boat that had continued operating in Sri Lankan waters, engaging in illegal fishing.
The Commander explained that the Navy had attempted to board the vessel, but the Indian crew resisted and tried to assault naval personnel, even attempting to seize a firearm. In the process, an accidental shot was fired, resulting in minor injuries to two fishermen.
Following the incident, the Navy administered first aid to the injured fishermen and promptly transferred them to the Jaffna Teaching Hospital for further treatment.
The Navy Commander reaffirmed that the Sri Lanka Navy will continue its regular operations to uphold the security of Sri Lankan waters, operating professionally and in accordance with existing regulations.
The Navy will also strengthen its efforts to prevent the use of Sri Lankan waters for illegal activities, the Commander assured.⍐
The evidentiary hearing against three LTTE cadres, who aided and abetted an LTTE female cadre in carrying out a suicide attack on former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, took place before High Court Judge Navaratne Marasinghe yesterday (28).
The Attorney General filed indictments against Selvarasa Kirubakaran alias Moris Sanmugalingam, Suriyakumar and Thambaiyah Prakash alias Dhanush with 230 counts.
Senior Deputy Solicitor General Lakmali Karunanayake led the evidence and the Court fixed further hearing for today (29). The Court ordered the Terrorist Investigation Division that the next witness, who is reported to be in an unhealthy condition, be produced in Court today even providing her with transport.
An Army Sergeant and two Corporals died in the suicide attack by LTTE carder Durgha on 25 January 2006, that targeted the then Army Commander Fonseka in front of the Army Headquarters, in which the Commander suffered severe injuries.
Attorneys-at-Law Suranga Bandara, Asthika Devendra and several others appeared for the Defence. ⍐
Indian fishermen injured due to accidental firearm discharge: SLN chief
January 29, 2025 01:47 pm
The Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy says that according to initial investigations, the two Indian fishermen who were injured when the Sri Lanka Navy apprehended an India fishing boat poaching off Kankesanthurai (KKS) have been wounded due to the accidental discharge of a firearm of a Navy personnel.
Speaking during a press conference at the Defence Ministry today (29), Vice Admiral Kanchana Banagoda stated that naval personnel had boarded an Indian fishing trawler that was in Sri Lankan waters due to a suspicion after it did not respond to instructions to leave the area.
However, as a navy officer and a sailor were heading towards the pilothouse of the trawler, the Indian nationals onboard had surrounded them and assaulted the navy personnel while attempting to disarm them, the navy chief said.
He added that when they had attempted to grab the firearm it had accidentally discharged causing minor injuries to two Indian nationals who were immediately rushed to receive medical attention.
“There had been a discharge of weapon. However, the weapon discharge is at a lower angle. Initial investigations have confirmed that it was an accidental discharge when considering the angle of the bullet’s trajectory,” Vice Admiral Banagoda clarified.
India on Tuesday lodged a strong protest with Sri Lanka over an incident of firing by the Sri Lankan Navy during the apprehension of 13 Indian fishermen in the proximity of Delft Island in the early hours of last morning (28).
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs said Sri Lanka’s acting High Commissioner was called into the foreign office to lodge the protest. “Our High Commission in Colombo has also raised the matter with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Sri Lankan government,” the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said.
In the incident, out of the 13 fishermen who were on board the fishing vessel, two sustained serious injuries and are currently receiving treatment at the Jaffna Teaching Hospital. Three other fishermen received minor injuries and have been treated for the same. Indian Consulate Officials in Jaffna have visited the injured fishermen at the hospital to seek their welfare and are extending all possible assistance to the fishermen and their families.
“The Government of India has always emphasised the need to treat issues pertaining to fishermen in a humane and humanitarian manner, keeping in mind livelihood concerns. The use of force is not acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. Existing understandings between the two Governments in this regard must be strictly observed,” the Indian MEA said.
Meanwhile, the Sri Lanka Navy has issued a statement regarding the incident in question stating that the Northern Naval Command observed a cluster of Indian fishing boats poaching in the Sri Lankan waters off Valvettithurai, Jaffna in the dark hours of Monday (27 Jan).
Subsequently, the Northern Naval Command mounted a special operation to send away those fishing boats from the island waters, deploying naval craft, it said.
During this operation, the Navy seized an Indian fishing boat that continued to remain in Sri Lankan waters, while marshalling illegal fishing activities and collecting the fishing harvest. The operation also led to the apprehension of 13 Indian fishermen aboard the fishing boat.
The Sri Lanka Navy said its boarding team was compelled to conduct noncompliance boarding as the Indian fishing boat continued to maneuver aggressively, without complying with the Navy’s lawful orders and its duty, during the process of taking the boat into custody.
“On this occasion, the Indian fishermen have acted aggressively, maneuvering their fishing boat in a hostile manner and behaving confrontationally with the Navy. However, while boarding the fishing boat, in accordance with the authority vested in the Navy, the Indian fishermen, as an organized group, have attempted to assault naval personnel and made an attempt to snatch a firearm from a naval officer, endangering the lives of the naval personnel.”
In the process, an accidental fire has taken place, causing slight injuries to two Indian fishermen, the SLN said.
Following the incident, the Navy provided initial first aid to the two injured fishermen and promptly transferred them to the Jaffna Teaching Hospital for further treatment. The hospital has confirmed that their condition is stable.
Meanwhile, the Navy lodged a complaint with the Kankesanthurai Police regarding the incident.
The seized Indian fishing boat and remaining fishermen were brought to the Kankasanthurai harbour last morning and they were handed over to the Mailadi Fisheries Inspector for onward legal action, the statement said.
The thirteen Indian fishermen, who were arrested by the Sri Lanka Navy yesterday (28) for illegally entering Sri Lankan waters off Kankesanthurai, were remanded until February 10 by the Mallakam Magistrate today.
Two fishermen from the group, who were reportedly injured, are currently hospitalized.
துப்பாக்கிச் சூட்டுக்கு இலக்கான இந்திய மீனவர்கள் குறித்து கடற்படை விளக்கம்
January 29, 2025
காங்கேசன்துறை கடற்பரப்பில் சட்டவிரோத மீன்பிடி நடவடிக்கைகளில் ஈடுபட்டிருந்த போது கடற்படையினரால் கைது செய்யப்பட்ட இரண்டு இந்திய மீனவர்கள் துப்பாக்கிச் சூட்டுக்கு இலக்கானமை, எதிர்பாராத விதமாக துப்பாக்கி இயங்கியதால் என கடற்படை இன்று (29) உறுதிப்படுத்தியது.
இந்த சம்பவம் தொடர்பான முதற்கட்ட விசாரணையைத் தொடர்ந்து இந்த விடயம் தெரியவந்ததாக கடற்படைத் தளபதி வைஸ் அட்மிரல் காஞ்சன பானகொட தெரிவித்தார்.
இதற்கிடையில், கடற்படையினரால் கைது செய்யப்பட்ட 13 இந்திய மீனவர்களும் மல்லாகம் நீதவானிடம் ஆஜர்படுத்தப்பட்ட பின்னர் பெப்ரவரி மாதம் 10 ஆம் திகதி வரை விளக்கமறியலில் வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர்.
காங்கேசன்துறை கடற்பரப்பில் இந்திய மீனவர்கள் குழுவொன்று சட்டவிரோத மீன்பிடி நடவடிக்கைகளில் ஈடுபடுவதாக கிடைத்த தகவலின் அடிப்படையில், கடற்படை குழுவினர் கடந்த 27 ஆம் திகதி இரவு அவர்களை கைது செய்தனர்.
The recent warnings from small and medium-scale rice mill owners about the potential rise in rice prices—possibly exceeding Rs 300 per kg – highlight the deepening agricultural crisis in Sri Lanka. The price of paddy has recently surged to between Rs 140 and Rs 170 per kg, pushing up production costs for mill owners and farmers alike. The Government has offered Odapana loans to small and medium-scale paddy mill owners to purchase wet paddy at Rs 95 per kg and dry paddy at Rs 115. However, these measures have not been enough to alleviate the crisis. Many farmers, frustrated by delays in the government’s announcement of a guaranteed paddy price, have opted to sell their harvest to private buyers who offer up to Rs 170 per kg.
This shift in the market has led to alarming increases in rice prices. In many shops, rice shortages have become a growing issue, with the only varieties available being local Basmati rice, priced between Rs 250 and Rs 270 per kg. This steep rise in rice prices is a threat to food security, especially for the poorer households who rely on rice as a staple food. A decline in production since 2022, disruptions in the distribution chain, rising inflation, and market manipulation by large producers are thought to be factors for the shortage. And with that, as prices soar, rice has become unaffordable for many, prompting calls for stronger government intervention to regulate prices and ensure proper distribution of rice which is the nation’s staple food.
What we’re witnessing is more than just a temporary shortage. It’s a sign of how fragile Sri Lanka’s agricultural system has become. Once known as the ‘Granary of the East’, the country now finds itself dependent on imports to meet rice demand. In December last year, Sri Lanka imported 70,000 tons of rice from India to address what officials called an ‘artificial shortage’. This shift represents a stark departure from the country’s previous self-sufficiency in rice. Although the government has taken some steps, like importing rice and pledging to take action against traders accused of hoarding, these actions have been largely reactive. The agricultural sector has faced years of neglect, leaving it vulnerable to both internal policy failures and external pressures.
This crisis calls for the urgent need for structural changes in the agricultural industry. In many developed countries, farmers are valued and financially secure, but in Sri Lanka, they remain among the poorest. The disparity becomes even more glaring when considering the vast tracts of unused paddy land across the country. The lack of youth involvement in farming is a critical issue. Many young Sri Lankans are encouraged to pursue Degrees in fields unrelated to Agriculture, leaving most of them either unemployed or working in low-paying jobs such as driving tuk-tuk or leaving abroad for menial work.
In contrast, farming in many developed nations is not only respected but also profitable, with solid support systems in place to ensure the sector’s growth. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, does not promote agriculture as a career, and as a result, the agricultural workforce is ageing, and production is on the decline. To address this, the government must shift the narrative and actively encourage youth to pursue careers in agriculture. Offering incentives, training, and subsidies could make farming a viable and attractive profession. Agricultural education should be a priority, and young people should be equipped with the tools they need to succeed in the sector.
Beyond that, the Government must prioritise sustainable farming practices and modern agricultural technology to boost production, reduce the country’s reliance on imports, and help Sri Lanka return to its previous self-sufficiency in rice. Encouraging youth involvement in farming is a key step in revitalising the agricultural sector, which could address both food security and economic challenges in the long run.
As Sri Lanka faces the ongoing rice crisis, it’s clear that superficial solutions won’t be enough. The root causes need to be tackled head-on. Only by building a thriving agricultural sector can Sri Lanka hope for a future where rice and other basic foods are both affordable and readily available for all its citizens. But can we afford to wait for change, or will we find ourselves eternally dependent on imports for the foreseeable future?
US President Donald Trump is back in the White House and is creating a monstrous cacophony of noise. He is so-to-say, upsetting the ‘apple cart of the ordinary man and woman on the street in lands as far away from the US as in little Sri Lanka.
In addition to the noise the present US President is threatening all nations, small and large to fall in line with US diktat or else…? One of the first acts in his second term as president, was to call a temporary halt to all US aid programmes worldwide. These programmes cover a wide range from relief measures to development assistance, support for civil rights protection, education and technology to health and medical assistance.
Under agreements signed in 2022, Lanka also receives military assistance in terms of military training, military technology, intelligence, special training in counter-terrorism, and direct monetary assistance for military development.
The US is also our country’s biggest export destination -valued at approximately $3.52 billion. The next biggest being India at $ 1.12 billion, the UK at $ 1.04 billion, Germany at $ 881 million and Italy at $662 million. The US is therefore a very important market for our country. But can we afford to offend the new president?
It is understandable therefore, why President Dissanayake before he was elected to power, visited the US and was seen on stage bedecked with US and Lankan flags. The reason - we cannot afford to annoy the US- especially when despite claims to the contrary, regarding state of bankruptcy, our external debt stands at a whopping US $ 56.6 billion.
Even worse, the Hamilton Reserve Bank -which holds a big chunk of one of Lanka’s now-defaulted bonds- has been suing for immediate repayment. The demand hangs like ‘the swords of Damocles’ over our collective heads. It is only a US court order which has paused Hamilton’s demand for immediate repayment.
We all know how fast this situation can change in the event administration decides to back the claims of Hamilton Bank in the event of government ruffling the US President’s feathers.
Just days ago, President Trump imposed economic sanctions on Columbia after the Columbian president refused to accept two flights carrying deported migrants to land in Columbia. Hours later the Columbian president was forced to agree to accept the migrants including those arriving on US military aircraft - “without limitation or delay” to avoid ‘a looming trade war with the US’.
On another front, on Saturday, Trump called for the clearing of Gaza of its Palestinian residents -the victims of Israel’s genocidal attacks.
Over forty-six thousand Palestinians including approximately 17 thousand children have been killed in Israeli attacks on the civilian population. According to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), more than 85 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million people have been displaced by Israeli ground and air offensive. Al Jazeera reported that at least 346 schools have been destroyed or damaged.
Yet Trump is calling on Egypt and Jordan to take in these displaced people. Not demanding Israel pay reparations or be charged before the International Criminal Courts (ICC) for Crimes against Humanity.
Lanka has always backed justice for Palestine and condemned Israel’s genocidal policies against Palestinians. Our present government, before it came to power were strong defenders of Palestinian rights.
Will our present government -which organised rallies world-wide- protesting Israeli atrocities in Palestine prior to coming into power- now stand against an even greater injustice the present US President is attempting to foist on the people of Palestine? Or will they cave in, casting principles aside?
The new US President (Trump) is also threatening to forcibly take over the Panama Canal. He is demanding Canada give up its independence and become the 51st US state. Additionally he demands that Greenland should become part of the US.
It will take a huge balancing act to negotiate the acquiescence demanded by the new US regime of all countries big and small. A number of countries have entered the BRICS-led initiative. Does our NPP-led government have the backbone to stand up to unjust US demands? Or, will we, like the Columbian regime, fold up like a pack of cards? ⍐
The Government of Israel orders UNRWA to vacate its premises in occupied East Jerusalem and cease operations in them
26 January 2025
AMMAN, 26 January 2025- The State of Israel ordered UNRWA to vacate all premises in occupied East Jerusalem and cease its operations in them by 30 January 2025.
This order is in contradiction to international law obligations of UN member states including the State of Israel, which is bound by the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
United Nations premises are inviolable and enjoy privileges and immunities under the United Nations Charter.
The State of Israel is a signatory -without reservations- to the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and enacted its provisions in its domestic law. These provisions oblige the State of Israel to respect United Nations privileges and immunities, including respect for United Nations premises.
UNRWA property and assets including in East Jerusalem are immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation, and any other form of interference.
Claims from the Israeli authorities that UNRWA has no right to occupy the premises are without foundation. They promote anti-UNRWA rhetoric, placing the Agency’s facilities and personnel at risk. The Government of Israel has stated publicly that the aim to vacate UNRWA premises in Sheikh Jarrah is to expand Israeli illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.
The State of Israel must take all appropriate measures consistent with international law obligations to ensure that UNRWA’s property and installations are respected and protected.
Notes to Editors:
The order referred to in the statement above was transmitted via a letter from the Israel UN Permanent Representative.
The letter was sent to the Secretary General of the UN on 24 January 2025. It was widely circulated to the media and is available in the public domain.
Across occupied East Jerusalem, UNRWA has been operating since the 1950’s. The Agency provides 70,000 patients with primary health care and 1,150 students with education in UNRWA schools and clinics.
The UNRWA Headquarters in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem, where the Agency has had an established presence for more than 70 years, is the centre of operations of the Agency’s work in the occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem.
The Kalandia compound is a vocational training centre for 350 students (aged 15-19), on a land made available to UNRWA by the Government of Jordan.
Over the years, there have been repeated attempts to force UNRWA to vacate the premises in Sheikh Jarrah including through arson attacks, protests by extremists and eviction letters. UNRWA staff have been subjected to violence and arrests.
UNRWA has repeatedly protested against these attempts to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel.
Gaza must all be fully demilitarized and without a governing role for Hamas-USA
Trump envoy expresses support for Israeli laws targeting UNRWA
US representative tells Security Council Jerusalem justified in effort to shutter UN agency over its ties to Hamas, rejects claims that doing so will spark humanitarian disaster
By Jacob Magid The Times Of Israel 28-01-2025
US Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Dorothy Camille Shea speaks during a UN Security Council meeting concerning the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) at UN headquarters in New York City on January 28, 2025. (Photo by Yuki IWAMURA / AFP)
Breaking with the previous Biden administration, the Trump administration came out on Tuesday in favor of Israeli legislation to sever Jerusalem’s ties with the UN relief agency for Palestinian refugees UNRWA and to severely restrict its operations in Gaza and the West Bank.
“It is Israel’s sovereign decision to close UNRWA’s offices in Jerusalem on January 30. The United States supports the implementation of this decision,” US chargé d’affaires ad interim Dorothy Shea said in remarks during the UN Security Council’s monthly session on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Biden administration raised concerns over the extent to which Hamas has managed to infiltrate UNRWA and moved to freeze US funding to the agency following revelations that a number of its members actively participated in Hamas’s October 7 onslaught.
However, it came out against Congress’s decision to extend that freeze to this coming March — when lawmakers are expected to maintain the hold indefinitely.
Biden officials argued that UNRWA plays too essential of a role in Gaza’s humanitarian operations, and that it therefore should not be shuttered. It is behind many logistical aspects of aid delivery, including storage and transport.
The Knesset legislation passed last fall also bars Israeli officials from any contact with UNWRA, which the agency says will lead to the collapse of its operations in Gaza and the West Bank where coordination with Israeli authorities is essential.
Israel after passing the legislation said it would work with international organizations to ensure that a vacuum in the humanitarian effort would not be created by UNRWA’s departure, but Israeli officials have acknowledged to The Times of Israel that those preparations have not yet been completed as the law comes into place.
These concerns were not voiced by Trump’s interim envoy at the UN, who echoed Israeli stances questioning the UN’s objectivity.
“We are concerned about reports that returned Israeli hostages were held by Hamas in UN facilities during their prolonged captivity in Gaza. It is vital for a full and independent investigation to assess these very serious allegations,” Shea said. “Unfortunately, this follows a pattern of serious allegations on the misuse of UN facilities – particularly UNRWA facilities – by Hamas terrorists.”
For his part, UNRWA’s chief told the UN Security Council that the ban — due to come into effect on Thursday — would be disastrous and cripple the body’s work in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, claimed the ban would “heighten instability and deepen despair in the occupied Palestinian territory at a critical moment,” undermine the ceasefire in Gaza, and sabotage the enclave’s recovery and political transition.
“The relentless assault on UNRWA is harming the lives and future of Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territory. It is eroding their trust in the international community, jeopardizing any prospect for peace and security,” he contended.
Philippe Lazzarini (C), Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, speaks during a UN Security Council meeting at UN headquarters in New York Cityon January 28, 2025. (Photo by Yuki IWAMURA / AFP)
Shea, in turn, criticized UNRWA for “exaggerating the effects” of the Knesset legislation by “irresponsibly and dangerously… suggesting that they will force the entire humanitarian response to halt.”
“What is needed is a nuanced discussion about how we can ensure that there is no interruption in the delivery of humanitarian aid and essential services,” the US envoy said.
“UNRWA is not — and never has been — the only option for providing humanitarian assistance in Gaza. Many other agencies have experience and expertise to do this work and have done this work,” she said, echoing the Israeli stance. “UNRWA’s work has been tainted and its credibility questioned due to the terrorist ties to Hamas that UNRWA staff had that were exposed as a result of Hamas’s October 7 attack.”
Shea still urged Security Council members to support the US, Qatari and Egyptian efforts to scale up aid into Gaza.
“We must ensure Hamas or other terrorist groups are not permitted to seize, divert, or profit from this assistance – and that if it does so, it is reported immediately and held accountable,” she said, adding that Gaza must all be fully demilitarized and without a governing role for Hamas.
Notably, Shea said the US is “strongly committed” to implementing the ceasefire and hostage release deal. It appeared to be one of the Trump administration’s firmest statements yet in support of implementing all three stages of the agreement, amid calls from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners to resume the war after the first phase ends next month.
“The United States is strongly committed to implementing the ceasefire agreement, so that the hostages can return home and the people of Gaza can look toward a brighter future under new leadership,” Shea said.
US President Donald Trump and his Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff have also spoken about the importance of returning all of the hostages, but the former has also said he’s not confident the ceasefire will hold.
Netanyahu says he has received assurances from Trump that the US will back Israel in resuming the war if Hamas violates the terms of the ceasefire or stops negotiating in good faith regarding the terms of the second phase. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has suggested that the premier has given him an assurance to resume fighting that isn’t conditional on whether Hamas violates the deal.
Shea — who is part of an interim staff running the US Mission to the UN until Trump’s nominee Rep. Elise Stefanik is confirmed by the Senate — was careful not to criticize Israel in her remarks or even suggest that Netanyahu is not supportive of sticking with the hostage deal.
The speech was overall a clear departure from the previous Biden administration, which also consistently sought to defend Israel at the UN, but did so while criticizing Israeli policy in the West Bank and for not doing enough to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza — and sometimes even exacerbating it.
Shea avoided criticizing Israel altogether, placing all of the onus for civilian casualties on Hamas.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon speaks during a UN Security Council meeting concerning the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) at UN headquarters in New York City on January 28, 2025. (Photo by Yuki IWAMURA / AFP)
Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said at a press conference that UNRWA must vacate all of its properties in Jerusalem.
“UNRWA must cease its operations and evacuate all premises it operates in Jerusalem.”
“Israel will terminate all communication with UNRWA or anyone acting on its behalf.”
Danon said the ban on UNRWA “was not a political decision. It was simply a necessary one.”
“UNRWA has failed in its mandate. It has failed the people who were supposed to benefit from its services.”
He said UNRWA “had failed to investigate the widespread infiltration of its ranks by Hamas and other terrorist organizations.”
“No sovereign state should facilitate operations of an agency that threatens its national security and blatantly violates its laws.”
Israel, he said, is ready to cooperate with other UN agencies “that are not tainted by terror.”⍐
President Dissanayake’s congratulatory message to President Trump handed over
January 28, 2025 ADA
Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United States Mahinda Samarasinghe has visited the US Department of State and handed over the congratulatory message of President Anura Kumara Disanayaka addressed to President Donald Trump on his assumption of office as the 47th President of the United States of America.
Ambassador Samarasinghe also handed over congratulatory messages of Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath addressed to the Vice President of the United States J.D. Vance and the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
During the meeting on 24 January 2025 with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of South and Central Asian Elizabeth Horst along with Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Nicole Chulick, Ambassador Samarasinghe took the opportunity of discussing a wide range of issues relevant to both countries and in particular took the opportunity of mentioning the religious event to be held at the Embassy to invoke merit and blessings to those affected by the widespread fire in Southern California.
Ambassador Samarasinghe went on to mention that when the temples in the greater Washington D.C. were approached about the Buddhist religious event to be held today there was spontaneous agreement by the Chief Priests of all of the temples to participate at the event in recognition of the strong bilateral relations that exist today between the two countries, and in mindful of the numerous occasions that the United States has spontaneously assisted Sri Lanka at times of great calamity and need.
The U.S. side greatly appreciated this gesture of goodwill from Sri Lanka and will be participating at the event, a statement said.
Ambassador Samarasinghe was accompanied by Deputy Chief of Mission Rohana Ambagolla and Counsellor Chathuri Perera to the meeting. ⍐
President Donald Trump said he wanted Jordan and Egypt to take in more Palestinians from Gaza so they could “maybe live in peace” there.
The Washington Post January 26, 2025By Annabelle Timsit and Gerry Shih
President Donald Trump said he wants Jordan and Egypt to take in more Palestinian refugees as part of a plan to “clean out” Gaza, a controversial proposal previously advocated by voices on Israel’s right wing and among its military hard-liners.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday, Trump said he spoke with King Abdullah II of Jordan — whose country has historically taken in millions of Palestinian refugees — about the idea, which Abdullah and other Arab leaders have previously rejected.
“I said to him, I’d love you to take on more, because I’m looking at the whole Gaza Strip right now, and it’s a mess,” Trump said. “I’d like him to take people. I’d like Egypt to take people.”
“You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing,” he said.
“I’d rather get involved with some of the Arab nations and build housing in a different location where they can maybe live in peace,” he added. When asked, he said this solution could be temporary “or it could be long term.”
It is not clear if Trump’s comments signal a change in U.S. policy. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment early Sunday. The official readouts of the call from Jordan’s royal palace and the White House did not mention the suggestion of relocating Palestinians.
Human rights groups and the Biden administration have opposed a forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza or the occupied West Bank. Israel’s Arab neighbors also oppose it and have said they fear that Israel intends to force Palestinians out in order to weaken their case for independent Palestinian statehood. After Hamas attacked on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 250 hostages, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a counterattack that has forced nearly 2 million Gazans from their homes and left much of the Gaza Strip in ruins, drawing accusations from critics that Israel was seeking the deliberate removal of Palestinians from Gaza.
The idea has support among ultranationalists in Israel, who seek to establish settlements in the enclave. Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said in 2023 that “the voluntary emigration of Gaza Arabs to countries around the world” was “the right humanitarian solution for the residents of Gaza and the entire region.” Itamar Ben Gvir, another far-right politician who recently resigned from Israel’s government over its ceasefire agreement with Hamas, previously said Palestinians should be encouraged to “voluntarily migrate.”
Even before war erupted in 2023, some Israeli strategists proposed encouraging Gazans to move to the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt possibly in exchange for Palestinian statehood. The idea has been discussed by Palestinian, Israeli and Arab leaders for years but has remained highly controversial, given the repeated history of forced Palestinian displacement over the past 75 years. An estimated 750,000 Palestinians fled in the war of 1948 that led to the creation of the Jewish state — an event known as the “Nakba,” or “catastrophe” in Arabic. Another conflict in 1967 displaced hundreds of thousands more.
Trump’s comments drew immediate criticism from Hamas and Arab governments. In a statement, Hamas accused the Trump administration of falling in line with Israeli plans and urged Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries “to emphasize their firm stances in rejecting any proposal of displacement or deportation” of Palestinians.
Egypt’s Foreign Ministry in a statement Sunday reiterated its “unwavering support” for the Palestinian people and their rights to land, in accordance with international law. It strongly condemned actions that undermine these rights, including displacement and settlement expansion.
The country’s ambassador to Washington, Motaz Zahran, also previously rejected the idea in an op-ed in the Hill newspaper in October 2023. “Egypt’s stance is clear: it cannot be part of any solution that involves the transfer of Palestinians into Sinai,” Zahran wrote. “Such a move would trigger a second Nakba, an unimaginable tragedy for a resilient people who have an unbreakable bond with their ancestral land.”
The Jordanian foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, also rebuffed Trump’s proposal. “Our rejection of the displacement of Palestinians is firm and will not change," he said. “Jordan is for Jordanians and Palestine is for Palestinians.”
Weeks after the war began, former Israeli officials and allies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, including former deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon, publicly floated the idea of temporarily relocating Gazans to tent cities in the northern Sinai Peninsula — a proposal that was criticized as being akin to ethnic cleansing of the Strip. A planning document written days after the Hamas attack by Israel’s Intelligence Ministry, which was leaked and published by the Israeli website Local Call, also promoted the option of evacuating Gazan civilians to Sinai.
Amir Avivi, a former senior Israeli military officer who has long argued for encouraging Gazans to settle in Sinai, said the plan was mulled by Arab leaders long before the 2023 war broke out. Mahmoud Abbas, who leads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, has claimed on several occasions since 2014 that he rejected an offer from Egyptian leaders to settle Palestinians in the northern Sinai adjacent to the Gaza Strip and create a Palestinian state.
“We were pushing this idea years ago, and now it seems to have caught up,” Avivi said, referring to Trump vocalizing the resettlement proposal. “Gaza is ruined and ruled by a very harsh terror organization and many Gazans want to emigrate, so calling for Egypt to open the border is the most basic human thing.”
Diana Buttu, a Palestinian Canadian lawyer who has served as an adviser to Palestinian negotiating teams, said Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi will not want to be seen as giving “exactly what Israel wants: It wants Palestinian land, just not the Palestinians on it.”
“There’s nothing new in all of this,” Buttu said. “To just erase Gaza and build it with something new is to treat [Palestinians] as something replaceable, and the harm that Israel has done as somehow erasable.”
The idea is particularly sensitive because of Palestinians’ recent memory of displacement, said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the Chatham House think tank.
Many Palestinians fled 20th-century conflicts with Israel to nearby Arab countries, and today, there are an estimated 438,000 U.N.-registered Palestinian refugees in Syria, 493,000 in Lebanon and about 2.4 million in Jordan, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA.
After the start of the war in 2023, Palestinian authorities told The Washington Post in June that about 115,000 Gazans had crossed into Egypt since the previous October and were mostly living in limbo, with no legal status and nowhere else to go.
The question of large-scale displacement of Palestinians to neighboring countries is a “fundamental red line” for Arab countries, particularly Jordan and Egypt, Vakil said. Trump’s suggestion “really challenges and questions whether the U.S. can be a broker and supporter of Palestinian statehood,” she said.
In their call Saturday, Trump told Abdullah that the situation in Gaza was untenable.
“Something has to happen, but it’s literally a demolition site right now,” he told reporters on Air Force One.
Trump has broadly called for an end to the war in Gaza but has not been explicit about a path to achieve it. Privately, he has offered support for Netanyahu and his country’s offensives against Hamas and Hezbollah — telling the prime minister in a call in October to “do what you have to do,” as The Post reported at the time.
On Saturday, Trump said he overturned former president Joe Biden’s pause on sending 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, which was announced in May as part of an effort to reduce the civilian toll from Israel’s military operations.
When asked why he released the bomb shipments to Israel, Trump said: “Because they bought them.”
A worrying reality: Neither Russia nor China can be contained
Mohamed Lamine KABA, January 28, 2025 NEO
In a rapidly changing geopolitical context, the West faces a troubling reality: neither Russia nor China can be contained. It is a new multipolar era that exposes the flaws in Western strategies, weakens traditional alliances, and disrupts the established world order.
The leaders of Russia and China met to agree on a further joint strategy. Is the talk between Putin and Xi a ‘political signal’?
These and many other questions were touched upon by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President XI Jinping during a one-and-a-half-hour video conference on January 21.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President XI Jinping during a one-and-a-half-hour video conference on January 21.
The leaders of Russia and China met to agree on a further joint strategy.
“We are coordinating our steps on other multilateral forums as well: in the UN and its Security Council, in the SCO, the G20, APEC. We are jointly in favour of building a fairer multipolar world order, we work to ensure indivisible security in Eurasia and the world as a whole. I can confidently say that the foreign policy connection and the joint Russian-Chinese work objectively plays an important role in international affairs”, the Russian President stated.
During the talk with Putin, Xi Jinping promised to defend, together with his Russian colleagues, the rights of the two countries, earned in blood during the Second World War.
“In the new year, I am prepared to raise Russian-Chinese relations to new heights with you, to withstand external uncertainties on the basis of maintaining the stability and stress resistance of Chinese-Russian relations in the name of the development and flourishing of the countries, international justice and equality”, said the Chinese President.
Is the talk between Putin and Xi a ‘political signal’?
The inconvenient reality reveals the ineffectiveness of containment strategies in the face of the rise of Russia and China. Despite economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, Russia continues to strengthen its position in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America, while China extends its influence through massive investments and initiatives such as the “new Silk Road”. This inability of the West to contain these emerging powers highlights the limits of its traditional policies and questions its global leadership. Moreover, this rise in power exacerbates the fragmentation within the West. Divergences on the management of geopolitical challenges create tensions between the United States, the European Union and NATO, weakening cohesion and compromising the capacity to respond to global threats. Threat insofar as the only point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans in the Western space is to consider China and Russia as existential threats. This situation is accelerating the transition to a multipolar world order, redefining traditional alliances and reducing Western influence on the global chessboard.
As a result, the current geopolitical and geostrategic evolution is disrupting the post-Cold War world order. The dynamic rise of China and Russia illustrates this transformation. With its rapidly expanding economy, China, now a leading global economic power, is extending its influence across the four corners of the world. Simultaneously, Russia is regaining a position of international leadership thanks to its strategic energy policy. The once hegemonic liberal world order is being challenged with the growing isolation of the United States, epitomized by the nationalist and protectionist shift initiated under the new Trump administration . Moreover, nationalism and protectionism are gaining popularity in the West, profoundly impacting national economic policies. At the same time, global governance is experiencing turbulence, with institutions such as the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO under fire. Regional conflicts, from Syria to Ukraine, from Palestine to Israel, from Libya to South Sudan, exacerbate this dynamic.
The patent failure of containment strategies
Without a shadow of a doubt, the current geopolitical dynamics, as mentioned above, highlight the ineffectiveness of the containment strategies adopted by the United States, the European Union and NATO to limit the growing influence of Russia and China, which is part of a historical continuity. Despite unprecedented economic sanctions, Russia is strengthening its presence around the world, while China, through the “Belt and Road” Initiative, is expanding its global footprint through strategic infrastructure investments. These sanctions have paradoxically consolidated Vladimir Putin’s leadership in Russia on the global chessboard and pushed the country to develop new trade partnerships, reducing its dependence on the West. For its part, China has been able to circumvent the restrictions thanks to local technological innovation and strengthened economic alliances with emerging countries. This strategic reorientation towards Russia and China highlights the appeal of their development model, thus accentuating the limits of traditional Western policies. Faced with this development, the West must imperatively rethink its approaches in an increasingly multipolar international context, calling into question its historical supremacy.
The fragmentation of the West is evident
The West’s strategic cohesion, once a cornerstone, is now a thing of the past. The failure to contain the geopolitical ambitions of Russia and China has exposed deep fractures within the West, exacerbating differences over how to manage these threats. While Germany and France favor diplomatic and economic approaches to Russia because of their energy interests (despite aggressive rhetoric from political elites), Poland and the Baltic states opt for stronger security postures, influenced by their geographical and historical proximity. Similarly, complex economic relations with China divide European countries between commercial opportunities and security concerns. This division extends to NATO, where Turkey’s independent policies, such as the purchase of Russian S-400 systems, call into question the cohesion of the alliance. Financial and strategic disputes between the United States and some European allies add a further layer of complexity, weakening the coordinated response to threats (China and Russia are still considered existential threats in the Western space). For the United States, the traditional leader of the West, policies perceived as unilateral, such as the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the WHO or the potential imposition of tariffs, erode the trust of allies. These internal dynamics weaken the West’s position on the world stage, reducing its influence in the face of emerging powers (which it was supposed to contain) and redefining the balances of power in a rapidly changing world.
A new multipolar world order
In a rapidly changing global context marked by the emergence of a new multipolar order, the geopolitical scene is undergoing a dramatic redefinition of alliances. The rise of Russia and China as major geopolitical actors is redrawing international relations to the detriment of the traditional influence of Western nations. These emerging powers offer new economic opportunities and alternative political support, attracting many countries that are reassessing their strategic positions in the face of a changing global system. At the same time, Russian and Chinese strategies for expanding spheres of influence, notably through massive investments in Africa and Asia or strategic alliances in Latin America, are weakening the once uncontested dominance of Western powers. This new balance is challenging the liberal international system, weakening institutions such as the United Nations and the WTO. The multipolar governance models promoted by Russia and China challenge the principles of unipolarism, eroding the moral and political authority of the West. Thus, this profound upheaval signals an irreversible transformation of the world order, challenging Western predominance and opening the way to an era of growing rivalries on a global scale.
From the above, we can deduce that the West’s inability to contain Russia and China marks the end of an era and the beginning of a new multipolar world order. Faced with this inescapable reality, strategies and alliances must be reinvented to navigate a transformed and increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape.
It can be said that the US foreign policy, based on containing Russia and China, is nothing more than a sale of illusions, in the sense that neither Russia nor China can be contained.⍐
Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University
Trump threatens country after country with U.S. economic weapons
In only a week, the president has floated financial reprisals for Mexico, Canada, Russia, Denmark and Colombia. The hostilities could backfire.
President Donald Trump has already threatened to impose major economic penalties on at least a half-dozen countries, alarming global leaders as he uses the prospect of sanctions and tariffs to force other nations to do what he wants.
Almost every day during his first week in office, Trump promised to hammer some country with potent economic weapons, rapidly reshaping U.S. foreign policy in pursuit of goals on everything from trade to migration.
Trump’s combative approach — applied to such key trading partners as Canada and Mexico; adversaries such as Russia; and smaller economies such as Colombia and Denmark — reflects his view that the United States is being routinely “ripped off” by most other countries. But the blizzard of demands that don’t always address only trade put him on track for simultaneous confrontations around the globe, which could escalate unpredictably to the detriment of the U.S. and global economies.
On Sunday, his administration announced, then backed off, tariffs and sanctions on Colombia, citing a deal on the deportation of migrants that the South American nation had initially resisted.
Successive U.S. presidents have stepped up their use of economic power over the past several decades. The early days of Trump’s second term, however, are already signaling a new stage of that trend, as the president stunned the world by saying he would be willing to pulverize the economies of even allied countries over seemingly routine policy disagreements — or over sudden demands for their territory.
“This is an aggressive exercise of U.S. economic power in a way we have not seen in a very long time — at least not in the post-World War II era,” said John Creamer, who was a senior diplomat for more than 35 years and was a deputy assistant secretary of state.
Trump told a GOP retreat Monday that tariffs would soon be announced on steel, aluminum and copper. Speaking with reporters Monday night on Air Force One, he said he had not yet chosen a tariff rate. He said he had a number in his mind that he wasn’t yet ready to share.
“It will be enough to protect our country,” Trump said.
Trump said tariffs “could be” both a way to raise revenue and be a tool to get what he wants from other countries. He said the United States was “at our best” economically from 1870 to 1913.
During his first term, Trump also imposed or threatened to impose tariffs on many U.S. trading partners, including allies such as France and Canada, as he sought leverage in freewheeling negotiations. He also imposed punishing sanctions on such countries as Venezuela and Iran. Campaigning last year, Trump promised “universal tariffs” far beyond what he’d enacted during his first term, falsely declaring they were paid by foreign nations rather than U.S. consumers, and vowed to revive tough sanctions on Iran and other countries.
Still, the extent to which Trump has already turned to these tools of economic coercion has proved striking.
Last Monday, he threatened that 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada would kick in Feb. 1 — this weekend — unless those countries act to curb migration and the fentanyl trade. On Tuesday, Trump floated 10 percent tariffs on all imports from China. On Wednesday, he said he would impose “high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions” against Russia unless it ended the war in Ukraine — a threat he reiterated on Fox News on Thursday.
On Friday, the Financial Times reported that Trump the previous week had threatened tariffs on Danish officials unless they were willing to cede control of Greenland. And on Sunday, Trump said he would impose tariffs and sanctions against Colombia unless it bent to his demands and accepted military flights returning undocumented migrants. That conflict appeared to abate Sunday night after Colombia agreed to his terms.
Meanwhile, Trump also issued an executive order renewing sanctions against the International Criminal Court in The Hague, after President Joe Biden had rescinded measures Trump imposed in his first term. Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state, told Congress that he would ensure major sanctions are reimposed on the Iranian regime. Trump also floated tariffs of 100 percent on the “BRICS” nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) if they pursue alternatives to the U.S. dollar.
“The Trump administration is really eager to demonstrate the power of sanctions and tariffs as a lever to get policy outcomes, and looking for policy opportunities to deploy it,” said Ricardo Zúñiga, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs during the Biden administration. “There should not be any doubt: These are not a bluff; they are very, very eager to use them as a kind of proof of concept. It’s a chance for them to test these weapons.”
Advisers said these demands reflect a cohesive approach to the tools of economic coercion. Trump and his aides think tariffs and sanctions have too frequently been used as half-measures but they could force policy changes if the United States threatens to impose them with maximum force, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. The people said they think threatening maximum sanctions — but not necessarily imposing them — will also allow the U.S. dollar to maintain its status as the world’s reserve currency, which Trump and Scott Bessent, his nominee for treasury secretary, have described as a top priority.
“It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see that Trump is redefining U.S. foreign policy. Previously, U.S. presidents used commercial tools when dealing with commercial issues. But being a supreme negotiator, I’m sure Trump asked: ‘Why aren’t we using all our tools to make sure we get our way?’” said Juan Cruz, who was a senior aide on the White House National Security Council during Trump’s first term. “We’re seeing a willingness to use full-force economic tools to get what we want done, and that’s emblematic of what we’re going to see from now on.”
Trump advisers such as billionaire Elon Musk cheered news that Colombia had backed down as evidence that Trump could bully his way into securing policy victories.
Colombia announced on Monday the takeoff of a military plane to the United States that will bring 110 Colombian deportees, after overcoming diplomatic tensions with the Donald Trump administration. (Colombian Aerospace Force/Handout/AFP/Getty Images)
“These countries cannot respond. The asymmetry of market pain, the flight of their capital to the United States — these emerging markets would just get crushed,” said John Feeley, who served as U.S. ambassador to Panama from 2015 to 2019. Feeley quoted the Athenian historian Thucydides: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
And yet this sort of pressure could still ultimately backfire in ways that expose contradictions in Trump’s policy goals.
Canada, Mexico and China are the nation’s three biggest trading partners. Those three export more than $1 trillion to the United States alone each year. Economists have warned that the imposition of tariffs will raise prices for consumers here — undermining Trump’s promise to control inflation.
Trump’s use of sanctions also has risks. Senior Treasury officials have been concerned for at least a decade that the overuse of economic sanctions could make the weapon less effective, by encouraging other nations to set up financial networks beyond U.S. detection. Sanctions and tariff threats against U.S. allies will give many countries added incentive to deepen their economic ties with adversaries such as China, leaving them less exposed to Trump’s financial retribution.
“It will accelerate efforts to build workarounds to U.S. sanctions and tariffs. You’re showing that everyone is vulnerable — not just adversaries like China and Russia — but allies like Canada, Mexico and Colombia,” said Edward Fishman, a sanctions expert who served in the Obama administration. “It will undercut the potency of U.S. economic weapons and undercut our efforts to get other countries on our side against China.”
Trump has largely threatened new tariffs and sanctions that he hasn’t imposed. But foreign policy experts point out that the threat must be executed at some point to be viewed by other nations as credible. The more countries Trump promises to punish economically, the greater likelihood of an escalation that hurts both countries.
“It’s a straightforward message. Whether the tactic will work or not, we’ll see,” said Caleb McCarry, who was a senior staffer to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was the State Department’s lead on Cuba policy during the George W. Bush administration. “Once you actually pull the trigger, you have to live with the consequences.”
Samantha Schmidt and Michael Birnbaum contributed to this report.
