Syria: The Regime Changes, but the Crisis Remains

 

Syria: The Regime Changes, but the Crisis Remains

Alexandr Svaranc, December 14, 2024

The swift fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime has sparked a mixed reaction: some are filled with admiration and joy, others with surprise and astonishment, while yet others feel saddened and disheartened. However, stability in Syria remains a distant prospect.

The swift fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime

What are the main reasons for the fall of Assad’s regime, and what is set to replace it?

In a matter of days, the Assad family clan’s regime, which had ruled the country for 54 years, was overthrown. Of course, such an event cannot be considered coincidental, given that the last 13 years have seen fierce civil conflict between a diverse opposition and the ruling regime.

Turkey had been aware of the armed opposition’s plans to advance in Syria six months prior

Is the primary reason for the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad the lack of political democracy and the autocratic nature of the ruling clan for over half a century? Formally, it is hard to argue against this, as society desires change and freedom. However, the Middle East, with rare exceptions such as Israel, continues to embody autocracy as a principle of political governance. Can Saudi Arabia, Iran, or even Turkey be held up as models of democracy?

Should the intraconfessional and interethnic tensions within Syrian society be considered the catalyst for the regime’s downfall? Clearly, the answer here is also affirmative, as for decades, the country grappled with the issue of ethnic rights, particularly for the Kurds. Religious tensions between Sunnis, Shias, and Alawites persisted unresolved. Christian minorities (such as the Armenian community) perhaps integrated relatively smoothly into Syria’s political system, as they did not present significant demands to the authorities.

Yet will Assad’s resignation and departure from Syria, whether in the short or long term, eliminate the inter-ethnic and intra-confessional tensions within Syrian society? Will the new authorities, whether interim or elected, renounce repression as a method of governance and suppression of dissent? Can the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham* (HTS), Muhammad al-Jolani, resolve the unending disputes between Sunnis and Shias or address the Kurdish issue? Especially with Turkey no longer lurking in the shadows but visibly present on the scene. Consequently, the problems that existed under Assad are likely to persist under other leaders as well.

It appears that President Bashar al-Assad made a poor geopolitical choice, entering into conflict with major centres of global and regional power (such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Turkey). Assad overestimated his capacities — political, economic, military, and financial. In this regard, his rejection of the Qatar pipeline project — transiting gas from Qatar through Syria to Turkey and Europe — was a key warning signal, triggering a series of domestic and international problems with a tragic outcome for him.

This is why the United States claims that it needed oil from Syria, and they obtained it, albeit by occupying the eastern and north-eastern provinces of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR). So, how are the Turks any worse, considering Turkey has already become a key logistical hub for energy transit to Europe? With the regime change in Damascus and the rise of HTS to replace the Ba’ath Party, Ankara will likely be able to reach an agreement with Doha regarding the Qatari gas pipeline—a crucial matter for Europe, which is suffering from a gas crisis due to anti-Russian sanctions.

However, the issue of oil and gas was not the only reason for the swift fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Geopolitical challenges related to Israel and its confrontation with Iran also came to the fore. For Tel Aviv, Syria is a neighbouring country and a security concern, particularly regarding the Golan Heights, occupied since 1967. In other words, even after the 1973 war and the 1974 disengagement agreement, Israel planned to legitimise the occupied territories and expand its security buffer zone deeper into Syria. Another security issue for Israel is connected to the strategic alliance between Damascus and Tehran, where Assad transformed Syria into a key ally of Iran and the forces of Shia Islam. Syria became the main transit corridor for the supply of weapons and military equipment to Hezbollah.

Thus, Israel’s objective in Syria became the destruction of the Iranian supply corridor, preventing Hezbollah from using locations in Lebanon targeted by Israeli airstrikes, and securing direct access to the borders of a weakened Iran. For this reason, during the advance of Turkey-backed proxies such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) on Hama, Homs, and Damascus, Israel carried out airstrikes on Syrian bridges and other communication infrastructure. These strikes aimed to facilitate the proxies’ operations and block the redeployment of Shia and Iranian groups to the front lines.

Turkey, while publicly distancing itself from involvement in the military operations of HTS* and the Syrian National Army* (SNA), actively supported them. Reuters reported, following Assad’s departure, that Turkey had been aware of the armed opposition’s plans—a coalition of Salafists (HTS*) and Turkmen (SNA*)—to advance in Syria six months prior. Allegedly, these groups requested Ankara to refrain from interference.

However, the high level of military equipment and preparedness of these Turkey-backed proxy forces indicates external (read: Turkish) support. The synchronicity of their offensive in Syria immediately following the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, the focal point of the offensive in Idlib (a zone under Turkey’s responsibility), and the high frequency of meetings between Western and Eastern foreign ministers and Turkey’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan during the radicals’ advance all point to Ankara’s involvement in the forceful overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Turkey was undoubtedly informed about the planned offensive on Damascus six months in advance but failed to notify its Astana Process partners (Russia and Iran) in time.

In other words, Turkey, hoping to restore full relations with the United States under President Donald Trump’s administration, became the principal executor of the US-Israeli plan to overthrow Assad and contain Iran and Russia in the region. It turns out that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s more than year-long anti-Israeli rhetoric, including elements of a trade embargo, was merely a part of a joint operation by the US, Israel, and Turkey. Ankara never banned the transit of Azerbaijani oil through its territory to Israel, and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has already expressed support for Turkey’s actions in overthrowing Assad.

Nevertheless, the primary reason for the fall of Assad’s regime lies within the regime itself and its leader. The Syrian authorities failed to strengthen their own army and intelligence services, continued a policy of repression against dissenting forces, and relied heavily on external support from Russia and Iran. As a result, the regime lost trust and control, while the army disgracefully surrendered its positions.

At the same time, Iranian sources report that President Bashar al-Assad refused direct military assistance from Iran (notably during a meeting with Dr. Larijani). The Iranian side now accuses Assad of collaborating with Israel, citing HTS*-released documents from Syrian intelligence.

Assad, in effect, acted in line with the will of the newly elected US President Trump by abandoning his alliance with Iran and heeding the threats of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But who is replacing Bashar al-Assad’s regime? The new figure is Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham* (HTS) leader Muhammad al-Jolani—a Salafist and a former terrorist. Can he, as the head of a transitional government, ensure civil peace in Syria and maintain the borders of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR)?

It is curious that HTS* has not yet officially taken charge of the interim transitional government in Syria. Yet, in several countries (including the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Russia) official Syrian diplomatic missions have replaced the SAR* flag with HTS* insignia.

It is understandable that Erdoğan will initially temper HTS’s stance towards Russia and may even temporarily maintain the loyalty of HTS and the Syrian National Army (SNA) to the presence of Russian military bases in Tartus and Khmeimim. But will Turkey always take responsibility for these forces? Likely not.

What conflicts could undermine stability within and beyond Syria?

Turkey is currently celebrating what it considers a victory—the fall of Assad’s regime. From Turkey’s perspective, Assad deserved his fate for refusing Erdoğan’s conditions to recognise realities on the ground and jointly eliminate Kurdish forces. Turkey now sees the localisation of the Kurdish issue in Rojava as feasible and is opening border crossings for the return of numerous Syrian refugees. However, Erdoğan’s overconfidence in addressing the Kurdish question — specifically in eliminating Kurdish resistance — and his focus on strengthening the Sunni factor in former Syria may backfire. The United States and Israel are unlikely to abandon their support for the Kurds; instead, they are likely to leverage this factor for their own interests, including restraining Turkey.

The next challenge to Syria’s stability involves Israel and its plans for the Golan Heights and the surrounding security zone.

Tel Aviv recognises that the vacuum left after Assad’s fall will be filled by Islamic (more precisely, Sunni) radicals, some of whom are already speaking about fully restoring SAR’s borders, including reclaiming the Golan Heights—incidentally, the region of al-Jolani’s origin. So far, however, the HTS* leader has made no similar statements regarding the north-western provinces and territories occupied by Turkey.

For the first time since the occupation of the Golan Heights, Israel has, with Assad’s fall, redeployed its forces deeper into Syrian territory and occupied the buffer zone, including strategic highlands. Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the collapse of Assad’s regime, stating: “This is a historic day for the Middle East. The fall of Assad’s regime, the tyranny in Damascus, opens up significant opportunities but also carries considerable dangers. This collapse is a direct result of our decisive actions against Hezbollah and Iran, Assad’s main supporters. It has triggered a chain reaction among all those seeking freedom from this tyranny and oppression”.

The Syrian Crisis Is Far From Over

At the same time, Netanyahu emphasised that the fall of Assad’s regime is “fraught with serious dangers”. Specifically, it risks violating the 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria. On the night of 8–9 December 1924, the Syrian army abandoned its positions, prompting the Israeli army to enter the buffer zone. Tel Aviv will not tolerate new threats to Israel’s security interests from radical (and uncontrollable) religious groups. In other words, Israel has no intention of accepting a Syrian version of Hamas or Hezbollah in the form of HTS*( * terrorist organisation banned in Russia).

Presumably, this is why IDF tank brigades marched towards Damascus and, along with air support, destroyed military arsenals and equipment belonging to the former Syrian army, ensuring that the new militants are not tempted to reclaim the Golan Heights for Syria.

The third unresolved problem is the sharp antagonism between Sunnis, Shias, and Alawites. HTS is already conducting mass executions of its opponents, which only deepens the hostile divisions within the Islamic community. Iran, for now, is focusing its attention on what might be called “accounting” for the losses incurred during the destruction of its embassy in Damascus. However, this does not mean Tehran will abandon Syria or its commitment to Shia Islam.

Finally, one must not discount Russia. The regime change in Damascus is unlikely to please Moscow, which has already classified the insurgents’ military offensive as an act of aggression and a violation of sovereignty. If Syria does not establish an inclusive government with a friendly attitude towards Russia, the strategic purpose of maintaining the naval and air bases there will diminish. However, this does not mean Russia cannot establish new military bases in the Middle East or North Africa.

While Recep Tayyip Erdoğan might idealise the strength of modern Turkey, he must understand that his country is currently too economically dependent on Russia for gas, oil, nuclear energy, tourism, the construction industry, and ambitions for a systemic breakthrough into Turan via Armenia’s Zangezur region. Militarily, Turkey also cannot compare with Russia. Moscow’s silence in response to Ankara’s periodic missteps — from Nagorno-Karabakh to Kyiv and Damascus — is unlikely to continue indefinitely. Russia could temporarily adopt a passive observer stance, recognise Kurdish autonomy in Rojava alongside the United States, and block Turkey’s eastward ambitions in the Caucasus. As we can see, the Syrian crisis is far from over.

__________________

Alexander SVARANTS — Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor

Abu Mohammad al-Julani: Putting lipstick on a pig

Abu Mohammad al-Julani: Putting lipstick on a pig

Julani's rise from Al-Qaeda affiliate to a western-recognized ‘moderate’ leader exemplifies how geopolitics trumps ideology. For years, the west has pretended to fight terrorism while leveraging Julani and his vast Al-Qaeda and ISIS-linked terror network to destabilize Syria.

A Cradle Correspondent DEC 13, 2024

Just in time for the Al-Qaeda offshoot Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s (HTS) lightning conquest of Syria, a western PR campaign was launched to rebrand the terror group’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Julani. 

The BBC assured their readers that Julani, now commonly referred to as Ahmed al-Sharaa – which is his real name – had “reinvented himself,” while the Telegraph insisted that the former deputy to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is now “diversity friendly.”

On 6 December, just days before entering the capital Damascus, Julani sat down with CNN journalist Jomana Karadsheh for an exclusive interview to explain his past.

“Julani says he has gone through episodes of transformation through the years,” CNN wrote, after he assured Karadsheh “no one has the right to eliminate” Syria’s Alawites, Christians, and Druze.

But why was Julani so eager to convince the American public that he had no plans to exterminate Syria’s religious minorities? This question looms larger when recalling the massacre of 190 Alawites in Latakia on 4 August 2013, and the taking of hundreds more as captives. 

Back then, militants from HTS (then the Nusra Front), ISIS, and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) attacked 10 villages, slaughtering civilians in ways documented by Human Rights Watch: gunshot wounds, stabbings, decapitations, and charred remains. “Some corpses were found in a state of complete charring, and others had their feet tied,” the report stated.

Another useful US asset 

Fast forward to recent years, and Julani’s “transformation” seems less about repentance and more about utility. Despite HTS remaining on the US terror list – and an American bounty of $10 million reserved for Julani himself – former US special envoy to Syria, James Jeffrey, described the group as a strategic “asset” for US operations in Syria. 

Under the guise of countering extremism, Washington pursued a dual strategy: enforcing crushing economic sanctions on Syria – of the sort that killed 500,000 Iraqi children in the 1990s –  while ensuring its wheat-abundant and oil-rich regions remain under US control. 

Ambassador Jeffrey admitted to PBS in March 2021 that Julani’s HTS was the “least bad option of the various options on Idlib, and Idlib is one of the most important places in Syria, which is one of the most important places right now in the Middle East.”

But how did Julani ascend to power in Idlib, which US official Brett McGurk described as “the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11,” while failing to mention the critical US role in bringing it about? His Nusra Front spearheaded the 2015 conquest under the banner of Jaish al-Fatah (the Army of Conquest), a coalition that combined Nusra suicide bombers with Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters equipped with CIA-supplied TOW missiles. Foreign Policy hailed the campaign’s swift progress, crediting this synergy of jihadists and western arms.

Years later, US official Brett McGurk would label Idlib “the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” Yet, the crucial role of US weapons and strategic aid in this outcome went unmentioned. 

Assistance from Tel Aviv and Brussels too 

This assistance extended beyond arms: the Financial Times (FT) reported that in response, EU foreign ministers “lifted an oil embargo against Syria to allow rebels to sell crude to fund their operation.” 

While the FSA claimed control of the oil fields, activists openly acknowledged that the Nusra Front was the true beneficiary, trucking barrels to Turkiye for refining or export to Europe. The arrangement netted Nusra millions before ISIS seized the fields a year later.

Academic and Syria expert Joshua Landis noted the importance of controlling the oil fields, explaining that “Whoever gets their hands on the oil, water, and agriculture holds Sunni Syria by the throat” and that “the logical conclusion from this craziness is that Europe will be funding Al-Qaeda.”

Behind the scenes, western and regional powers facilitated Julani’s ascent. Israeli airstrikes supported Nusra during clashes with Syrian forces, while outgoing Israeli Army Chief Gadi Eisenkot admitted to supplying “light weapons” to rebel groups – essentially acknowledging what the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) had been reporting for years to “discredit the rebels as stooges of the Zionists.”

Previous reports in the Wall Street Journal showed that Israel had for years provided humanitarian and medical aid to “rebels” in southern Syria, including by bringing Nusra fighters across the border into Israel for treatment. 

In an interview with The American Conservative in border village Beit Jinn, militants revealed that Israel had been paying salaries – to the tune of $200,000 per month – for the entire year before HTS troops were expelled from the area by the SAA and fled to Idlib.

Meanwhile, the US oversaw a “cataract of weaponry” to Syria’s opposition, as described by the New York Times. Though publicly earmarked for the FSA, these arms frequently ended up in Nusra’s hands.

Julani’s meteoric rise began years earlier, seeded by his ties to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its Jordanian leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The latter, whose activities conveniently justified the US invasion of Iraq, operated with tacit US acknowledgment. 

Julani followed a similar trajectory, emerging as a key player in the Nusra Front, which conducted bombings in Damascus and other cities in 2011 and 2012, with attacks initially misattributed to the Syrian government.

A salafist principality

Why did the EU choose to “fund Al-Qaeda” by dropping oil sanctions? Why did the US provide a “cataract of weaponry” to Nusra?

An August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report revealed that the US and its regional allies supported the establishment of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and western Iraq as part of the effort to depose president Bashar al-Assad and divide the country.

The DIA report said a radical religious mini-state exactly of the sort later established by ISIS as its “caliphate” was the US goal, even while admitting that the so-called Syrian revolution seeking to topple Assad’s government was being driven by “Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda.”

The seeds of the Salafist principality were planted when late ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi dispatched Julani to Syria in August 2011 – at that time, Baghdadi’s group was known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

Prominent Lebanese journalist Radwan Mortada, who was embedded with Al-Qaeda fighters from Lebanon in Syria, met Julani in the central Syrian city of Homs at this time. Mortada informs The Cradle that Julani was being hosted by the Farouq Brigades, an FSA faction based in the city.

Contrary to media reports, Farouq commanders insisted the group was not comprised of defectors from the Syrian army. Instead, they said Farouq was a sectarian Salafist group that included fighters who had fought for Zarqawi’s Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) after the 2003 US invasion. 

A few months later, Julani and his fighters secretly entered the war against the Syrian government by carrying out multiple terror attacks. In Damascus on 23 December 2011, Julani sent suicide bombers to target the General Security Directorate in Damascus, killing 44, including civilians and security personnel.

Two weeks later, on 6 January 2012, Julani sent another suicide bomber to detonate explosives near a bus in the Midan district of Damascus, killing some 26 people.

The establishment of the “Support Front for the People of the Levant,” or the Nusra Front, was revealed after a videotape was provided to journalist Mortada showing Julani and other masked men announcing the group’s existence and claiming responsibility for the attacks, which opposition activists had blamed on the Syrian government itself.

The great prison release

Julani’s rise, however, was facilitated years earlier. In what has been dubbed the “Great Prison Release of 2009,” the US military freed 5,700 high-security detainees from Bucca Prison in Iraq. Among these was Julani, alongside future ISIS leaders like Baghdadi. Craig Whiteside of the US Naval War College described Camp Bucca as “America’s Jihadi University,” emphasizing the role of these releases in revitalizing the Islamic State of Iraq – which had been nearly defeated by Sunni tribal uprisings.

“The United States is often unjustly blamed for many things that are wrong in this world, but the revitalization of ISIL [ISIS] and its incubation in our own Camp Bucca is something that Americans truly own,” Whiteside wrote. 

“The Iraqi government has many enemies, and the United States helped put many of them out on the street in 2009. Why?” Whiteside wondered, not realizing they would be sent to Syria as part of the US’s covert war to topple Bashar al-Assad.

More alarming today is the prospect of HTS releasing thousands of ISIS fighters from US–Kurdish prisons in Syria's north to expand their ranks. It wouldn't be the first time. This past July, American-backed Kurds released around 1,500 ISIS prisoners from detention camps, which the US military describes as an ISIS “army in waiting.”

The question of who Abu Mohammad al-Julani is – his motivations, ideologies, and transformations – is ultimately less important than what he represents. Over the past two decades, one fact remains consistent: Julani is a tool of US and Israeli strategy.

From his early days in Iraq to his rise as the leader of the Nusra Front and later HTS, Julani has played a pivotal role in advancing the geopolitical interests of his benefactors. Whether branded a terrorist or a “blazer-wearing” moderate, his actions have consistently served as a means to destabilize Syria and the wider West Asian region. 

Julani’s “reinvention” is no more than a veneer designed to mask the enduring reality of his role: a strategic asset in a game where ideology is secondary to power.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle. 

US Reward Poster

Blinken in Mideast to discuss Syrian transition

AQABA, Jordan — Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in Jordan on Thursday as part of a Middle East trip to promote an “inclusive, Syrian-led” government transition in Damascus and meet with leaders of neighboring nations to try to get them on board, the State Department said.

“All of these conversations are looking to bring all the countries in the region together, as well as beyond the region, in a unified approach to supporting the Syrian people as they emerge from this dictatorship,” Blinken told reporters Thursday after meeting with Jordan’s king and foreign minister. Later Thursday, he also met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Blinken previously said the U.S. government would “recognize and fully support” the new Syrian government if the transition process is inclusive and transparent.

The rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which led the assault that toppled Bashar al-Assad’s regime and was formed as an offshoot of al-Qaeda, faces the challenges of consolidating control over a patchwork of rebel forces and demonstrating political inclusivity.

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan also met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel on Thursday to discuss Gaza ceasefire negotiations, Netanyahu’s office said.

A former Egyptian official with knowledge of the discussions, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy, said Hamas gave Israel a list of the names of living hostages in Gaza, in a goodwill gesture meant to pave the way to a ceasefire deal. The official said the group was willing to abandon previous demands that Israeli forces withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip.

Here’s what else to know:

• Israel reiterated Thursday that it is expanding airstrikes in Syria and advancing forces across the border to protect Israeli security. France has called on Israel to withdraw its troops from the buffer zone separating the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights from Syrian territory.
• The Israel Defense Forces said Thursday that its strikes in Syria have destroyed more than 90 percent of the country’s aerial defense systems. Earlier this week, Israel said it had destroyed most of Syria’s navy.
• The political affairs department of HTS said Thursday that it would “cooperate directly with the U.S. administration to complete the search for the American citizens who were disappeared by the former Assad regime.” It said the search for long-missing U.S. freelance journalist Austin Tice is “ongoing.”
• 1.1 million people, most of them women and children, have been displaced in Syria since Nov. 27, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, also known as OCHA.
• U.S.-backed Kurdish forces said early Wednesday that they agreed to withdraw from the northern Syrian city of Manbij following a U.S. mediation effort, after fighting Turkish-backed forces for control of the city. The Washington Post could not immediately verify the claims.⍐

Can AKD bring big time rice millers to book

 Can AKD bring big time rice millers to book

11 December 2024 12:10 am Daily Mirror LK

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his newly elected parliamentary team are being hit by a barrage of criticism more reminiscent of the firing of multi-barrel weapons which operated during the time of the LTTE-led war which lasted nearly 30 years. The political opposition has rounded on government for its inability to control major rice millers manipulating prices. 

In Parliament, charges of government’s failure to control the interplay between supply and demand of rice, have raised a cacophony of sound. Meanwhile ordinary citizens are literally pushed to the brink of starvation given the skyrocketing prices. 

All the past regimes too, have caved in to the politically powerful rice millers. It is said the group controls the purchase and distribution from paddy to the finished product -the grain of rice- which is the staple food of Lankan families. It must be mentioned however, their reach is limited to those areas of the country, South of the northern province.  

Thanks to the long-drawn-out war in the North and the East of the country, the rice cartel dons were unable to extend their reach into those areas. A different system existed there. After all, even during the war, the people of the North and the East were able to manage on their own agricultural production plus the limited government supplies which reached the population there. 

Outside areas in the North and the East, it is the big-time rice millers who control the marketing of paddy and rice. They also provide loans to small and tenant farmers. Many of these unfortunates are unable to provide collateral needed to avail themselves of government or bank loans.  

At harvest time, it is the agents of big-time millers, many of whom operate smaller mills who set prices -mostly well below market rates. Interest repayments on loans leave the primary producer -the farmer- with a pittance on which he is barely able to survive. 

The three to four large rice mill owners purchase stocks of rice from smaller millers at prices also set by them (large millers) and the grain is uploaded to their go-downs and thence to whole sale, retail and market chains at prices set by the self-same large rice millers. 

They have now become a law unto themselves. To make matters worse, the ‘Weather Gods’ too have not been kind to the new government. Since elections the country has been hit by adverse weather, which devastated crops, pauperized the agricultural community and led to steep increases in the selling price of rice. 

According to the president, the government has provided soft loans for bulk purchase of rice. But the benefit has not been passed on to the consumer. As mentioned earlier, government’s benevolence has not percolated to the primary producer either.  

Scurrilous musings charge government’s inability to act against the mafia, stems from the government having accepted campaign donations. This is a common practice in democracies the world over. But was not expected of the new leaders who campaigned on an anti-corruption platform at the recently concluded elections. 

If it is so, thereby hangs a tale. Perhaps believing quiet charm would solve the problem, the president appealed to rice millers to release stocks and ease shortages in the market. It did not work.  

And so it was, two days ago President AKD called for the rice market to be regulated. He brought in a system of price controls. Before the ink on his diktat had dried a hue and cry had started with numerous interests crying foul. 

Price controls in our country have seldom worked. Older Lankans remember the term of Ms. Sirimavo Bandaranaike in horror. In the not too distant past President Chandrika Kumaratunge attempted to use price control to bring down the cost of bread. That move only worsened the situation. 

But at a time when particular cartels control vital sections of the food chain, control supply and dictate prices it leaves both producers and consumers at the mercy of a few who thrive off the flesh and blood of the average citizen. 

Then it becomes necessary to level the field. This is the government’s duty. The government’s role is to ensure that no player can manipulate the market at the expense of the majority.⍐  

‘A lot of positive news’ after President’s visit to India: Deputy Foreign Minister

Sri Lanka to receive ‘a lot of positive news’ after President’s visit to India: Deputy Foreign Minister

By Sanath Nanayakkare The Island 13-12-2024

Foreign Affairs and Foreign Employment Deputy Minister Arun Hemachandra recently told Ada Derana TV that Sri Lanka would receive a lot of positive news after President Anura Kumara Disanayake’s visit to India.He made this comment during a talk show with TV anchor Mahieash Johnney in a zoom call.

Mahieash asked the deputy foreign minister several questions related to the President’s visit to India from December 15 to 17, which is set to take place following an invitation from the Indian government.

The following are some comments made by the deputy foreign minister during the programme.

Indian Deputy High Commissioner Dr. Satyanjal Pandey, 
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Employment Arun Hemachandra 

“As a country, we do believe in maintaining good bilateral relations. Sri Lanka is an island nation. Our country is situated in an important geographical location on the world map. So, as a country, we do need a very strong foreign relations and we should have a very strong diplomatic service as well. Based on that, what we believe is that the NPP government should have a very strong foreign policy and we are committed to having one. In the past, as a country, we did not have a similar thing because most of the rulers were making use of the foreign diplomatic service as well as the foreign policy which was supposed to be nation-oriented or country-oriented, but were not practiced in that way.”

“As the NPP-led government, we are committed to a very strong foreign policy. We have to understand one thing. India being a very close neighbour, India being a very strong neighbour and India being a country that helped Sri Lanka during the crisis time without any conditions, we have to maintain a very close relationship with India. And, we have to understand that our country should have a very strong, non-aligned foreign policy, so as a country, we need to understand that it is an art of balancing. We have to consider India’s national security which is their utmost concern. We should focus on that also because being a very strong country, they focus on that. But also, we have to have a very strong country oriented and people-oriented foreign policy, so the NPP government is committed to having such a policy, so there is nothing to worry about that.”

When asked about Sri Lanka’s wish to join BRICS as a means of economic development and about US president-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose 100% tax on BRICS’s exports into his country if they created a new currency to replace the US dollar, Hemachandra said said,” Our application to join BRICS has not been rejected. It is still under consideration. As a country, we have joined the new development bank – which is the banking body of BRICS, so the process is still on the move.

And about the statement made by the U.S. president-elect Donald Trump, we don’t know how practical it is for them to impose such tariff. But then again, we have to understand that BRICS was something inevitable because it was something which couldn’t be rejected , so there was a need for BRICS and that was one reason BRICS kept on growing. So, we have not opted out, we have not changed our decision on BRICS. The particular application is still on the move, and we are looking forward to positive updates from them.”

When asked whether new trade agreements, concessions etc. could emerge from the meetings President Anura Kumara Disanayake will be having during his Indian tour, the deputy minister replied,”

“The President’s first official overseas visit will be to India. We believe that we also should continue that tradition as India being a very close and strong neighbour. We believe that we should start from that point. We should understand that there are many pending agreements to be signed. There are still many agreements which are being discussed. I cannot comment on everything here, but then, we are discussing with India regarding many things that were discussed in the past.

So, it is a new administration. It is a new government. So, we should take decisions based on the people’s and the country’s benefit. So, there are many things that are being reviewed. And many things are being discussed. So, the country will have a lot of positive news after the President’s visit to India. We believe that we should maintain very strong diplomatic relations with India, and they are also committed to help us. This morning also I met the Deputy High Commissioner of India who made a courtesy call at my office. We discussed many things. But we have to mention that the decisions will be purely based on the country’s benefit and the people’s mandate,” the deputy foreign minister said.

During his visit, President Dissanayake is expected to meet Indian President Droupadi Murmu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and other senior officials. Discussions are expected to focus on strengthening ties and exploring cooperation across multiple sectors.⍐

Donald Trump is TIME’s 2024 ­Person of the Year.

For 97 years, the editors of TIME have been picking the Person of the Year: the individual who, for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months.

 By Sam Jacobs

December 12, 2024 7:40 AM EST

Three days before Thanksgiving, the former and future President of the United States is sitting in the sun-filled dining room of his Florida home and private club. In the lavish reception area, more than a dozen people have been waiting for nearly two hours for Donald Trump to emerge. His picks for ­National Security Adviser, special envoy to the Middle East, Vice President, and chief of staff huddle nearby. All afternoon, Trump pipes music throughout the 1927 oceanfront estate from a 2,000-song playlist he curates: Sinéad O’Connor’s “Nothing Compares 2 U,” ABBA’s “The Winner Takes It All,” James Brown’s “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World.”

For 97 years, the editors of TIME have been picking the Person of the Year: the individual who, for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months. In many years, that choice is a difficult one. In 2024, it was not.

Since he began running for President in 2015, perhaps no single individual has played a larger role in changing the course of politics and history than Trump. He shocked many by winning the White House in 2016, then led the U.S. through a chaotic term that included the first year of a pandemic as well as a period of nationwide protest, and that ended with his losing the election by 7 million votes and provoking the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The smart money wagered that we had witnessed the end of Trump.

Photograph by Platon for TIME

If that moment marked Trump’s nadir, today we are witnessing his apotheosis. On the cusp of his second presidency, all of us—from his most fanatical supporters to his most fervent critics—are living in the Age of Trump. He dispatched his Republican rivals in near record time. For weeks, he campaigned largely from the New York ­courtroom where he would be convicted on 34 felony counts. His sole debate with President Joe Biden in June led to his opponent’s eventual exit from the race. Sixteen days later, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally. In the sprint that followed, he outlasted Vice President Kamala Harris, sweeping all seven swing states and emerging from the election at the height of his popularity. “Look what happened,” Trump told his supporters in his election-­night victory speech. “Isn’t this crazy?” He almost couldn’t believe it himself.

Trump has remade American politics in the process. He won by enlarging his base, seizing the frustration over rising prices and benefiting from a global turn against incumbents. With those tailwinds, exit polls suggest that he won the largest percentage of Black Americans for a Republican since Gerald Ford and the most Latino voters of any GOP nominee since George W. Bush. ­Suburban women, whose anger over restrictions to reproductive rights was thought to be a ­bulwark for the Democrats, moved not away but toward him. He became the first Republican in 20 years to win more votes than the Democrat, with 9 of 10 American counties increasing their support for Trump from 2020.

Now we watch as members of Congress, international institutions, and global leaders once again align themselves with his whims. The carousel of Trumpworld characters spins anew. This time, we think we know what to expect. Supporters cheer even his promises to take revenge on his enemies and dismantle the government. In a matter of weeks, Trump will be returning to the Oval Office with his intentions clear: tariff imports, deport millions, and threaten the press. Put RFK Jr. in charge of vaccines. Chance war with Iran. “Anything can happen,” he told us.

Sitting with TIME three weeks after the election, Trump was more subdued than when we visited him at Mar-a-Lago in March. He is happiest to be in a fight, and now that he has won, he sounded almost wistful, recognizing that he had run for office for the final time. “It’s sad in a way. It will never ­happen again,” Trump told us. And while he is thinking about how that chapter has ended, for Americans and for the world, it is also the beginning of a new one. Trump is once again at the center of the world, and in as strong a position as he has ever been.

Over time, we’ve seen the Person of the Year franchise shift: from Man of the Year to its current designation; from the period between the world wars, defined by leaders like Mohandas Gandhi and Wallis ­Simpson, to the first quarter of the 21st century, an era marked by the tremendous changes ushered in by a technological revolution. ­Although the ­American presidency has evolved across these eras, its influence has not diminished. Today, we are witnessing a resurgence of populism, a widening mistrust in the institutions that defined the last century, and an eroding faith that liberal values will lead to better lives for most people. Trump is both agent and beneficiary of it all.

For marshaling a comeback of historic proportions, for driving a once-in-a-­generation political realignment, for reshaping the American presidency and altering America’s role in the world, Donald Trump is TIME’s 2024 ­Person of the Year.⍐

'We are not ready for what's to come': NATO

 

'We are not ready for what's to come': NATO chief warns Russia 'is preparing for war' with the West

12 December 2024, LBC

By Henry Moore

The West is not ready for the threats it will face from Russia and its allies in the coming years, the head of NATO has warned.

Calling on members of the military alliance to shift into a wartime mindset, Mark Rutte, the secretary general of the organisation, said spending must increase far above the current rate of 2% of GDP.

Mr Rutte warned that NATO is “not ready” for what is to come as he said the current security situation was the "worst in my lifetime".

These comments come as Russia continues its brutal invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s wars in the Middle East continue to escalate and China continues to grow as an economic and military power.

Speaking in Brussels, Mr Rutte: "Russia is preparing for long-term confrontation, with Ukraine and with us.

"We are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years," the NATO secretary general said.

He continued: "It is time to shift to a wartime mindset, and turbocharge our defence production and defence spending."

He demanded leaders "stop creating barriers between each other and between industries, banks and pension funds".

And to defence companies, he added: "There is money on the table, and it will only increase. So dare to innovate and take risks."

Since Russia launched its invasion in 2022, NATO members agreed that 2% would be the bare minimum spending, but most nations have failed to substantially boost defence investment in the years since.

Sir Keir Starmer has pledged Labour will soon “set out a plan” to boost spending to around 2.5%, but some military experts have said even this won’t be enough.

Last month, Sir Keir was warned the British army would only last six months if war broke out with Russia.

Al Carns, the veterans minister, who is also a reservist, issued the warning as he spoke of the importance of rebuilding the UK's reserve forces.

During a speech at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London, Mr Carns said: "In a war of scale - not a limited intervention, but one similar to Ukraine - our army for example on the current casualty rates would be expended - as part of a broader multinational coalition - in six months to a year.”

Fears of a Russian offensive outside of Ukraine come amid concerns incoming US president Donald Trump is not as committed to NATO as his predecessors.

Mr Trump has pledged to pull out of the alliance if other member states fail to pay their fair share.

Nato chief says ‘time to shift to wartime mindset’ amid warning over Putin

Mark Rutte warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants a long-term confrontation with Europe after Ukraine.

Nato secretary general Mark Rutte has warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to “wipe Ukraine off the map” and could come after other parts of Europe next, as he urged Europeans to press their governments to ramp up defence spending.

“It is time to shift to a wartime mindset,” Mr Rutte told security experts and analysts at the Carnegie Europe think tank in Brussels.

He said people should prepare themselves for the prospect that Russia might try to use “swarms of drones” in Europe as it has to deadly effect in Ukraine.

Mr Putin “is trying to crush our freedom and way of life”, Mr Rutte said

The former Dutch prime minister listed Russia’s attacks on Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, and the all-out invasion launched almost three years ago.

“How many more wake-up calls do we need? We should be profoundly concerned. I know I am,” he said. “Russia is preparing for long-term confrontation. With Ukraine, and with us.”

Mr Rutte’s inaugural speech came just over two months after he took office as Nato’s top civilian official. He has since toured the capitals of the 32 allies, including a visit to President-elect Donald Trump in the United States, Nato’s most powerful ally.

Nato has been a staunch backer of Ukraine and has helped most of its members funnel weapons, ammunition and other support into the country. But Mr Trump’s return, and pledge to end the war quickly, has fuelled concerns that an unfavourable truce might be forced on Ukraine.

Mr Trump routinely complains that US allies in Nato are not spending enough on defence. Mr Rutte said Russia’s military spending is likely to amount to 7% to 8% of its GDP next year – far more than any Nato ally – while its defence industry churns out tanks, armoured vehicles and ammunition.

Mr Putin also has the support of allies such as China, Iran and North Korea.

Mr Rutte noted that defence spending has risen sharply in Europe, with 23 allies expected to reach Nato’s target of putting 2% of GDP into their military budgets. But he added: “I can tell you, we are going to need a lot more than 2%.”

Mr Rutte listed a series of recent “hostile actions” by Russia against Nato allies, including cyber attacks, assassinations, an explosion at a Czech ammunition depot, the jamming of radars in the Baltic region to disrupt air traffic, and the “weaponisation” of migrants to destabilise Europe.

“These attacks are not just isolated incidents. They are the result of a co-ordinated campaign to destabilise our societies and discourage us from supporting Ukraine,” he said. “They circumvent our deterrence and bring the front line to our front doors.”

Beyond increased defence spending in Europe, Mr Rutte noted that Nato now has tens of thousands of troops on high readiness should they been needed to defend allied territory.

“With all this, our deterrence is good – for now. But it’s tomorrow I’m worried about,” he said, and warned that “we are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years. Danger is moving towards us at full speed.”

“What is happening in Ukraine could happen here too, and regardless of the outcome of this war, we will not be safe in the future unless we are prepared to deal with danger,” Mr Rutte added.

Mr Rutte appealed to governments to provide the defence industry with “the big orders and long-term contracts they need to rapidly produce more and better capabilities”. He urged industry to boost production for defences against drones and other new war tactics.

He added that “freedom does not come for free” to the estimated one billion people living in the Euro-Atlantic area.

“If we don’t spend more together now to prevent war, we will pay a much, much, much higher price later to fight it. Not billions, but trillions of euros. That’s if we come out on top, and that’s if we win,” he said.

By Press Association