Ranil’s Head to Head with Al Jazeera makes quite a stir

Ranil’s Head to Head with Al Jazeera makes quite a stir

By Gagani Weerakoon -March 8, 2025 Ceylon Today

In a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s Head to Head, former Sri Lankan President and six-time Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe faced pointed questions regarding his administration’s actions during a tumultuous period in Sri Lankan history. Among the many issues raised, the most prominent centred around his role in the aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, his involvement in handling allegations of war crimes from the civil war, and his relationship with ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Wickremesinghe staunchly denied any attempts to shield Gotabaya Rajapaksa, asserting that in Sri Lanka, it is the Attorney General who decides on prosecutions, not political leaders like him. He was clear in defending his decision to allow Rajapaksa to return to Sri Lanka in 2022, stating that there was no legal charge against him at the time and questioning the logic of treating him as a criminal without evidence. The intensity of Wickremesinghe’s remarks, however, contrasted with the renewed accusations from Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith of the Catholic Church, who claimed that his Government had failed to adequately investigate the 2019 bombings, allowing some to shield the true perpetrators. To this, Wickremesinghe dismissed the accusations as “nonsense,” attributing them to the Catholic Church’s political manoeuvring.

The conversation also turned to the Sri Lankan civil war, where Wickremesinghe was pressed on the issue of justice for the thousands of victims, particularly in relation to the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). While admitting that justice had not been served to any of the communities affected by the war, he denied large-scale bombing of hospitals by Sri Lankan forces, though he acknowledged some instances where hospitals were struck. His position on the reappointment of General Shavendra Silva, who the US State Department accuses of war crimes, was also defended by Wickremesinghe, who claimed it was standard practice not to replace military commanders during elections, and he was convinced Silva had not been involved in war crimes.

One of the most striking aspects of the interview was his dismissal of allegations of torture and killings under his watch in the late 1980s, particularly in relation to Batalanda, a housing complex he lived in at the time. Despite a government inquiry naming him as being aware of violations there, Wickremesinghe rejected these allegations outright and questioned the legitimacy of the report, given it had never been tabled in Parliament.

In a broader reflection on his time as President, Wickremesinghe was candid about the challenges he faced in steering the country through its economic crisis. While acknowledging that the IMF deal he brokered stabilised the economy, he remained defiant in defending his record. He suggested that the European Union’s initial stance against him, which involved calls for his resignation over his handling of protests, was hypocritical. In his eyes, the EU first sought his removal but later praised him for rescuing Sri Lanka from economic collapse. He also expressed a critical view of human rights watchdog Amnesty International, calling them “discredited” in Sri Lanka and questioning their impartiality.

In a reflective moment after the interview aired, Wickremesinghe expressed dissatisfaction with how the programme had been edited, claiming that crucial parts of his responses were omitted, and suggesting that the panellists brought in had biases he was unaware of. He highlighted that two of the panellists had alleged links to the LTTE, making the interview feel, in his words, more of an interrogation than a fair discussion. His frustration pointed to a wider concern about how media portrayals can shape the public’s perception of complex political issues.

Wickremesinghe expressed his dissatisfaction with the interview aired by Al Jazeera, questioning the integrity of the panellists who participated.

Speaking to the media shortly after the interview’s release, Wickremesinghe claimed that two of the three panellists who joined broadcaster Mehdi Hasan had pro-LTTE affiliations.

“I was informed that Human Rights Lawyer and former Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, Ambika Satkunanathan, would be part of the interview. I welcomed this, as I have known her despite our ideological differences. However, I later discovered that she had been replaced by two other panellists, whom I was told had pro-LTTE links,” he said.

“This interview was different. When I engage with local media, the interviews are live, with everything—both good and bad—being aired. However, Al Jazeera interviewed me for two hours but released only a one-hour segment. The most important parts were left out,” Wickremesinghe remarked.

“They questioned me about events that occurred under the Rajapaksa administration. I made it clear that I was not in power at the time. I also stated that the Mahanayake of the Malwathu Chapter is Sri Lanka’s foremost religious leader, while others, including Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, are just religious leaders,” he added.

Ultimately, the interview showcased the complex and often contradictory legacy of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s political career. It is evident that he believes his actions were in the best interests of the country during a crisis, but his responses reveal a man deeply entrenched in defending his record, even in the face of serious allegations. The refusal to accept any wrongdoing or failings on his part could be interpreted as indicative of a leader unwilling to acknowledge the full extent of the controversies that marred his leadership.

SL faces UNHRC

A joint report evaluating Sri Lanka’s recent political and human rights developments has been submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) by the Sri Lanka Core Group, led by the United Kingdom. The report, presented during the 58th session of the UNHRC, was co-authored by several countries, including Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia.

The report acknowledges the peaceful elections and the smooth transition of power that took place in Sri Lanka last year. It offers a measured review of the actions taken by the incumbent Government, emphasising the potential of the new administration to address the challenges it faces. As the report states, “We recognise that the new Sri Lankan Government has only been in place for four months, and we encourage Sri Lanka to use the opportunity that this transition represents to address the challenges it faces.”

Moreover, the Core Group commended the Government’s commitment to making meaningful progress on reconciliation. This includes initial steps such as returning land, lifting roadblocks, and allowing communities in the North and East to commemorate the past and memorialise their loved ones. These measures were recognised as positive steps towards fostering a sense of healing and inclusivity in the country’s post-conflict landscape.

The report also welcomed the Government’s stated intention to implement devolution in accordance with the Constitution and to advance governance reforms. This commitment to decentralising power and ensuring greater autonomy for local communities is seen as a vital component of the reconciliation process.

Additionally, the Core Group took note of the Government’s intention to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and stressed that any new legislation should align with Sri Lanka’s international obligations. The report urged the Government to consider the release of individuals still detained under the PTA, reflecting ongoing concerns about the Act’s impact on human rights and civil liberties. The recommendation to repeal or amend the PTA has long been a point of contention, as it has been widely criticised for its potential misuse and for undermining basic freedoms.

Further, the report highlighted the importance of the Government’s continued efforts to address human rights and corruption cases. The Core Group urged that any comprehensive reconciliation and accountability process should have the support of affected communities, build on past recommendations, and meet international standards. Such a process, they emphasised, must be inclusive, transparent, and meaningful to restore trust and ensure lasting peace.

The report also called on the Sri Lankan Government to re-invigorate the work of domestic institutions focused on reparations and addressing the issue of missing persons. This reflects a deep concern for those who have suffered as a result of the civil conflict, particularly in the context of ensuring that victims and their families receive appropriate recognition, compensation, and justice.

In conclusion, the Sri Lanka Core Group reaffirmed its willingness to work with the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that any future transitional justice mechanisms are independent, inclusive, and meet the expectations of affected communities. The Core Group’s approach suggests that international cooperation and support will be critical in ensuring that Sri Lanka’s journey towards reconciliation and accountability is not only meaningful but also sustainable in the long term.

IGP vs NPC

The ongoing dispute between the National Police Commission (NPC) and Acting Inspector General of Police (IGP) Priyantha Weerasooriya has brought to the forefront significant questions about the distribution of powers within Sri Lanka’s Police administration. At the heart of this disagreement is the question of who holds the authority to appoint Officers-in-Charge (OICs) of Police stations – the NPC or the IGP.

The situation escalated when Acting IGP Weerasooriya, citing an interpretation from the Attorney General’s Department, asserted that he had the authority to handle the appointment of OICs. This assertion was immediately contested by the NPC, which maintains that, according to the law, it is the Commission, not the IGP, that holds the power to make such appointments. The NPC has consistently argued that the procedures for appointments, transfers, and disciplinary actions within the Police Force are clearly defined, and that the Commission is entrusted with overseeing the careers of specific officers, such as the OICs.

The NPC’s demand for a meeting with the Attorney General is not to seek clarification on the law itself, but rather to address the IGP’s interpretation of it, which, according to the NPC, was made without prior consultation with the Commission. As a body that functions independently from political influence, the NPC views this issue as part of a broader effort to ensure the depoliticisation and impartiality of the Sri Lanka Police Department.

The dispute became particularly pronounced when Acting IGP Weerasooriya requested that the responsibility for appointing OICs be delegated to him, based on the legal opinion he had sought from the Attorney General. This request was promptly rejected by the NPC, which formally communicated its decision to the Constitutional Council, further intensifying the disagreement. The NPC maintains that its role in the appointment process is a constitutional right, specifically granted under the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which empowers it to oversee matters related to the Police Force, excluding the IGP’s position.

The core of the dispute also lies in the broader tension between the NPC’s oversight role and the IGP’s operational control. The NPC has made it clear that while it holds authority over appointments, promotions, transfers, and disciplinary actions for a select group of officers, such as OICs and HQIs (Headquarters Inspectors), the IGP is responsible for the same functions concerning all other officers within the force. The NPC has further stated that it does not seek to interfere with the operational decisions of the IGP or his direct control over the Police but instead operates within the framework of constitutional and legal guidelines.

Moreover, the NPC clarified that it had approved a significant number of the Acting IGP’s requested transfers between September 2024 and January 2025, but several of the requested moves were not authorised due to insufficient supporting information. The Commission noted that while many transfers had been granted, others were held up due to procedural lapses, underlining the importance of compliance with established rules and regulations. Despite approving many of the transfers, the NPC also raised concerns about the delay in implementing the decisions, prompting them to seek clarification from the Acting IGP regarding the holdup.

The issue of the appointment of OICs also touches on a critical point of constitutional governance and the principle of accountability. The NPC’s involvement in the appointment process is seen as essential to maintaining an impartial and professional Police Service, free from political interference. The Commission has pointed out that the failure to implement decisions and the lack of communication between the IGP and NPC create an environment of uncertainty and inefficiency, which could ultimately undermine the functioning of the Police Department.

Further, despite the Acting IGP’s claim of seeking the Attorney General’s advice on the matter, the NPC has highlighted that no official notification was made to them about this consultation. This, according to the NPC, demonstrates a lack of communication and collaboration between the IGP and the Commission, which is a fundamental concern for maintaining the integrity of the Police Service.

This dispute also underlines the complexity of the relationship between the NPC and the IGP, a relationship that is essential for the proper functioning of the Police Department. The NPC’s role as an independent oversight body tasked with ensuring transparency and accountability in the Police Force cannot be overstated. Yet, the IGP’s argument that he should have the authority to transfer officers without the NPC’s oversight raises questions about the extent of the IGP’s powers and whether such authority could lead to potential abuses of power or political influence over Police operations.

In response to the Acting IGP’s claim that the NPC has interfered with the internal workings of the Police, the Commission has reiterated that it does not seek to obstruct or challenge the IGP’s authority in areas where it does not have jurisdiction. The NPC’s primary concern is to ensure that appointments and transfers are carried out in accordance with the law, without any undue political or administrative influence.

This conflict, though rooted in legal interpretations, also reflects broader concerns about governance, accountability, and transparency in Sri Lanka’s law enforcement. The NPC has maintained that its role is not one of interference, but rather one of ensuring that the Police Force operates within the confines of the law, and that appointments are made based on merit and need, rather than political connections or favouritism.

Looking ahead, the meeting between the NPC and the Attorney General will likely provide a platform to resolve this dispute, offering clarity on the legal framework governing the appointment and transfer of Police officers. However, it also serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by Sri Lanka’s institutions in maintaining the rule of law, ensuring fairness in public service, and upholding the independence of key oversight bodies such as the NPC.

As this situation continues to unfold, it is evident that the balance between administrative control and independent oversight within Sri Lanka’s Police Service will remain a topic of significant debate and scrutiny, especially in the context of maintaining a non-politicised, accountable, and effective law enforcement system.🔺

Ceylon Today (09-03-2025)

Who is to blame for Sri Lanka’s crises? | Head to Head AJ

Who is to blame for Sri Lanka’s crises? | Head to Head

Mehdi Hasan goes head to head with Ranil Wickremesinghe

When Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country in 2022 – amidst mass protests and an economic crisis–  parliament elected veteran politician and six-time Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. 

As President, Wickremesinghe negotiated the country’s biggest bail-out, but his critics say he is part of an establishment that turned a blind eye to war crimes and corruption and hindered the fundamental changes protesters demanded.

Mehdi Hasan goes head to head with Wickremesinghe on his violent response to protestors, his handling of the 2019 Easter bombings, and whether he did enough to hold the powerful Rajapaksa family accountable.  

Joining the discussion are: 

• Frances Harrison – former BBC Sri Lanka correspondent, author of ‘Still Counting the Dead’ and Director, International Truth and Justice Project 
• Nirj Deva  –  former UK and EU MP and presidential envoy to Wickremesinghe 
• Madura Rasaratnam – Executive Director, PEARL and Senior Lecturer at, City University of London.

Info:Kumar

Trump to revoke legal status for 240,000 Ukrainians as US steps up deportations

A Ukrainian boy seeking asylum in the U.S. plays with a Ukrainian flag after arriving at the PedWest border
crossing at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego, California, U.S., April 13, 2022. REUTERS/Toya Sarno Jordan

By Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke March 6, 2025

Summary

Trump administration move is part of broader rollback of Biden-era migration programs

Some of those migrants could be subject to fast-track deportation

Ukrainian and Afghan migrants face uncertainty under new policies

WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.

The move, expected as soon as April, would be a stunning reversal of the welcome Ukrainians received under President Joe Biden's administration.

The planned rollback of protections for Ukrainians was underway before Trump publicly feuded with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy last week. It is part of a broader Trump administration effort to strip legal status from more than 1.8 million migrants allowed to enter the U.S. under temporary humanitarian parole programs launched under the Biden administration, the sources said.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the department had no announcements at this time. The White House and Ukrainian embassy did not respond to requests for comment.

A Trump executive order issued on January 20 called for DHS to "terminate all categorical parole programs."

The administration plans to revoke parole for about 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans as soon as this month, the Trump official and one of the sources familiar with the matter said, requesting anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The plan to revoke parole for those nationalities was first reported, opens new tab by CBS News.

Migrants stripped of their parole status could face fast-track deportation proceedings, according to an internal ICE email seen by Reuters.

Immigrants who cross the border illegally can be put into the fast-track deportation process known as expedited removal, for two years after they enter. But for those who entered through legal ports of entry without being officially "admitted" to the U.S. - as with those on parole - there is no time limit on their rapid removal, the email said.

The Biden programs were part of a broader effort to create temporary legal pathways to deter illegal immigration and provide humanitarian relief.

In addition to the 240,000 Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion, and the 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, these programs covered more than 70,000 Afghans escaping the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

An additional 1 million migrants scheduled a time to cross at a legal border crossing via an app known as CBP One.

Thousands more had access to smaller programs, including family reunification parole for certain people in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Trump as a candidate pledged to end the Biden programs, saying they went beyond the bounds of U.S. law.

The Trump administration last month paused processing immigration-related applications for people who entered the U.S. under certain Biden parole programs - placing Ukrainian Liana Avetisian, her husband and her 14-year-old daughter, in limbo. Avetisian, who worked in real estate in Ukraine, now assembles windows while her husband works construction.

The family fled Kyiv in May 2023, eventually buying a house in the small city of DeWitt, Iowa. Their parole and work permits expire in May. They say they spent about $4,000 in filing fees to renew their parole and to try to apply for another program known as Temporary Protected Status.

Avetisian has started getting headaches as she worries about their situation, she said.

“We don’t know what to do,” she said.

WANING WELCOME

U.S. allies from Afghanistan who entered under Biden have also been swept up in Trump's crackdown.

Rafi, a former Afghan intelligence officer who asked to be identified only by his first name to protect family members still in Afghanistan, entered the U.S. legally in January 2024 using the CBP One mobile app at the U.S.-Mexico border. He was given a temporary humanitarian parole status that allowed him to live and work in the United States for two years.

On February 13, just over a year into that status, he was detained at a check-in appointment at an ICE office in Chantilly, Virginia. His status was revoked.

In Afghanistan, Rafi was trained by American officers and provided intelligence on “High Value Targets”, according to an October 2022 recommendation letter.

“As a result of his active efforts against the enemy, he is currently in extreme danger, and in need of assistance in departing the country,” the former CIA officer who trained him wrote.

The officer described Rafi as “truly one of the most dedicated and hardworking individuals I had the honor to serve with in Afghanistan.” Reuters reviewed the letter but was not able to reach the officer.

In the United States, Rafi applied for asylum and was scheduled for a hearing before an immigration judge in April.

At his February ICE check in - one of the conditions for his temporary status - he was asked to remove his belt and shoelaces, he said. He knew immediately what was happening, he said, and still, he asked: “Are you arresting me? I have broken no law.”

Rafi said he felt betrayed.

“When someone stands shoulder to shoulder with American troops and puts his life in danger…” he said in a phone call from detention, his voice shaking.

“I wasn't expecting this behavior from them. I wasn't expecting it.”

On February 24, his lawyer wrote to ICE asking them to release her client, noting his lack of a criminal record, that he was not a flight risk and had an active asylum case related to his work supporting the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

James Mullan, the assistant field office director at ICE’s Washington field office responded that ICE was declining to release him.

“The priorities that you mentioned in your email ended on January 20, 2025,” Mullan wrote, referring to the date of Trump’s inauguration.🔺

The Economist: Gangsters Paradise

The Economist: End of the post-1945 order

China, Mexico and Canada to retaliate after Trump imposes new tariffs

Cartoon Selection-ENB

China, Mexico and Canada to retaliate after Trump imposes new tariffs

China and Canada will impose their own tariffs on billions of dollars worth of U.S. goods, and Mexico plans to announce new levies soon, as Trump’s tariffs take effect.

March 4, 2025, The Washington Post

As President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on the three top American trading partners took effect Tuesday, China, Mexico and Canada announced they would retaliate with levies of their own, unleashing a potentially devastating trade war.

China imposed tariffs of up to 15 percent on a raft of U.S. farm products and blacklisted more than 20 U.S. companies, marking a major escalation in a brewing battle between the world’s two largest economies. The move targets some of the United States’ most important exports to China, including soybeans, meat and grains.

Trump is increasing tariffs on Chinese products by 10 percentage points, bringing the total tax on some Chinese products to 45 percent. He is also imposing 25 percent tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, in the most serious threat yet to 31 years of free-trade treaties in North America. The levies went into effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time Tuesday, after Trump confirmed Monday that he would not extend a month-long delay on his plan.

On Monday evening, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decried Trump’s “unjustified decision” and said he would respond with tariffs on roughly $107 billion worth of U.S. products. About $21 billion in U.S. goods would be hit immediately. The remainder would take effect in 21 days, Trudeau said.

China announced a 15 percent tax on U.S. goods

🌎 “Because of the tariffs imposed by the U.S., Americans will pay more for groceries, gas, and cars, and potentially lose thousands of jobs,” the Canadian leader said.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Tuesday morning that her government was also prepared to impose retaliatory tariffs. She told reporters she will announce them Sunday in a rally in the Zocalo, the country’s main square, in Mexico City.

Sheinbaum blasted “an offensive, defamatory and baseless communiqué published by the White House about Mexico, which we firmly deny and categorically condemn.” The U.S. statement had said cartels “operate unhindered due to an intolerable relationship with the government of Mexico.”

Mexico’s economy is heavily dependent on trade with the United States, and the tariffs could provoke a recession. About 80 percent of Mexico’s exports go to its northern neighbor. But the country’s manufacturing sector has become increasingly integrated with factories in the United States — meaning that any tariffs on Mexican-made goods may boomerang for U.S. companies, particularly in the auto industry.

Sheinbaum said she and Trump had agreed to a telephone call, probably Thursday, to discuss the tariffs.

Trump said he did not expect Beijing to “retaliate too much,” but only hours later, China’s State Council, the equivalent of its cabinet, announced a 15 percent tax on U.S. goods including chicken, wheat and corn. Other American products — including soybeans, sorghum, beef, pork, seafood, dairy products and fruits and vegetables — will be subject to a 10 percent levy.

Fifteen U.S. companies, including Leidos and General Dynamics Land Systems, were placed on a list that bars them from importing goods that can be used for military purposes. Another 10 American companies were barred from trading with or investing in China.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian said Tuesday that if Washington “insists on starting a tariff war, a trade war or any kind of war China will fight to the last.”

China’s Ministry of Commerce earlier called Trump’s tariffs a violation of international trade rules and an example of American “unilateralism and bullying.”

The Chinese tariffs will go into effect on March 10 and could hit billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. goods.

China is the largest market for American farm products, accounting for 17 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports in 2023, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

China last year imported almost $20 billion in soybeans, corn, cotton and the other U.S. farm products that will be subject to the new tariffs, according to USDA data. Those products accounted for about 80 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports to China.

The nascent trade war began shortly after Trump’s return to the White House and has ratcheted up quickly, involving China as well as U.S. partners.

In early February, Trump imposed 25 percent levies on Canadian and Mexican merchandise, saying they weren’t doing enough to stop the movement of fentanyl and migrants over the U.S. borders. (Canada is the source of a minuscule amount of those flows.) The president then delayed the tariffs by one month as the two countries scrambled to beef up border security. Nonetheless, Trump went ahead with the penalties on Tuesday.

At the same time, he slapped a 10 percent tax on Chinese imports, saying that China had also failed to stem the flow of fentanyl to the United States.

China responded with 15 percent tariffs on imports of U.S. coal and liquefied natural gas, as well as a 10 percent tariff on agricultural equipment and crude oil; restrictions on exports of minerals used to make high-tech products; an antitrust investigation of Google; and the blacklisting of two other U.S. companies.

President Donald Trump at a news conference in the White House on Monday. He said he didn't expected China to “retaliate too much” against his latest round of tariffs. (Annabelle Gordon/For The Washington Post)

At the time, analysts said Beijing’s response was relatively restrained as it only targeted certain products. It was a sign that Chinese leader Xi Jinping, facing a slowing economy and an increasingly disenchanted public, could be open to striking a trade deal with Trump, they said.

But the president’s latest announcement and Beijing’s response raise the likelihood that the two countries will become embroiled in a cycle of retaliatory tariffs, experts say.

“Trump is swinging his tariff stick harder and harder,” said Zhu Feng, director of the Institute of International Studies at Nanjing University.

“The trade war is a huge disruption and blow to the normal economic and trade relations between China and the United States, and it will certainly bring new and significant pressure to China’s economy and development,” he said.

While the leaders of Canada and Mexico have held talks with the U.S. president to try to reach agreements, Xi and Trump have had no such conversation. Top officials including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have had calls with their Chinese counterparts, but Trump suggested earlier this month that he was in no rush to speak to Xi.

During his first term, Trump placed tariffs on Chinese products to try to reduce China’s trade surplus with the United States, resulting in a two-year tit-for-tat trade war. In a deal that was struck in 2020, China pledged to buy an additional $200 billion in U.S. goods over two years but ultimately failed to fulfill its pledge.

The new U.S. measures will result in levies as high as 45 percent on some Chinese goods that were already targeted during Trump’s first term, including home appliances, electronics, clothing and machinery.

Chinese state media and commentators have been stressing that Beijing has been preparing for a second trade war by focusing on new export markets and launching stimulus measures at home.

China has sought to reduce its reliance on the United States by buying more farm products from other countries. But in China’s slowing economy, ordinary people will likely still suffer from the higher prices.

“China’s main concern now is to improve its situation at home — build moats and fortresses — and wait for the U.S. to make an offer before a tough battle comes,” said Zhao Minghao, deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University.🔺

Lynch reported from Washington, Coletta from Toronto and Sheridan from Mexico City. Pei-Lin Wu in Taipei, Taiwan, and Lyric Li in Seoul contributed to this report.

தினப்பொறி மார்ச் 3 - உக்ரைன்

Trump-Zelensky Meeting Implodes-WSJ

Source: Wall Street Journel

Ukraine's President Volodymr Zelenskyy's US visit-AJ Inside Story

A visit that Ukraine's President Volodymr Zelenskyy hoped would secure US support in the face of Russia's invasion, instead ended in a very public row. Kyiv hoped that would keep US assistance coming, despite not containing any guarantees of security against Russian aggression. Instead, President Zelenskyy got a dressing down from Trump and his Vice President JD Vance, who accused the wartime leader of showing disrespect and ingratitude. Now Trump is threatening to pull support from Ukraine. What does this mean for the war in Ukraine?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Michael Bociurkiw, global affairs analyst and senior fellow at Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Scott Lucas, Professor of US and International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin.

Glenn Diesen, professor of International Relations at the University of South-East Norway and Associate Editor of Russia in Global Affairs.🔺

Minister Herath’s Full Speech: At the 58th Regular Session of the UNHRC in Geneva.

 The Government says it is firmly and sincerely committed to working towards a unified Sri Lanka that respects and celebrates the diversity of its people with no division or discrimination based on race, religion, class and caste. 

“We will not leave room for a resurgence of divisive racism or religious extremism in our country,” Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath said on Tuesday (25). 

He also said '' Sri Lanka aims to make domestic mechanisms credible within constitutional framework''.

Minister Herath made these comments while delivered a statement at the High-Level Segment of the 58th Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva February 25, 2025 . 

Video: Speech in English

Minister Herath’s Full Speech:

“Mr. President, I wish to congratulate you on your election as the President of this Council.

At the Presidential and Parliamentary elections held a few months ago, the people of Sri Lanka took a progressive decision to elect a new government with a strong mandate to direct the country towards economic, social and political transformation. The results of these elections held in November 2024 bears special significance on several fronts. It reflected a collective and unified voice from people of all regions of the country – North, South, East, West – and of all ethnicities and religions, in support of change and positive transformation. The current Parliament which was formed after the election is one of the most inclusive in our history, with a record number of women, representatives of different communities including two women from the Malayaga community and a visually impaired person being part of the Legislature of the country. This inclusivity represents Sri Lanka’s new path focused on upholding the rights of all its people irrespective of differences based on gender, ethnicity or other grounds. 

I would like to quote from the speech delivered by our President, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, at the inauguration of the first session of the Tenth Parliament: “Elections create a contract between the people and us. This bond is formed when we present our policy statements and ideas, outlining how the country’s future should be shaped. People who place their trust in these ideas cast their votes for us. With their votes, the people have fulfilled their part in this relationship by granting us the mandate to govern. Now, it is our turn to fulfil our part by serving the people.”

In 2022, Sri Lanka went through its deepest and most complex social, economic and political crisis since independence. As you know, the impact of the economic crisis gave rise to a humanitarian situation affecting all segments of the population, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable segments of the society. The Government led by President Anura Kumara Disanayake has emerged successful in stabilizing the economy, and we are currently in the process of laying the foundation toward economic transformation and greater economic democratization through fair distribution of opportunities. 

We are acutely aware of the continuing impact of the economic challenges on our people, particularly the most vulnerable, and the government continues to take decisive steps to advance the economic and social rights of the people. In the National Budget for 2025 presented to the Parliament last week, we have committed to take series of measures to extend much needed relief and empowerment to the people including increased allocation for social welfare and security. Significantly, the budget proposals have also made historic allocations for health and education and provide for a series of empowerment measures to vulnerable groups such as women, children including orphaned, disabled or autistic children, estate sector population, students, persons with disabilities and people living in conflict affected or under-developed areas of the country. 

Special attention has been paid to improving the socio-economic conditions and address critical needs such as resettlement, housing, compensation and infrastructure development in the conflict-affected Northern and Eastern Provinces. 

The Government has been actively working to develop infrastructure, support livelihoods and promote industries in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, aiming to enhance connectivity and support regional development. 

With the launch of the “Clean Sri Lanka” project by H.E. the President on 01 January 2025, the Government has taken steps to introduce a new political culture and commitment to moral and ethical governance. The ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ programme is a holistic undertaking aimed at nation-wide efforts of environmental, social, and governance initiatives to bring about change, integration, and collaboration, in environment, social and governance structures. 

In line with the mandate given by the people, the Government will prioritize integrity and addressing issues of mismanagement and corruption that were at the root of the economic collapse, in taking our country towards sustainable development. Through digital transformation of government structures at all levels, we hope to ensure that inefficiency and corruption will be minimized. 

The Government led by President Anura Kumara Disanayaka is firmly and sincerely committed to working towards a unified Sri Lanka that respects and celebrates the diversity of its people with no division or discrimination based on race, religion, class and caste. We will not leave room for a resurgence of divisive racism or religious extremism in our country. The fundamental and longstanding principles of democracy and freedom enshrined in our Constitution will be fully respected and safeguarded while protecting the human rights of all citizens. Every citizen should feel free to practice their religion, speak their language, and live according to their cultural values without fear or discrimination. No one should feel that their beliefs, culture, or political affiliations will make them targets of undue pressure or prejudice. Administrative, political and electoral processes will be activated towards this end.

The Government has pledged to take tangible steps in the interest of further advancing national unity and reconciliation. The President has proposed to declare a Sri Lanka Day, in line with our vision for a reconciled Sri Lanka and commitment to bridging gaps between communities. We will ensure that the domestic mechanisms and processes established to address challenges emanating from the conflict will continue their work in an independent and credible manner within the Constitutional framework. Domestic institutions such as the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), Office for Reparations, and Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) will be strengthened. 

The contours of a truth and reconciliation framework, will be further discussed with the broadest possible cross section of stakeholders, before operationalization to ensure a process that has the trust of all Sri Lankans. Our aim is to make the domestic mechanisms credible and sound within the constitutional framework. This will include strengthening the work towards a truth and reconciliation commission empowered to investigate acts of violence caused by racism and religious extremism that give rise to tensions within Sri Lankan society.  

Video: Speech in Sinhala

A number of confidence building measures have also been taken in the last few months towards reconciliation. In November 2024, a number of roads in the Northern Province including the Palali- Achchuveli main road were opened for public use after several decades. The President, during his visit to the North in January this year, made an open invitation to Tamil-speaking youth to be part of Sri Lanka’s police service. The 2025 budget includes significant allocations to upgrade the libraries throughout the country, including the historical Jaffna library which is a symbol of education and enlightenment for the Tamil community. 

The Government is fully cognizant of the responsibility that accompanies the people’s mandate, including the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces, to fulfill their aspirations for a just, fair and prosperous society for all our citizens. As we move forward on our path towards national unity and reconciliation and inclusive development, the continued encouragement and support of the international community will be important.  

Sri Lanka is an active member of the United Nations since 1955. We are a State Party to all the 09 core UN human rights instruments and engage with Treaty Bodies and regular mechanisms of this Council on a regular basis. In the past few years, we have received over 10 Special Procedures and engaged productively with Treaty Bodies, most recently with the CEDAW Committee, ICCPR and the Universal Periodic Review process. We are committed to genuine dialogue and cooperation in human rights through continuous and constructive engagement.     

Conflict, inequality, and extreme climatic conditions are driving millions into poverty daily, while countless men, women, and children continue to suffer or perish in wars across the globe. Addressing these critical challenges is essential to protect human rights and safeguard our planet for future generations.      

Sri Lanka stands ready to support the Human Rights Council in addressing these pressing global challenges in a balanced and holistic manner in line with its founding principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity. We believe that States must be encouraged and empowered to address their challenges through robust national human rights frameworks, supplemented by assistance upon request. .

As a nation on the trajectory towards people-led and people-centric national transformation and as a responsible member of the international community, Sri Lanka will continue to work in a constructive spirit of dialogue and cooperation with the members of the United Nations including this Council within our national legal framework. 

Thank you.”