Former energy minister Udaya Gammanpila has issued the warning after being sacked for criticising government policy that has taken Sri Lanka to the brink of bankruptcy.

Sri Lanka could run out of fuel and food in the next month, according to the former energy minister.

Udaya Gammanpila was sacked earlier this year for criticising government policy that has taken the country to the brink of bankruptcy.

The former energy minister told Sky News the economic crisis in his country is reaching a tipping point that could lead to the collapse of agriculture, medical services and industrial production, leading to “anarchy”.

He issued the warning before Sri Lanka‘s President Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared a state of emergency across the country on Friday evening effective from midnight.

It comes amid widespread protests calling for the resignation of Mr Rajapaksa and his brother Mahinda, who is prime minister, as Sri Lanka faces its worst economic crisis in recent memory.

The government notice said the state of emergency has been declared in the interests of public security.

It is the second time in five weeks the president has declared a state of emergency, which gives him sweeping powers and allows him to control protests.

The latest move comes as a general strike across Sri Lanka has brought business and transport in the capital Colombo to a halt, and saw police use water cannon and tear gas against demonstrators.

Gotabaya and Mahinda Rajapaksa are accused of nepotism, and blamed by many for a crisis that has seen Sri Lanka’s usable foreign currency reserves dwindle to less than $50m (£40m), leaving it reliant on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and India and China, for credit required to import fuel, food and cooking gas.

The Rajapaksa brothers have faced protests for more than a month amid fuel shortages, soaring medicine and food prices, and rolling blackouts imposed to ration power supplies.

Earlier this week the finance minister admitted the country has barely enough money to buy a single tanker load of fuel, leaving it almost entirely reliant on a credit line from India for petrol, diesel and kerosene.

Sri Lanka is in negotiations with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and with its major creditors India and China.

Mr Gammanpila, who was sacked in March for speaking out against government monetary policy, said the consequences of the economic crisis could be dire.

“Basically, Sri Lanka right now has no foreign currency reserves whatsoever,” he said.

“There is a risk of fuel shortages in the near future because in the last three months we have had the benefit of India’s credit line, which supplied Sri Lanka with $500m worth of petroleum products

“That’s now being fully utilised, so we have a risk of running out of all kinds of fuel. It’s like a man without blood, the body dies. The situation is terrible.”

He also warned of food shortages, caused in part by a disastrous decision to ban chemical fertiliser imports last year. Relying only on organic products saw crop yields plummet, leaving an abundant island no longer self-sufficient in fruit and vegetables, and causing dramatic price rises for staples including rice.

“In the near future Sri Lanka will have to import vegetables, fruits and grains such as rice and maize for consumption. But because of the foreign currency shortage, we are not in a position to do that right now. In the coming months, definitely, there will be a food shortage.”

Following an emergency cabinet meeting it was reported that the president has asked his brother to resign as prime minister.

SKY NEWS

Another Ferdinand Marcos is set to become president of the Philippines

It was just after lunchtime when a group of ageing men and women, dressed in red, and flashing V-for-victory signs, drifted past a Uniqlo store in one of the many malls that pass for public spaces in Manila, the capital of the Philippines. The call had gone out on Facebook for supporters of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos to come out for their presidential candidate. “I hope he will vindicate the family name,” says Carmen, 74, as she rides the escalator down towards the Zara outlet. “They are so hated.”

On the floor below, another group, this one mostly in pink, had come to prove her point. Supporters of Leni Robredo, Mr Marcos’s closest rival for the presidency, were there to show their disdain for Bongbong. “We want a clean and honest government,” says Gina Ramos, 52. She has had enough of corruption, she adds.

She is in for disappointment. Barring an earth-shattering surprise or an unprecedented polling error, Mr Marcos, the son of the Philippines’ former dictator of the same name (minus the bongs), will win by a landslide in an election on May 9th. His vice-president, who is elected on a separate ticket, will be Sara Duterte, the daughter of Rodrigo Duterte, the outgoing president. In a system dominated by dynasties, both members of the all-star team have for months polled at above 50% in their respective races. Ms Robredo’s numbers have remained stuck in the low 20s.

That is a remarkable comeback for the Marcos family, who were run out of the country on February 25th 1986 as massive street protests and the loss of support from the police and army forced Ferdinand senior to reconsider his position. The Marcoses fled to Hawaii—along with at least 24 bars of gold and 22 boxes of cash—where the deposed dictator died three years later.

The family returned to the Philippines, ostensibly to face corruption charges, in 1991. Marcos’s wife, Imelda, ran for president the following year, and lost. But Bongbong won a seat in the House of Representatives. Various members of the family have played musical chairs in provincial and national positions ever since (see chart). In 2016, Bongbong ran for vice-president and lost narrowly to Ms Robredo. Now he is about to move his family back into Malacañang, as the presidential palace is known.

Yet it is unclear what Mr Marcos intends to do with power. He has made few promises on the campaign trail, published no policy agenda and appeared in no debates. The slogan of his and Ms Duterte’s campaign is an airy-fairy “Unity”. (The pair call themselves “Uniteam”.) Despite 30 years in public life—as congressman, senator and provincial governor—he has little to show for it. Descriptions of him by supporters, critics and foreign observers are variations on a theme: “easy-going”, “laid-back”, “not very energetic”, “lazy”.

That is because the presidency, for Mr Marcos and his family, is not a means to transforming society, fixing deep-rooted problems or even plundering the treasury. It is instead an end in itself, the culmination of a decades-long effort to rehabilitate the family name, long associated with the late dictator’s brutality and corruption, and the lavish lifestyle enjoyed by Imelda, whose shoe collection now fills a museum in Manila. Thousands of people were killed and tens of thousands jailed or tortured during the period of martial law imposed by Marcos senior. Some $5bn-10bn of public money is alleged to have been looted. “This campaign did not start six years ago”, when Mr Marcos lost his bid for the vice-presidency, says Julio Teehankee of De La Salle University in Manila, but in 1986.

Over time, and more recently helped along by skilful propaganda, the idea took hold that the Marcos dictatorship was a “golden era”, when the Philippines enjoyed stability, high growth and massive investment in infrastructure. On social media and on YouTube, sophisticated campaigns push this revisionist version of history.

The lack of an agenda beyond winning is bad for the Philippines. Its population of some 110m is the second-biggest in South-East Asia. Around a quarter of its people cannot afford enough food and other essentials. Its economy, before the pandemic among the best-performing in the region, was battered by an unduly long and harsh lockdown. It is an American treaty ally with a niggling territorial dispute with China, lying within cellphone-signal distance of Taiwan. It will be on the front line in any conflict between those powers.

Mr Marcos has little to say on any of these subjects. What he has said has alarmed economists. For example, he promises to cap the price of rice at about half the current rate. That may be campaign bluster, however. Analysts expect him to forget unaffordable campaign vows and follow Mr Duterte’s example in appointing technocrats to run the economy.

On foreign policy, Mr Marcos’s family has a long association with China. One of only two Chinese consulates outside the capital is in Ilocos Norte, a province notable only for being the family’s stronghold. He is said to be China’s preferred candidate. Yet Bongbong is a cosmopolitan sort with a fondness for England, where he studied, and for American culture. There are suggestions that he might appoint Jose Manuel Romualdez, the Philippine ambassador to America (and his second cousin), as foreign secretary. But his lack of any strong beliefs of his own, combined with a susceptibility to external influence, is a potential liability. He listens to the last person he spoke to, says an interlocutor.

The greater risks are at home. Mr Marcos’s campaign may have been milquetoast but his candidacy, and probable victory, have been deeply divisive. Ms Robredo has fired up a passionate base. Her rallies draw huge crowds. Lots of Filipinos remain wedded to the ideals of the 1986 revolution that kicked out his father. It is possible they will not accept the result. Attempts to disqualify Mr Marcos are making their way through the elections commission, and will probably get sent to the Supreme Court. Whatever it decides, there will be uproar.

Mr Marcos’s administration is likely to be marked by protests and instability. That will be bad for governance, and for the economy. It will also be a headache for America—and an opportunity for China—as they compete in the Pacific. The Marcos name is rising again. But for how long? 

THE ECONOMIST

A video has been circulating on social media showing a man who was protesting near the Parliament last night (06) being brutally beaten by the police.

The police have fired tear gas and water to disperse the protests affecting the locals and the children’s of the area.

The police have been the subject of intense criticism from society due to the tear gas attack on the students of the Inter-University Student Federation, the water cannon attack on the food brought by the residents of the area for the students, and the tear gas attacks aimed at residents of areas surrounding Parliament.

The Colombo Magistrate’s Court yesterday (May 06) adjourned the hearing of the case filed against former Minister Wimal Weerawansa’s wife Shashi Weerawansa’s – Randunu Mudiyansela’s Sirsha Udayanthi – for obtaining an informal diplomatic passport by submitting false information to the Department of Immigration and Emigration, until May 13.

This is the second time that the verdict, in this case, has been postponed.

The trial of the case ended in February and the verdict was due in March.

Sri Lanka’s Ambassador – designate to Myanmar assumes duties

The newly appointed Ambassador – designate of Sri Lanka to Myanmar J.M. Janaka Priyantha Bandara assumed duties at the Sri Lanka Embassy in Yangon on 02 May 2022.

Addressing the staff of the Embassy upon assumption of duties, the Ambassador stated that he is dedicated to strengthen the longstanding friendly relations based on Theravada Buddhism between Sri Lanka and Myanmar. He also emphasized the need to enhance economic, political, and cultural connectivity between the two countries for mutual benefit.

Ambassador Janaka Bandara has an illustrious and multifaceted career. He is an Attorney at Law by profession and has served as a Magistrate, an Additional District Judge and senior Legal Counsel in the Private Bar. He has been a member of the Parliament and has served as the Public Trustee of Sri Lanka, Governor of Sabaragamuwa province and held a number of senior positions including Presidential Advisor, Parliament Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chairman of the Parliamentary Public Petitions Committee.

Ambassador-designate Janaka Bandara has also served as the Ambassador of Sri Lanka to the UAE and as the High Commissioner of Sri Lanka in Nigeria prior to this appointment.

Sri Lanka Embassy
Yangon

The signing ceremony of the Joint Communiqué on establishing diplomatic elations between the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste was held today, 04 May 2022, at the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in New York.

On behalf of the respective Governments, the Joint Communiqué was signed by Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, Mohan Pieris, and Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Timor-Leste to the United Nations, Karlito Nunes.

Timor-Leste is an island state in Southeast Asia covering the territory of the eastern half of Timor Island with a population of about 1.3 million. The main exports of the Timor-Leste are crude-petroleum, natural gas, coffee, vegetables and scrap iron. Both Sri Lanka and Timor-Leste are members of the ASEAN Regional Forum, a platform in which both countries can develop their bilateral relations.

The establishment of diplomatic relations between Sri Lanka and Timor-Leste would enhance the existing friendly relations and cooperation between both countries in the political, socio-economic and cultural fields for the mutual benefit of the two countries.

Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations
New York,

06 May, 2022

S. V. Kirubaharan, France 

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: “The UN Security Council P5 ought to be dissuaded from using their veto power, which can paralyze the United Nations. The country blocking action ought to have to explain its decision and propose an alternative solution. It has been suggested that a veto only becomes effective if the vetoing state has the support of two or three other permanent members”.

The dream of the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan came nearer to reality on 24 April 2022, when one of the globe’s tiny countries, Liechtenstein proposed a resolution that was successfully adopted by consensus in the UN General Assembly – UN GA. By population, Liechtenstein is the fourth-smallest country in Europe and the sixth smallest in the world.  

A few of the smallest countries are given below, with their population. Out of these ten countries, nine are UN Member states. The Vatican has observer status like Palestine. In the UN, only member states are qualified to vote. 

Dominica with 72,167;  Marshall Islands with 59,610;  Saint Kitts and Nevis — 53,544; Monaco with 39,511; Liechtenstein with 38,250; San Marino with 34,017; Palau with 18,169; Tuvalu with 11,931; Nauru with 10,876 and Vatican with 800. 

The resolution adopted by consensus, called on the veto users (permanent members known as P5 of the UN Security Council – UN SC: United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia) to justify their use of the veto in the UN GA, within ten working days after use of the veto. In Latin, veto means ‘I forbid’. According to the UN Charter, it can be authorised or used by the P5, only ‘to maintain international peace and security’.  

According to the adopted non-binding resolution, the UN GA can convene the user of the veto and other countries, to hold a debate on the situation about which the veto was cast.  In other words inviting the country which used the veto to the UN GA to speak and debate with all other UN member states. In the UN SC – there are five permanent members with Veto power and ten other members elected for two years which have no veto power. 

In fact, this idea attracted the mind of the Liechtenstein diplomat, Christian Wenaweser in 2020. With his experience and knowledge gained in two decades with the UN, the loose use of the veto by members of the P5 was believed to be obstructing the UN charter’s mandate.  

Monitoring mechanism 

Diplomats believed that the adopted resolution is ‘straightforward, legally sound and politically meaningful’. It will be seen as a monitoring mechanism for those using the veto and also a means to hear the voices of all the other UN member states. 

When we look into the history of how the veto has been used by the P5, the message is, rightly or wrongly, that UN member states other than the P5 are just puppets.  

Now the adoption of this new resolution last month may give hope to those countries who want UN reform, especially those who want to amend the UN Charter with the aim of limiting the use of the veto by the P5, restricting it to reasonable causes. 

While talking about this resolution, it is the right time to see what the French Ambassador Nathalie Broadhurst Estival said during this process in New York.  She said: “Stressing that the veto is not a privilege, but a responsibility, noted that France only used the veto 18 times since 1945 and has not used it for more than 30 years. Condemning the unacceptable blocking of the Security Council by the Russian Federation regarding its aggression against Ukraine, she added her support for the convening of an emergency session of the General Assembly to allow the international community to react to the violation of the Charter. France is fully committed to the process of reforming the Council in order to make it more representative of today’s world while preserving its executive and operational nature. Such reforms must be in line with core values of the Organization and the responsibilities of each organ. In this regard, the General Assembly cannot become a judge of the Security Council or of its members, elected or permanent. It is in this spirit that France, together with Mexico, have introduced a proposal on the use of the veto for the five permanent members of the Council to voluntarily and collectively suspend the use of the veto in the event of mass atrocities, crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes”. 

French initiative 

Since 2013, France has been in favour of regulating use of the veto, through the P5 voluntarily and collectively undertaking not to use it where a mass atrocity has happened. When this is voluntary, it does not require any revision of the UN Charter. 

On 28 September 2015, during the 70th UN GA, President Macron announced that France unilaterally renounced the use of the veto against a credible draft resolution aiming to put an end to mass atrocities. 

On 25 September 2018, during the 73rd UN GA, President Macron set the goal of attaining support from two-thirds of UN members (129 countries) for regulating the right to veto in the event of mass atrocities. 

Continuing its efforts, on the 75^th anniversary of the United Nations in 2020, France, alongside Mexico put forward a political declaration signed by 105 member states. 

The French initiative regarding the veto does not aim to abolish it. France continues to works on this initiative with Mexico, many member states and civil society, towards the UN SC taking action against mass atrocities. But it seems that many Asian countries, some African countries and P5 countries other than France are not showing much interest in this initiative. 

While talking about the resolution, this is the best time to consider the reform of the UN SC. Many member states and civil society want the reform of the membership, the use of veto, regional representation in the UN SC, etc 

The reform of the UN SC requires two thirds support from UN GA members and all the P5 to endorse it. 

Regarding membership of the UN SC, there are many feasible possibilities. One is to increase the permanent membership on a regional basis. Presently there are no permanent members from Latin American, the Caribbean States, Africa, or from Asian Pacific.  

The other proposal is on the basis of population/language. Presently, the UN has six official languages – Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. If this were based on language and population, India which has the second largest population in the world and the Hindi language would be considered by the UN. In other words, India is discriminated by the UN itself. 

However, one of the proposed plans is to give Germany in Europe; India and Japan from Asia and Brazil from Latin American countries places in the UN SC as permanent members. To be frank, there is no time frame or any sign of this happening in the near future. 

One can see that, then USSR and the present Russia, used the veto on 18th August 1948 and 13 September 1949 against present Sri Lanka then Ceylon – when it applied for the UN membership.  

To know the history of how the veto was used by the P5, please click on the link given below.   

https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/veto

Galle Face & Tiananmen Square 

As I don’t want to write a separate article on the present situation in Sri Lanka, here I would like to give my prediction considering the present ground reality. 

If the opposition are successful in their no-confidence motion, the country will turn towards even worse turmoil. The President and the present Prime Minister, in other words Rajapaksa’s family, will not give up their position so easily. If they did, there would be too many questions to answer and most of them would end up in jail. Then the process to recover the stolen wealth and assets invested in foreign countries by the Rajapaksa family – Dubai, Luxembourg and some European countries, Africa including in Seychelles Island, will start. 

If the Rajapaksa family successfully form an interim government, all those who take cabinet positions will be their puppets. This would not be the right solution for the problems. If they form the interim government, then the people demonstrating at Galle Face may end up almost like what happened in Tiananmen Square in China on 4^th June 1989. 

In Tiananmen Square students were demonstrating from 15^th April 1989. On 20 May Martial Law was declared and in the early morning of 4^th June, thousands of troops started to kill the demonstrators and bystanders. The demonstrators at Galle Face and other areas should keep in mind that this is the same government which brought the war to an end by killing thousands upon thousands of Tamils. 

Another worse option may be a military coup. This could only happen with the help of an outside force. 

The situation in Sri Lanka is unpredictable and changing every hour. In the meantime, no-one knows the Rajapaksa family’s plans and preparation to protect themselves and their stolen assets and wealth. Let’s wait and see.  

“He/she who sows righteousness will harvest righteousness and 

he/she who sows deficiency/evil will harvest deficiency/evil.” 

S. V. KIRUBAharan 

France 

06/05/2022