Editorial

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake leaves next week to address the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on its 80th birthday, at a time when the world body is facing perhaps its most challenging moments, a crisis in multilateralism.

Nowhere is the legitimacy and relevance of the global body more in doubt than in the paralysis of member states in the face of the naked aggression and unspeakable humanitarian atrocities perpetrated by the occupying power Israel in the Palestine territories, especially in Gaza—and the continued veto of any UN resolution at its Security Council by the United States to stop the
killings.

As the President heads to New York, his own Government is under scrutiny for pussyfooting in naming and shaming Israel for the real-time genocide that is unfolding in Gaza and for underplaying Israel’s threat to peace and security in the region, most recently seen in the attack on the sovereignty of Qatar.

In yet another failure of global governance, the UN Security Council, which should have been at the forefront as the guarantor of international peace and security, has moved in fits and starts, and all attempts to stop the mass murders have been shot down by the veto of the US. Israel has disregarded multiple condemnations by the UNGA and other UN fora.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that a petition brought by South Africa claiming Israel was committing genocide was “plausible”. This week, an Independent Commission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adjudicated that Israel had fulfilled four out of five ingredients that constitute ‘genocide’.

It was the South African jurist Navi Pillay who chaired this UN Commission. No stranger to Sri Lanka, having hunted Sri Lanka’s human rights record as Chairperson of the UNHRC, she was then accused of bias given her ethnicity, but even she did not go so far as to accuse Sri Lanka of committing ‘genocide’.

The crazed Israeli ‘grand offensive’ to capture the rest of Gaza at whatever the human cost is clearly an attempt to frustrate the growing number of Western nations on the verge of announcing recognition for an independent Palestinian state with a two-state solution to the Israel and Palestine gridlock. This is a welcome but overdue essential measure of opposition to Israel’s aggression. However, with Israeli forces in occupation of these territories, the world body will, in effect, recognise a State that is unable to function meaningfully as a sovereign entity.

Sri Lanka has so far stood in support of the Palestine cause and recognised the state of Palestine. But the JVP/NPP Government seems to have taken a different stance and run foul of the local pro-Palestine lobbies.

Its lukewarm condemnations of Israeli humanitarian excesses in Gaza raise the question whether this is all about obtaining more jobs for Sri Lankans in Israel, or if there’s more to it than meets the eye. The Government would be well advised to note the 1.2 million Sri Lankans employed in Arab countries, especially in the Gulf, as opposed to the 23,000 in Israel.

The Israeli ambassador to Sri Lanka, recently referring to the Jews and Jaffna Tamils having shared intellectual and cultural bonds, drew parallels between his country folks and the Tamil diaspora in facing adversity. A triangular cooperation between Israel, India and Sri Lanka might raise eyebrows in some quarters.

As he completes one year in office and makes his multilateral debut in New York, President Dissanayake’s address on the world stage at UNGA will be watched with greater interest. On the domestic front, he has fiercely championed the rule of law and accountability and the vision of a just and ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ where those found guilty of illegal acts will be brought to justice—weak and powerful alike.

On the global front, therefore, surely, his maiden address at the 80th UNGA will not fail to stand on the right side of history on Palestine at a defining moment and champion a just world for which the UN was founded, while condemning Israel’s multiple violations of international law and the fundamental norms and principles of the UN Charter.

PC system needs ‘system change’

The Government has announced the appointment of a committee to explore the feasibility of overseas Sri Lankan citizens having the right to vote at future elections in line with most democracies. This is a welcome move, especially as the country’s economy is sustained very largely by their remittances, though there is also a large Sri Lankan diaspora that is only interested in dragging this nation down and embarrassing it around the world.

There is a long way to go in the way of logistics before this can happen, and costs are involved, but given the digital age, an exercise of this magnitude is easier to implement than ever before.

Devolution and provincial elections were also under discussion at the ongoing sessions of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), where there has been a call for the implementation of the 13th amendment to the Constitution with India calling for early provincial council elections.

The fact is, having lost its presidential and parliamentary votes of 2024 at the more recent local government elections in 2025, there is reticence on the part of the Government in going before another test right now with the fear of losing further electoral ground. The Government, has seemingly lost confidence, and indeed, ruling parties usually find mid-term elections difficult in keeping up the momentum of past victories. A drop in the vote count immediately signals negativity within the country. The problem, however, is whether delays will only improve the chances of a sitting government or have a negative impact. Looking for votes from outside the country to shore up their vote bank is also not a surprise.

The PC system itself means little to the people living in Sri Lanka, while it gobbles state funds and creates duplication and confusion in the administrative set-up in the country. Only politicians and political parties across the board are its beneficiaries.

Without succumbing to pressure, especially from these external elements, the Government ought to look for a proper system of decentralisation involving existing local councils and, at most, creating ‘District Councils’ purely with a development bent. In today’s digital age, devolution itself is becoming passé. It is the people, the silent majority, and their real demands that need to be addressed, not those making demands far away and far removed from the ground situation.