Top German Spy Warns: Putin’s Russia Poses an Unprecedented Threat to the West

German intelligence leaders fear that Putin's strategies could destabilize Europe and challenge democratic values.

On October 14, 2024, Germany’s Parliamentary Control Committee (PKGr) convened for a rare public hearing, marking the eighth such instance in its history. The event served as a critical platform for the heads of Germany’s federal intelligence agencies—the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), and the Federal Office for Military Counterintelligence (MAD)—to address the increasingly precarious security landscape, particularly in relation to Russia’s actions under President Vladimir Putin.

[BND President Bruno Kahl during the hearing]

At the hearing, BND President Bruno Kahl, BfV President Thomas Haldenwang, and MAD President Martina Rosenberg painted a stark picture of the escalating threats posed by Russia. Kahl articulated a deep-seated concern that the Kremlin views Germany as an adversary, primarily due to its staunch support for Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing aggression. This perception of Germany as an enemy is compounded by Russia’s broader strategic aim to realign the global order, a theme echoed throughout the testimony.

Kahl warned of “direct kinetic measures” initiated by Russia against Western nations, asserting that Russian intelligence agencies are operating with impunity and a state mandate to execute hybrid warfare against the West. He elaborated on the Kremlin’s extensive military rearmament and reorganizational efforts, predicting that by the end of the decade, Russia could mount a substantial military offensive against NATO. “Putin will test the West’s red lines,” Kahl stated, indicating a calculated strategy aimed at fracturing NATO solidarity before any direct conflict could ensue.

BfV President Haldenwang elaborated on the “influence operations” orchestrated by Russian intelligence. He described disinformation campaigns designed to undermine Western support for Ukraine and destabilize democratic processes in Germany. Notably, he highlighted the emergence of manipulated media outlets that masquerade as reputable sources to spread false narratives. This manipulation is not merely an information war; it is a strategic endeavor to sway political discourse and foster pro-Russian sentiment among European lawmakers.

The intelligence leaders expressed heightened alarm over increasing espionage efforts targeting Germany’s military and critical infrastructure. Rosenberg, as the MAD president, highlighted concerns over drone reconnaissance activities aimed at military installations, warning that these operations could swiftly escalate into acts of sabotage. The intelligence community is now confronted with a dual threat: not only are they tasked with identifying and neutralizing espionage, but they must also prepare for potential sabotage operations that could disrupt national security.

Kahl’s commentary underscored the simultaneous challenges Germany faces on multiple fronts. Beyond Russian threats, he mentioned rising tensions in the Middle East, particularly the escalating conflict involving Iran and its regional allies. This complexity extends to security issues arising from climate change, migration, and energy security, presenting a multifaceted challenge that demands an agile and well-resourced intelligence apparatus.

In their testimonies, the intelligence chiefs also touched upon domestic security concerns. Haldenwang highlighted the resurgence of Islamist terrorism in Europe, exacerbated by the ongoing crises in the Middle East. He noted that social media serves as a conduit for radicalization, posing a significant risk of self-radicalized individuals executing attacks within Germany. The alarming rise in anti-Semitic incidents, driven by the current geopolitical climate, further complicates the security landscape. Moreover, Haldenwang pointed to right-wing extremism as an ongoing threat to democratic processes in Germany, illustrating the urgent need for vigilant oversight and intervention in politically charged environments.

In light of these evolving threats, both Kahl and Rosenberg implored parliamentarians not to further restrict the operational capabilities of intelligence services. They argued that the proposed security legislation should enhance rather than hinder the ability of these agencies to perform their mandates effectively. “The truth must not become more difficult to find,” Kahl asserted, emphasizing the necessity for operational latitude in an increasingly hostile environment. Rosenberg echoed this sentiment, calling for a comprehensive evaluation of legal frameworks to ensure that intelligence operations remain responsive to emerging threats. “Effective counter-espionage is more important than ever,” she insisted, signaling a collective recognition that the stakes have never been higher.

Read More

Palestine: A Wound That Propaganda Can’t Hide

I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.'

by Arundhati Roy

Writer and activist Arundhati Roy has been awarded the PEN Pinter Prize 2024. This is an annual award set up by English PEN in the memory of playwright Harold Pinter. Shortly after having been named for the prize, Roy announced that her share of the prize money will be donated to the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund. She named Alaa Abd el-Fattah, British-Egyptian writer and activist, a ‘Writer of Courage’ who she would share her award with. The following is her acceptance speech for the prize, delivered on the evening of October 10, 2024, at the British Library.

Children use candles for lighting in the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, on Oct. 20, 2023. (Photo by Rizek Abdeljawad/Xinhua)

I thank you, members of English PEN and members of the jury, for honouring me with the PEN Pinter Prize. I would like to begin by announcing the name of this year’s Writer of Courage who I have chosen to share this award with. 

My greetings to you, Alaa Abd El-Fattah, writer of courage and my fellow awardee. We hoped and prayed that you would be released in September, but the Egyptian government decided that you were too beautiful a writer and too dangerous a thinker to be freed yet. But you are here in this room with us. You are the most important person here. From prison you wrote, “[M]y words lost any power and yet they continued to pour out of me. I still had a voice, even if only a handful would listen.” We are listening, Alaa. Closely.

Greetings to you, too, my beloved Naomi Klein, friend to both Alaa and me. Thank you for being here tonight. It means the world to me.

Greetings to all of you gathered here, as well to as those who are invisible perhaps to this wonderful audience but as visible to me as anybody else in this room. I am speaking of my friends and comrades in prison in India – lawyers, academics, students, journalists – Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut. I speak to you, my friend Khurram Parvaiz, one of the most remarkable people I know, you’ve been in prison for three years, and to you too Irfan Mehraj and to the thousands incarcerated in Kashmir and across the country whose lives have been devastated.

When Ruth Borthwick, Chair of English PEN and of the Pinter panel first wrote to me about this honour, she said the Pinter Prize is awarded to a writer who has sought to define ‘the real truth of our lives and our societies’ through ‘unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination’. That is a quote from Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

The word ‘unflinching’ made me pause for a moment, because I think of myself as someone who is almost permanently flinching.

I would like to dwell a little on the theme of ‘flinching’ and ‘unflinching’. Which may be best illustrated by Harold Pinter himself:

“I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

“The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: ‘Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.’

“Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. ‘Father,’ he said, ‘let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.’ There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.”

Remember that President Reagan called the Contras “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.” A turn of phrase that he was clearly fond of. He also used it to describe the CIA-backed Afghan Mujahideen, who then morphed into the Taliban. And it is the Taliban who rule Afghanistan today after waging a twenty-year-long war against the US invasion and occupation. Before the Contras and the Mujahideen, there was the war in Vietnam and the unflinching US military doctrine that ordered its soldiers to ‘Kill Anything That Moves’. If you read the Pentagon Papers and other documents on US war aims in Vietnam, you can enjoy some lively unflinching discussions about how to commit genocide – is it better to kill people outright or to starve them slowly? Which would look better? The problem that the compassionate mandarins in the Pentagon faced was that, unlike Americans, who, according to them, want ‘life, happiness, wealth, power’, Asians ‘stoically accept…the destruction of wealth and the loss of lives’ – and force America to carry their ‘strategic logic to its conclusion, which is genocide.’ A terrible burden to be borne unflinchingly.

And here we are, all these years later, more than a year into yet another genocide. The US and Israel’s unflinching and ongoing televised genocide in Gaza and now Lebanon in defence of a colonial occupation and an Apartheid state. The death toll so far, is officially 42,000, a majority of them women and children. This does not include those who died screaming under the rubble of buildings, neighbourhoods, whole cities, and those whose bodies have not yet been recovered. A recent study by Oxfam says that more children have been killed by Israel in Gaza than in the equivalent period of any other war in the last twenty years.

To assuage their collective guilt for their early years of indifference towards one genocide – the Nazi extermination of millions of European Jews – the United States and Europe have prepared the grounds for another.

Like every state that has carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide in history, Zionists in Israel – who believe themselves to be “the chosen people” – began by dehumanising Palestinians before driving them off their land and murdering them.

Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians ‘two-legged beasts’, Yitzhak Rabin called them ‘grasshoppers’ who ‘could be crushed’ and Golda Meir said ‘There was no such thing as Palestinians’. Winston Churchill, that famous warrior against fascism, said, ‘I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time’ and then went on to declare that a ‘higher race’ had the final right to the manger. Once those two-legged beasts, grasshoppers, dogs and non-existent people were murdered, ethnically cleansed, and ghettoised, a new country was born. It was celebrated as a ‘land without people for people without a land’. The nuclear-armed state of Israel was to serve as a military outpost and gateway to the natural wealth and resources of the Middle East for US and Europe. A lovely coincidence of aims and objectives.

The new state was supported unhesitatingly and unflinchingly, armed and bankrolled, coddled and applauded, no matter what crimes it committed. It grew up like a protected child in a wealthy home whose parents smile proudly as it commits atrocity upon atrocity. No wonder today it feels free to boast openly about committing genocide. (At least The Pentagon Papers were secret. They had to be stolen. And leaked.) No wonder Israeli soldiers seem to have lost all sense of decency. No wonder they flood the social media with depraved videos of themselves wearing the lingerie of women they have killed or displaced, videos of themselves mimicking dying Palestinians and wounded children or raped and tortured prisoners, images of themselves blowing up buildings while they smoke cigarettes or jive to music on their headphones. Who are these people? 

What can possibly justify what Israel is doing?

The answer, according to Israel and its allies, as well as the Western media, is the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th last year. The killing of Israeli civilians and the taking of Israeli hostages. According to them, history only began a year ago.

So, this is the part in my speech where I am expected to equivocate to protect myself, my ‘neutrality’, my intellectual standing. This is the part where I am meant to lapse into moral equivalence and condemn Hamas, the other militant groups in Gaza and their ally Hezbollah, in Lebanon, for killing civilians and taking people hostage. And to condemn the people of Gaza who celebrated the Hamas attack. Once that’s done it all becomes easy, doesn’t it? Ah well. Everybody is terrible, what can one do? Let’s go shopping instead…

I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.

When US President Joe Biden met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet during a visit to Israel in October 2023, he said, ‘I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.’

Unlike President Joe Biden, who calls himself a non-Jewish Zionist and unflinchingly bankrolls and arms Israel while it commits its war crimes, I am not going to declare myself or define myself in any way that is narrower than my writing. I am what I write.

I am acutely aware that being the writer that I am, the non-Muslim that I am and the woman that I am, it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible for me to survive very long under the rule of Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian regime. But that is not the point here. The point is to educate ourselves about the history and the circumstances under which they came to exist. The point is that right now they are fighting against an ongoing genocide. The point is to ask ourselves whether a liberal, secular fighting force can go up against a genocidal war machine. Because, when all the powers of the world are against them, who do they have to turn to but God? I am aware that Hezbollah and the Iranian regime have vocal detractors in their own countries, some who also languish in jails or have faced far worse outcomes. I am aware that some of their actions – the killing of civilians and the taking of hostages on October 7th by Hamas – constitute war crimes. However, there cannot be an equivalence between this and what Israel and the United States are doing in Gaza, in the West Bank and now in Lebanon. The root of all the violence, including the violence of October 7th, is Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and its subjugation of the Palestinian people. History did not begin on 7 October 2023.

I ask you, which of us sitting in this hall would willingly submit to the indignity that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have been subjected to for decades? What peaceful means have the Palestinian people not tried? What compromise have they not accepted—other than the one that requires them to crawl on their knees and eat dirt? 

Israel is not fighting a war of self-defence. It is fighting a war of aggression. A war to occupy more territory, to strengthen its Apartheid apparatus and tighten its control on Palestinian people and the region.

‘Polls show that a majority of the citizens in the countries whose governments enable the Israeli genocide have made it clear that they do not agree with this.’ Photo: Ahmed Abu Hameeda/Wikimedia commons

Since October 7th 2023, apart from the tens of thousands of people it has killed, Israel has displaced the majority of Gaza’s population, many times over. It has bombed hospitals. It has deliberately targeted and killed doctors, aid workers and journalists. A whole population is being starved – their history is sought to be erased. All this is supported both morally and materially by the wealthiest, most powerful governments in the world. And their media. (Here I include my country, India, which supplies Israel with weapons, as well as thousands of workers.) There is no daylight between these countries and Israel. In the last year alone, the US has spent 17.9 billion dollars in military aid to Israel. So, let us once and for all dispense with the lie about the US being a mediator, a restraining influence, or as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (considered to be on the extreme Left of mainstream US politics) put it, ‘working tirelessly for a ceasefire’. A party to the genocide cannot be a mediator. 

Not all the power and money, not all the weapons and propaganda on earth can any longer hide the wound that is Palestine. The wound through which the whole world, including Israel, bleeds.

Polls show that a majority of the citizens in the countries whose governments enable the Israeli genocide have made it clear that they do not agree with this. We have watched those marches of hundreds of thousands of people – including a young generation of Jews who are tired of being used, tired of being lied to. Who would have imagined that we would live to see the day when German police would arrest Jewish citizens for protesting against Israel and Zionism and accuse them of anti-Semitism? Who would have thought the US government would, in the service of the Israeli state, undermine its cardinal principle of Free Speech by banning pro-Palestine slogans? The so-called moral architecture of western democracies – with a few honourable exceptions – has become a grim laughingstock in the rest of the world.

When Benjamin Netanyahu holds up a map of the Middle East in which Palestine has been erased and Israel stretches from the river to the sea, he is applauded as a visionary who is working to realize the dream of a Jewish homeland.

But when Palestinians and their supporters chant ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, they are accused of explicitly calling for the genocide of Jews.

Are they really? Or is that a sick imagination projecting its own darkness onto others? An imagination that cannot countenance diversity, cannot countenance the idea of living in a country alongside other people, equally, with equal rights. Like everybody else in the world does. An imagination that cannot afford to acknowledge that Palestinians want to be free, like South Africa is, like India is, like all countries that have thrown off the yoke of colonialism are. Countries that are diverse, deeply, maybe even fatally, flawed, but free. When South Africans were chanting their popular rallying cry, Amandla! Power to the people, were they calling for the genocide of white people? They were not. They were calling for the dismantling of the Apartheid state. Just as the Palestinians are.

‘Neither the ballot boxes not the palaces or the ministries or the prisons or even the graves are big enough for our dreams’. Photo: Shome Basu in Dhaka.

The war that has now begun will be terrible. But it will eventually dismantle Israeli Apartheid. The whole world will be far safer for everyone – including for Jewish people – and far more just. It will be like pulling an arrow from our wounded heart.

If the US government withdrew its support of Israel, the war could stop today. Hostilities could end right this minute. Israeli hostages could be freed, Palestinian prisoners could be released. The negotiations with Hamas and the other Palestinian stakeholders that must inevitably follow the war could instead take place now and prevent the suffering of millions of people. How sad that most people would consider this a naïve, laughable proposition. 

As I conclude, let me turn to your words, Alaa Abd El-Fatah, from your book of prison writing, You Have Not Yet Been Defeated. I have rarely read such beautiful words about the meaning of victory and defeat – and the political necessity of honestly looking despair in the eye. I have rarely seen writing in which a citizen separates himself from the state, from the generals and even from the slogans of the Square with such bell-like clarity.

“The centre is treason because there’s room in it only for the General…The centre is treason and I have never been a traitor. They think they’ve pushed us back into the margins. They don’t realize that we never left it, we just got lost for a brief while. Neither the ballot boxes not the palaces or the ministries or the prisons or even the graves are big enough for our dreams. We never sought the centre because it has no room except for those who abandon the dream. Even the square was not big enough for us, so most of the battles of the revolution happened outside it, and most of the heroes remained outside the frame.”

As the horror we are witnessing in Gaza, and now Lebanon, quickly escalates into a regional war, its real heroes remain outside the frame. But they fight on because they know that one day—

From the river to the sea

Palestine will be Free.

It will.

Keep your eye on your calendar. Not on your clock.

That’s how the people – not the generals – the people fighting for their liberation measure time.

Arundhati Roy is an author, with novels including “The Ministry of Utmost Happiness.” Her most recent work is the essay collection “Azadi: Freedom. Fascism. Fiction.”

Read More

The Propaganda Circus: Why Sri Lankans Prefer Illusion Over Reality?

In the wake of political upheaval, it is tempting to blame the puppets on the stage while ignoring the marionettes pulling the strings.

by Laxman Aravind

In the aftermath of political turmoil, Sri Lanka finds itself caught in a vicious cycle of deception, with the National People’s Power (NPP) party presenting a leadership characterised by superficial rhetoric and a profound lack of substance. This is not merely an examination of party politics; it is a damning indictment of the collective ignorance that seems to grip the electorate. The rise of the NPP’s presidential candidate, now the ninth president of Sri Lanka, is emblematic of a deeper malaise—an unsettling phenomenon wherein a population remains enraptured by empty promises, sacrificing their capacity for critical thought on the altar of charismatic oratory.

Nilanthi Kottahachchi, a master of monologue in the NPP’s propaganda machinery, whose recent proclamations illustrate the absurdity of the current political discourse. [Image Courtesy: NPP Media]

The NPP’s ascendance is predicated on two insidious factors: a relentless propaganda machine and the pervasive egocentrism that suffocates meaningful political discourse. Their campaign has been an exercise in manipulation, utilising every conceivable medium—from glossy posters to viral social media posts—to sway public sentiment. It is an alarming reminder of Pascal’s assertion that “the greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues.” In a climate where political narratives eclipse reason, the ability to deceive becomes a sought-after skill, elevating charlatans while leaving the populace in a state of stupor.

This leads to a disconcerting truth: the Sri Lankan electorate appears to be willingly complicit in its own deception. As the country teetered on the brink of bankruptcy, the very politicians who steered it towards disaster were unceremoniously cast aside in favour of new leaders who, despite their lack of experience or competence, wield the allure of fresh promises. The irony is as rich as it is tragic; like Churchill post-war, those who navigate crises often find themselves discarded, replaced by figures who, devoid of true vision, merely offer a different brand of empty rhetoric.

Consider Nilanthi Kottahachchi, a master of monologue in the NPP’s propaganda machinery, whose recent proclamations illustrate the absurdity of the current political discourse. Her plans for an asset restoration institution sound commendable but are ultimately vapid in the face of pressing national crises. When she speaks of recovering funds allegedly stored in Uganda by former Rajapaksa regimes, one cannot help but question the audacity of such claims. Does she genuinely believe that a government, which has repeatedly failed to confront systemic issues, could effortlessly reclaim hidden assets abroad? Not really. Two weeks after the new president assumed duty, she is now eyeing a parliamentary seat, confessing that she knows nothing but the whole truth about this Ugandan saga, yet deceived the public by lying to them. An attorney by profession, does she have no shame? Or is it the people who lack it? Do you think these so-called reformists will serve the country, or will they lead it to the brink of an abyss while the majority remain in deep slumber? It is a spectacle of delusion, reminiscent of Chekhov’s assertion that “man will only be better when you make him see what he is, and not what he should be.” The disconnect between political promises and reality is staggering.

In her attempts to justify the NPP’s actions, Kottahachchi mirrors the very absurdities she seeks to condemn. The superficiality of her rhetoric, filled with grandiose claims, belies a deeper truth: she, like many others, is doing exactly what most traditional politicians do, albeit in different forms and with different tricks—entraping the public and ensnaring them in a relentless cycle of self-deception in critical political decisions and theatrical posturing. This manipulation leads to a distortion of reality, resulting in politically stupid decisions that serve only the interests of those in power. In other words, this group of deceivers is nothing but the other side of the same coin, where most clowns believe that the place will turn into a kingdom when the clowns are enthroned. It is shocking to consider how easily the electorate has fallen prey to such manipulations. Lincoln’s assertion that “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time” resonates painfully in this context. For the people of Sri Lanka, however, it appears that the vast majority remain content to be fooled, willingly surrendering their critical faculties in the face of convenient narratives.

As this new form of shamelessness takes root in Sri Lanka, the alarming reality is that the electorate is seemingly immune to the lessons of history. The superficial gestures, like the recent announcement of providing 50 million rupees to those affected by floods, only serve to highlight the immaturity of a reactive political environment. Is this what the people of Sri Lanka have come to accept? According to the Disaster Management Center, 152,424 people belonging to 39,123 families in 12 districts and 80 divisional secretariats have been affected by the bad weather. So far, three people have died due to the disaster, and one total house loss along with 318 partial house losses has been reported. Additionally, 7,918 people are staying in 69 shelters, with 1,927 families affected by the disaster. The Gampaha district has been the most affected, with 20,553 families and 82,839 people impacted. Meanwhile, the Disaster Management Center reports that flood disaster relief teams have been deployed for relief work in the flooded areas. To calculate how much each affected person could receive from the 50 million rupees, we find that with 152,424 affected individuals, each person would receive approximately 328.26 rupees (about 1.12 dollars), emphasizing the inadequacy of such relief efforts and highlighting the immaturity of the leadership. Yet, these are earlier symptoms of what is to come.

A governance model that is reactionary rather than proactive, addressing symptoms rather than the underlying malaise? The spectacle of politicians engaging in petty squabbles while national issues languish unaddressed raises an urgent question: how much longer can this charade continue before the very fabric of society unravels? The forthcoming parliamentary elections will serve as a litmus test for the populace’s capacity to discern truth from fiction. The political landscape is replete with empty promises and hollow aspirations, yet the electorate seems paralyzed by an enduring allegiance to illusion over reality. Nietzsche’s observation that “sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed” rings painfully true in this context.

It is evident that these propagandists have mastered the art of deception, skillfully diverting attention away from the pressing structural issues plaguing society. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue about reform and collective responsibility, they inundate the public with a cacophony of noise, effectively drowning out any critical discourse.

The reality is stark and unforgiving: the current political climate is a reflection of a populace that has willingly embraced ignorance, allowing itself to be lulled into complacency by a parade of empty rhetoric. The resurrection of the old guard is not just a failure of leadership; it is a profound indictment of a society that appears all too ready to accept mediocrity in place of merit. The imperative for the citizens of Sri Lanka is to awaken from this stupor, to rise up against the political theatre that serves only to distract and deceive. The question remains: will the people of Sri Lanka finally demand something more substantial than the perfumed promises of politicians who seem more concerned with their narratives than the realities of governance? The answer to this question will shape the nation’s future.

Read More

Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo: Long Overdue, Militarism Looms

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to organisations like Nihon Hidankyo must not only recognise the voices of war's victims but also serve as a clarion call for deeper introspection and action.

Editorial 

Do you still remember how Harry Truman, in his twilight years as President of the United States, brazenly bragged in front of TV cameras about the latest innovations in killing—specifically, the atomic bombs dropped on defenceless civilians in Japan? This spectacle of pride stands as a grotesque testament to the moral bankruptcy that underpins U.S. foreign policy. As we confront the dire state of global affairs, we must acknowledge a grim reality: the United States, alongside its Western allies, has systematically dismantled the very foundations of world peace while profiting from the chaos it creates.

People walk past the Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, in this handout photo taken by the U.S. Army in November, 1945, and distributed by the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Mandatory credit REUTERS/U.S. Army/Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

Take, for instance, the recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize on 11 October 2024 to Nihon Hidankyo, the Japanese Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organisations. This recognition of atomic bomb survivors and their struggle for disarmament is a much-needed acknowledgment of their suffering. However, it starkly contrasts with the violent legacy left in the wake of American militarism. As historian Howard Zinn aptly noted, “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” This hypocrisy is a bitter pill to swallow.

From the moment the atomic bombs were unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. charted a course of violence disguised as liberation. The justifications offered for these appalling acts—claims of saving lives and hastening the end of the war—fall flat against the backdrop of the unimaginable horror inflicted upon over 200,000 civilians who perished instantly, along with countless others condemned to a lifetime of suffering due to radiation. This was not merely a tactical manoeuvre but a calculated show of force, a warning shot that set the tone for future military interventions.

Fast forward to 2003: the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, propelled by lies about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in the toppling of a sovereign government and unleashed chaos that claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. As former President Jimmy Carter lamented, “We have been a nation at war for most of my life… we cannot be a great nation unless we find a way to make peace.” Yet, under the guise of peace and democracy, the West perpetuates a cycle of violence, destabilising entire regions while masquerading as a force for good. This raises serious questions about war crimes and the concept of victor’s justice, which allows aggressors to evade accountability while innocent victims are left to bear the brunt of their actions.

The hypocrisy does not stop here. While it is commendable to award the Nobel Peace Prize to organisations like Nihon Hidankyo, it also highlights a glaring contradiction: how can we celebrate peace in a world where military intervention and aggression are the status quo? The Nobel Peace Prize has often been wielded as a political tool, awarded to figures who have aligned with Western interests rather than genuinely promoting peace. A prime example is Barack Obama, who received the prize in 2009 yet continued military operations in countries like Libya, where his administration’s actions led to significant loss of life and ongoing chaos. This bitter irony exemplifies how the prize can mask war crimes under the guise of “victor’s justice.” Similarly, other laureates have been selected based on their roles in furthering Western agendas, raising serious doubts about the integrity and intent behind such awards.

As former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated, “The use of force is an act of last resort. War is the ultimate failure of humanity.” Yet here we are, with the U.S. maintaining over 900 military bases worldwide, spending more on defence than the next ten countries combined, and continuing to pursue a foreign policy rooted in militarism rather than diplomacy.

With the recent election of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in Japan, who took office on 1 October 2024, we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of militarism, Asian NATO, in Asia. Ishiba’s administration appears eager to forge military alliances that echo a dark history many believed had been left behind. Rather than nurturing collaboration and peace, these initiatives threaten to reignite old animosities and escalate tensions with neighbouring countries. In light of these disturbing realities, it is imperative to confront the uncomfortable truths regarding the role of the United States and its allies in fostering conflict instead of peace. The time has come for a critical evaluation of policies that have perpetuated suffering and instability on a global scale.

This year Nobel Peace Prize awarded must not only recognise the voices of war’s victims but also serve as a clarion call for deeper introspection and action. The global community must demand genuine peace-building efforts that prioritise diplomacy over militarism, humanitarian needs over strategic interests, and an end to the cycle of hypocrisy that allows powerful nations to act with impunity while the innocent continue to suffer.

Read More

The Persistent Grip of Dynastic Rule in Asia

The psychological dynamics of dependency on political families, coupled with the dangers of corruption and authoritarianism, present significant challenges to the establishment of genuine democratic governance.

by Luxman Aravind

Dynastic politics in Asia extend beyond mere familial legacies; they constitute a profound issue that shapes the socio-political realities of numerous nations. Prominent families such as the Bandaranaikes, the Rajapaksas, the Senanayakes, the Gunawardenas, the Jayawardenes, all in  Sri Lanka, the Marcoses in the Philippines, the Nehrus and Gandhis in India, the Kims in North Korea, and the Hasinas and Zias in Bangladesh have significantly influenced their countries’ political trajectories. While these families have maintained their hold on power through various means, they have also experienced significant declines, often precipitated by economic mismanagement, public discontent, and civil unrest. This decline does not negate the potential for resurgence; rather, it highlights the cyclical nature of dynastic politics that can easily re-emerge if societies do not actively work to prevent it.

The philosophical discourse surrounding governance provides valuable insights into this phenomenon. Plato, in The Republic, argued that the ideal state should be governed by philosopher-kings, individuals best equipped to lead due to their wisdom and virtue. This perspective raises important questions about the consequences of dynastic rule, which often prioritises family lineage over merit. As Plato stated, “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” This highlights the danger of complacency in the face of corruption, particularly in societies that accept dynastic authority as a norm.

The psychological dynamics underpinning the acceptance of dynastic rule are complex and deeply rooted. Citizens frequently develop a cognitive bias that equates well-known family names with stability and national identity. In India, the Nehru-Gandhi family’s historical significance and its connection to independence leader Jawaharlal Nehru have enabled them to present themselves as embodiments of continuity amid political turmoil. Similarly, in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League party leverage the legacy of her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, portraying themselves as custodians of his vision for the country. As Aristotle pointed out in Politics, when governance becomes synonymous with family loyalty, it often results in tyranny: “What is a tyrant? He is one who, disregarding the common good, acts solely in the interests of his own family.” This psychological dependency creates an environment in which voters are often hesitant to question the capabilities or integrity of these dynasties, leading to unchallenged authority.

The hold of dynastic families can result in significant corruption and abuse of power. For instance, the Marcos regime in the Philippines was notorious for its corrupt practices and human rights violations, serving as a critical example of how dynastic politics can devolve into authoritarianism. Despite the Marcos family’s notorious past, Bongbong Marcos’s rise to the presidency in 2022 exemplifies the challenges societies face in dismantling the influence of entrenched political families. The use of historical revisionism to craft a narrative of a “golden era” during the Marcos regime is a strategic move that exploits collective memory and nostalgia, complicating efforts to hold dynasties accountable.

Sheikh Hasina’s tenure in Bangladesh is similarly illustrative. While she has managed to consolidate power, her administration has been marred by allegations of authoritarianism and violence against political opponents. Notably, she was compelled to resign in this year amid one of the bloodiest political crises in the country’s history. The violent clashes between opposition parties and law enforcement were a stark reminder of the potential for upheaval when governance becomes synonymous with repression and familial loyalty. Confucius taught that “The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones,” reminding us that meaningful change requires persistent effort. Despite Hasina’s loss of power, the legacy of violence and political turmoil remains a significant factor influencing public perception. As economic challenges persist, the potential for renewed civil unrest looms, with extremism on the rise. External parties, such as the U.S., have greater manipulations than ever before, suggesting that the political environment remains volatile and deeply divided.

The risks associated with the resurgence of dynastic politics are significant. Political families possess not only substantial resources but also the capacity to manipulate public sentiment, further entrenching their influence. Nietzsche remarked, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how,” emphasising the necessity of purpose and agency in overcoming oppression. The psychological conditioning of the populace can lead to a form of learned helplessness, where citizens perceive political change as unattainable. This mindset is often reinforced by controlled media narratives that glorify dynastic leaders while vilifying their opponents, thus stifling dissent and normalising the notion that governance is a familial enterprise rather than a civic duty.

To prevent the re-emergence of dynastic rule, societies must actively dismantle the frameworks that support such power structures. A crucial initial step is to eliminate the perception of public governance as a profitable business. Robust reforms should be implemented to ensure transparency and accountability in political financing. Establishing stringent regulations around campaign financing and lobbying can significantly diminish the influence of wealth in politics, fostering an environment where political power is not viewed as a commodity. As Machiavelli cautioned in The Prince, appearances can be deceptive, and leaders must maintain the facade of virtue while being prepared to act immorally if necessary.

Encouraging grassroots movements and civic engagement is equally vital. Citizens should be motivated to participate actively in the political process—not merely as voters but as informed advocates for change. Initiatives focusing on civic education can empower individuals to understand their rights and responsibilities, fostering a more politically engaged populace. In India, for instance, various non-governmental organisations work to educate citizens about the importance of accountability in governance, highlighting the impact of corruption and the necessity for demanding more from political leaders.

Moreover, a culture of non-violent resistance is essential for challenging entrenched power. Historical precedents, such as the people power movements that challenged dictatorships in the Philippines, serve as powerful reminders of the efficacy of collective action. Non-violent movements can galvanise public support without resorting to chaos, enabling citizens to confront dynastic rule effectively and advocate for more equitable governance. The teachings of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita resonate here, as he emphasises the moral obligation to fight against injustice. As he asserts, “When righteousness declines and unrighteousness rises, I manifest myself,” suggesting that change can occur when citizens act to restore justice.

Strengthening the independence of the judiciary and law enforcement is another crucial strategy for preventing the resurgence of dynastic politics. An impartial judicial system is essential for holding political elites accountable, ensuring that laws apply equally to all citizens, including those from powerful families. Countries with strong institutions, such as Singapore, provide compelling examples of how integrity in governance can contribute to political stability.

It is crucial to recognise that eradicating corruption is not only vital for dismantling the foundations of dynastic politics, but that psychological dependency and feelings of insecurity towards ‘newly-formed’ or immature political entities often leave the public vulnerable to deceptive, short-sighted propaganda. These factors are instrumental in sustaining and even revitalising dynastic politics in a new guise. When governance is viewed merely as a vehicle for personal gain, the integrity of the political system is profoundly undermined.

Read More

Lex Esto And Tikkun Olam: Some Thoughts For The New Government

A key component of a democratic society is the active involvement of citizens in governance.

by Ruwantissa Abeyratne

Lex esto, the pillars stand,

Old stones on broken land.

Yet where the cracks of time appear,

Tikkun Olam whispers near.

Now that there are palpable signs of proactive and progressive initial measures being taken by the new government in  Sri Lanka, here are some thoughts.

The Latin phrase “lex esto,” meaning “let the law stand,” represents a fundamental idea in governance, suggesting that laws should be stable, serving as the pillars of justice, order, and societal cohesion. In any functional government, laws are indispensable, as they provide the necessary structure and enforce norms. However, in countries where corruption and incompetence have taken root, existing laws often become ineffective or are manipulated to maintain corrupt practices. When a new government takes charge with the intention of transforming such a broken system, it faces the dual challenge of upholding laws that support justice and societal welfare while introducing new legal frameworks to eliminate corruption and increase efficiency.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake

Closely linked to this is the concept of Tikkun Olam, a Hebrew term, which translates to “repairing the world” or “healing the world.” Rooted in Jewish tradition, it encompasses the idea of improving the world through individual actions, social justice initiatives, and shared responsibility. It calls on both individuals and communities to work towards creating a more ethical, just, and compassionate society, emphasizing the importance of addressing inequalities and showing care for others.

Historically, in Jewish thought, Tikkun Olam was linked to religious, moral, and legal duties, particularly focused on following Jewish laws to “fix” the world. However, its meaning has since expanded into a universal call for justice and humanitarian work, extending beyond religious obligations to include a broader ethical and societal scope.

Today, Tikkun Olam drives social justice efforts, charitable initiatives, environmental sustainability, and other endeavors aimed at reducing suffering and promoting equality. Whether it is through advocating for human rights, supporting disadvantaged groups, or protecting the planet, it reflects the ongoing effort to create a fairer, more peaceful, and balanced world for everyone.

In light of this, the principle of lex esto offers guidance on how to balance the application of established laws with the need for new legislation aimed at reforming a dysfunctional system. This balance is crucial for creating a governance model that is just, transparent, and efficient. Though laws provide essential continuity, they must also be flexible enough to evolve in response to changing moral and social imperatives. This is particularly relevant when considering Tikkun Olam, which is  focused on repairing the world, which calls for the active pursuit of justice and restoration of a broken society.

The Rule of Law

The rule of law lies at the heart of any democracy, functioning as the primary tool through which justice is administered, disputes are resolved, and individual rights are upheld. When a new government rises to power, especially after a regime notorious for corruption and incompetence, it must prioritize reestablishing faith in the rule of law. This task begins by reaffirming the principle of lex esto, ensuring that the legal frameworks that promote justice, equality, and public welfare are respected and properly enforced.

A corrupt system does not necessarily reflect inadequacies in the laws themselves but, more often, failures in their application. Laws might be selectively enforced, ignored, or even weaponized. Therefore, a new government must identify which laws have been undermined and restore their integrity. This could involve strengthening judicial independence, eliminating officials complicit in corruption, and ensuring that laws are enforced without political influence.

To truly uphold lex esto in a corrupt system, the new government must focus on enforcing laws that had previously been disregarded or misused. These laws often include those that deal with transparency, public accountability, anti-corruption efforts, and the protection of human rights. For instance, many countries with corrupt systems already have anti-corruption laws in place, but their enforcement is often undermined by political interference. A newly established government must demonstrate its dedication to the rule of law by ensuring that these laws are applied consistently and effectively.

Part of this effort involves creating independent bodies like anti-corruption agencies and watchdog organizations with the power to investigate and prosecute officials, regardless of their status or political connections. Strengthening whistleblower protections is also critical, as it encourages individuals to expose corruption without fear of retribution. Additionally, ensuring transparency in public contracts by subjecting them to public scrutiny can help curb corruption, which frequently thrives in the opaque processes of large-scale government procurement.

In many corrupt systems, laws designed to protect vulnerable communities—such as those focused on human rights and social justice—are often ignored or undermined. A government serious about reform must recommit to enforcing these laws, ensuring they protect minorities, promote access to essential services like healthcare and education, and guarantee fair labor practices. This demonstrates the government’s commitment to justice not just for the elite but for all its citizens.

While lex esto emphasizes the importance of upholding existing laws, it is also essential to recognize that some laws may be outdated or insufficient, and in some cases, even complicit in maintaining corrupt practices. In such instances, the government must introduce new laws that reflect values such as transparency, accountability, and social justice.

Accountability

One of the most effective ways to prevent corruption and inefficiency is to embed accountability within the legal system. Public officials, including both elected representatives and civil servants, should be held accountable for their actions through laws that mandate regular financial disclosures, for instance. Such disclosures ensure transparency by helping to detect conflicts of interest. New laws could also impose term limits on elected officials to prevent the concentration of power and create a system that encourages fresh leadership and perspectives.

Regular audits of government agencies and officials should be made mandatory by law, with consequences for those found engaging in corrupt practices or underperforming in their duties. Similarly, the government should strengthen protections for whistleblowers and journalists. In corrupt systems, those who expose wrongdoing often face harassment, violence, or even death. New legislation could include anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) measures to protect individuals from being silenced by powerful entities. Whistleblower protections might also include mechanisms for anonymous reporting to protect those who might otherwise face retaliation.

My Take

A key component of a democratic society is the active involvement of citizens in governance. A new government should focus on laws that encourage citizen participation, offering mechanisms like referendums and initiatives that allow people to propose or repeal laws directly. This enhances the democratic process and gives citizens a more active role in shaping their government. Open data laws could also be implemented, requiring the government to publish detailed information about its activities, budgets, and decision-making processes in an accessible format. Such transparency allows civil society organizations and citizens to monitor government operations effectively.

In the effort to reform a corrupt and incompetent system, lex esto must be considered alongside the recognition that laws, though enduring, are not fixed. As societies evolve, so too must their legal systems, particularly when these systems have been compromised or fail to address new challenges. The Jewish principle of Tikkun Olam, meaning “repairing the world,” encourages the active pursuit of justice and the restoration of broken systems, including legal ones.

For a new government, embracing Tikkun Olam means recognizing when existing laws fail to serve the public good and taking steps to amend or replace them. This could involve revisiting colonial-era laws that may still exist in post-colonial states, perpetuating injustice or inequality. Reforming such laws to reflect modern values of dignity and equality is crucial. Additionally, new laws must address economic systems that disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Economic justice can be pursued by promoting fair wages and creating opportunities for all citizens to prosper.

While lex esto emphasizes stability, the legal system must also be dynamic, evolving to remain a tool for justice and fairness. Periodic reviews of laws should be mandated to ensure they still serve their intended purposes and are not being misused. The lawmaking process must also be inclusive, involving marginalized communities to ensure new laws reflect the needs and aspirations of all citizens.

Ultimately, lex esto serves as a guiding principle for a government seeking to transform a corrupt system, providing a foundation for order and justice. However, as this analysis shows, the principle must be balanced with the need for reform and adaptation, as well as the pursuit of justice through Tikkun Olam. By rigorously applying existing laws that promote transparency, accountability, and social justice while enacting new ones to address deficiencies, the new government can begin the process of transforming a broken system into one that serves the common good.

Dr. Abeyratne teaches aerospace law at McGill University. Among the numerous books he has published are Air Navigation Law (2012) and Aviation Safety Law and Regulation (to be published in 2023). He is a former Senior Legal Counsel at the International Civil Aviation Organization. 

Read More