A file photo of an anti-immigration protest in Dover Share Tweet For much of its modern history, Britain was an imperial power connected to every corner of the globe, yet it was not a major destination for large-scale international migration. Different waves of newcomers arrived…
A file photo of an anti-immigration protest in Dover
Share
Tweet
For much of its modern history, Britain was an imperial power connected to every corner of the globe, yet it was not a major destination for large-scale international migration. Different waves of newcomers arrived over the centuries, but the overall foreign-born population remained relatively small by contemporary standards. The 1901 Census recorded 82,844 people from Eastern Europe living in Britain, while the Chinese population numbered just 387. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, migrants from Asia and other parts of the world constituted only a tiny fraction of the country’s population. Britain was a nation shaped by migration, but not yet one transformed by it. That would begin to change dramatically in the aftermath of the Second World War. One of the most significant changes in Britain’s migration patterns after World War II came from the former colonies of the British Empire. Faced with acute labour shortages and the demands of post-war reconstruction, the government introduced the British Nationality Act of 1948, granting citizens of the Commonwealth the right to live and work in the United Kingdom. Although immigration controls were tightened through legislation, such as the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962, migration from former colonies continued. Many of those who arrived belonged to the educated middle classes of their home countries. Having passed through education systems established by Britain during the colonial period, they were already familiar with the English language, British institutions and aspects of British culture. For them, Britain represented a land of opportunity, professional advancement and social mobility. A different set of motivations drove migration from continental Europe, particularly from Eastern European countries. For these migrants, the United Kingdom offered significantly higher wages, stronger labour markets and living standards that often exceeded those available in their countries of origin. This trend accelerated further after Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, initiating a period in which citizens of member states gradually acquired rights to move, work, study and establish businesses across national borders. The expansion of the European Union in the early 21st century, particularly the accession of several Eastern European states in 2004, would later transform these flows on an unprecedented scale. Immigration has rarely been determined solely by economic forces; it has also reflected the priorities of governments in power. During the period between 1997 and 2010, when the Labour Party was in power, immigration policies became comparatively more open in several key areas. Combined with economic growth and labour demand, these policies contributed to a substantial increase in migration, with net migration reaching levels that had few historical precedents in modern Britain. The debate over whether this growth was an economic necessity, a policy success or a political miscalculation continues to influence British politics to this day. The next major turning point came with the Brexit referendum of 2016 and Britain’s eventual departure from the European Union. For decades, European citizens had enjoyed relatively unrestricted access to the British labour market through the principle of free movement. As the post-Brexit immigration system took shape, that privilege largely disappeared. The result was not the end of migration, but a significant shift in its composition. Labour shortages remained across sectors, ranging from healthcare and social care to information technology, logistics and higher education. As European migration declined, employers increasingly turned to other parts of the world to meet these demands. This created new opportunities for migrants from countries such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and several other Asian nations. In many respects, these arrivals filled a vacuum left by the reduction in European labour mobility. The overall pattern suggests that Britain’s economy continued to require migrant labour even as its immigration framework underwent fundamental change. Migration flows did not disappear; rather, they were redirected. Yet this shift has done little to calm public anxieties surrounding immigration. If anything, concerns over migration have remained a central feature of British political debate. Governments of different political persuasions, including those that once defended relatively liberal immigration policies, have increasingly adopted tougher rhetoric and stricter measures aimed at reducing migration levels. Across the political spectrum, there is growing pressure to demonstrate greater control over borders, tighten visa pathways and, in some cases, encourage or require migrants to leave once their economic or educational purpose has ended. This pressure has translated into a series of policy changes. In 2025, the government announced new restrictions designed to reduce migration and increase employer reliance on the domestic workforce. Among the most significant measures were plans to shorten the list of occupations for which employers could sponsor workers from overseas and to introduce tougher compliance requirements for sponsoring organisations. Social care, a sector that had become heavily dependent on international recruitment, was particularly affected, with employers facing tighter limitations on recruiting care workers from abroad. These changes reflected a broader political commitment to lowering migration numbers, even as many sectors continued to report persistent staffing shortages. The higher education sector has also found itself at the centre of this debate. International students have become one of the most important contributors to Britain’s universities and local economies. They pay tuition fees that help sustain institutions, support jobs in university towns and cities, and contribute billions of pounds annually through spending on housing, transport and everyday living expenses. For many students, however, studying in Britain is not merely an educational experience but a substantial personal and financial investment made with the expectation that it will open pathways to professional opportunities. Against this backdrop, proposals to reduce the standard length of the graduate visa have generated considerable concern. The graduate route has allowed international students to remain in the United Kingdom after completing their studies in order to gain work experience and establish careers. Supporters of restrictions argue that student visas should not become a long-term migration pathway. Critics counter that reducing post-study opportunities risks making Britain less attractive in an increasingly competitive global market for talent. Countries such as Canada, Australia and Germany continue to compete aggressively for skilled international graduates, and students weighing their options may choose destinations that offer clearer prospects after graduation. These debates often frame migration as a problem to be solved through numerical reductions. Yet, what should be noted here is that many of the pressures commonly attributed to immigration are connected to wider economic and political challenges. The decade following Britain’s departure from the European Union has been marked by an unusual degree of political instability. Since the Brexit referendum, the country has seen seven prime ministers, with governments frequently changing direction on economic strategy, public spending and immigration policy. Such instability has contributed to uncertainty about Britain’s long-term trajectory and has complicated efforts to build a consistent approach to migration. Public concerns about immigration are real and cannot simply be dismissed. Anti-immigration demonstrations and calls for stricter border controls continue to attract significant support in some parts of the country. At the same time, these concerns often become a focal point through which broader anxieties about housing, public services, economic stagnation and national identity are expressed. Immigration is therefore not merely a migration issue; it is also a lens through which deeper social and political tensions are debated. The increasingly restrictive tone of migration policy has also raised questions about community cohesion and the treatment of migrants already living in Britain. While much public attention focuses on new arrivals, long-term residents can also find themselves affected by changing rules and enforcement practices. Earlier proposals such as the Rwanda asylum plan, announced in 2022, sought to relocate certain asylum seekers to Rwanda for the processing of their claims, though the policy was never ultimately implemented. More recently, cases involving migrants being instructed to leave the country despite having established families, employment and community ties have generated public debate. One widely discussed example involved Chamila Dilrukshi, a Sri Lankan mother, who was instructed by the Home Office to leave the United Kingdom with her three children while her husband remained in Britain. Cases such as these illustrate how immigration policy extends beyond statistics and labour markets, affecting family life, community relationships and the sense of belonging experienced by migrants who have built their lives in the country. This raises a more fundamental question than the familiar debate over whether immigration numbers should rise or fall. If Britain continues to face an ageing population, labour shortages in critical sectors and increasing competition for global talent, can it realistically sustain economic growth while simultaneously reducing its reliance on migrants? Equally important, can successive governments build a migration system that balances economic necessity, public confidence and social cohesion at a time of continuing political uncertainty? The answer may prove decisive not only for Britain’s future migration policy, but for the broader question of what kind of society, economy and national identity the United Kingdom hopes to shape in the decades ahead. by Viran Maddumage Assistant Lecturer & PhD(Reading) Department of Human Geography and Migration, Macquarie University, Australia and Sanduni Rathnayake Lecturer (Probationary) Faculty of Law, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Features Tolerance and Diversity
Published 14 mins agoon 2026/06/29
Today all the major religions of the world must respond to a double challenge. On one side is the challenge of secularism, a trend which has swept across the globe, battering against the most ancient strongholds of the sacred and turning all man’s movements towards the Beyond into a forlorn gesture, poignant but devoid of sense. On the other side is the meeting of the great religions with each other. As the most far-flung nations and cultures merge into a single global community, the representatives of humankind’s spiritual quest have been brought together in an encounter of unprecedented intimacy, an encounter so close that it leaves no room for retreat. Thus, at one and the same time each major religion faces, in the amphitheater of world opinion, all the other religions of the earth, as well as the vast numbers of people who regard all claims to possess the Great Answer with a skeptical frown or an indifferent yawn. In this situation, any religion which is to emerge as more than a relic from humanity’s adolescence must be able to deal, in a convincing and meaningful manner, with both sides of the challenge. On the one hand it must contain the swelling tide of secularism, by keeping alive the intuition that no amount of technological mastery over external nature, no degree of proficiency in providing for humanity’s mundane needs, can bring complete repose to the human spirit, can still the thirst for a truth and value that transcends the boundaries of contingency. On the other hand, each religion must find some way of disentangling the conflicting claims that all religions make to understand our place in the grand scheme of things and to hold the key to our salvation. While remaining faithful to its own most fundamental principles, a religion must be able to address the striking differences between its own tenets and those of other creeds, doing so in a manner that is at once honest yet humble, perspicacious yet unimposing. In this brief essay, I wish to sketch the outline of an appropriate Buddhist response to the second challenge. Since Buddhism has always professed to offer a “middle way” in resolving the intellectual and ethical dilemmas of the spiritual life, we may find that the key to our present problematic also lies in discovering the response that best exemplifies the middle way. As has often been noted, the middle way is not a compromise between the extremes but a way that rises above them, avoiding the pitfalls into which they lead. Therefore, in seeking the proper Buddhist approach to the problem of the diversity of creeds, we might begin by pinpointing the extremes which the middle way must avoid. The first extreme is a retreat into fundamentalism, the adoption of an aggressive affirmation of one’s own beliefs coupled with a proselytizing zeal towards those who still stand outside the chosen circle of one’s co-religionists. While this response to the challenge of diversity has assumed alarming proportions in the folds of the great monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam, it is not one towards which Buddhism has a ready affinity, for the ethical guidelines of the Dhamma naturally tend to foster an attitude of benign tolerance towards other religions and their followers. Though there is no guarantee against the rise of a militant fundamentalism from within Buddhism’s own ranks, the Buddha’s teachings can offer no sanctification, not even a remote one, for such a malignant development. For Buddhists the more alluring alternative is the second extreme. This extreme, which purchases tolerance at the price of integrity, might be called the thesis of spiritual universalism: the view that all the great religions, at their core, espouse essentially the same truth, clothed merely in different modes of expression. Such a thesis could not, of course, be maintained in regard to the formal creeds of the major religions, which differ so widely that it would require a strenuous exercise in word-twisting to bring them into accord. The universalist position is arrived at instead by an indirect route. Its advocates argue that we must distinguish between the outward face of a religion — its explicit beliefs and exoteric practices — and its inner nucleus of experiential realisation. On the basis of this distinction, they then insist, we will find that beneath the markedly different outward faces of the great religions, at their heart — in respect of the spiritual experiences from which they emerge and the ultimate goal to which they lead — they are substantially identical. Thus, the major religions differ simply in so far as they are different means, different expedients, to the same liberative experience, which may be indiscriminately designated “enlightenment,” or “redemption,” or “God-realization,” since these different terms merely highlight different aspects of the same goal. As the famous maxim puts it: the roads up the mountain are many, but the moonlight at the top is one. From this point of view, the Buddha Dhamma is only one more variant on the “perennial philosophy” underlying all the mature expressions of man’s spiritual quest. It may stand out by its elegant simplicity, its clarity and directness; but a unique and unrepeated revelation of truth it harbors not. On first consideration the adoption of such a view may seem to be an indispensable stepping-stone to religious tolerance, and to insist that doctrinal differences are not merely verbal but real and important may appear to border on bigotry. Thus, those who embrace Buddhism in reaction against the doctrinaire narrowness of the monotheistic religions may find in such a view — so soft and accommodating — a welcome respite from the insistence on privileged access to truth typical of those religions. However, an unbiased study of the Buddha’s own discourses would show quite plainly that the universalist thesis does not have the endorsement of the Awakened One himself. To the contrary, the Buddha repeatedly proclaims that the path to the supreme goal of the holy life is made known only in his own teaching, and therefore that the attainment of that goal — final deliverance from suffering — can be achieved only from within his own dispensation. The best known instance of this claim is the Buddha’s assertion, on the eve of his Parinibbana, that only in his dispensation are the four grades of enlightened persons to be found, that the other sects are devoid of true ascetics, those who have reached the planes of liberation. The Buddha’s restriction of final emancipation to his own dispensation does not spring from a narrow dogmatism or a lack of good will, but rests upon an utterly precise determination of the nature of the final goal and of the means that must be implemented to reach it. This goal is neither an everlasting afterlife in a heaven nor some nebulously conceived state of spiritual illumination, but the Nibbana element with no residue remaining, release from the cycle of repeated birth and death. This goal is effected by the utter destruction of the mind’s defilements — greed, aversion and delusion — all the way down to their subtlest levels of latency. The eradication of the defilements can be achieved only by insight into the true nature of phenomena, which means that the attainment of Nibbana depends upon the direct experiential insight into all conditioned phenomena, internal and external, as stamped with the “three characteristics of existence”: impermanence, suffering, and non-selfness. What the Buddha maintains, as the ground for his assertion that his teaching offers the sole means to final release from suffering, is that the knowledge of the true nature of phenomena, in its exactitude and completeness, is accessible only in his teaching. This is so because, theoretically, the principles that define this knowledge are unique to his teaching and contradictory in vital respects to the basic tenets of other creeds; and because, practically, this teaching alone reveals, in its perfection and purity, the means of generating this liberative knowledge as a matter of immediate personal experience. This means is the Noble Eightfold Path which, as an integrated system of spiritual training, cannot be found outside the dispensation of a Fully Enlightened One. Surprisingly, this exclusivistic stance of Buddhism in regard to the prospects for final emancipation has never engendered a policy of intolerance on the part of Buddhists towards the adherents of other religions. To the contrary, throughout its long history, Buddhism has displayed a thoroughgoing tolerance and genial good will towards the many religions with which it has come into contact. It has maintained this tolerance simultaneously with its deep conviction that the doctrine of the Buddha offers the unique and unsurpassable way to release from the ills inherent in conditioned existence. For Buddhism, religious tolerance is not achieved by reducing all religions to a common denominator, nor by explaining away formidable differences in thought and practice as accidents of historical development. From the Buddhist point of view, to make tolerance contingent upon whitewashing discrepancies would not be to exercise genuine tolerance at all; for such an approach can “tolerate” differences only by diluting them so completely that they no longer make a difference. True tolerance in religion involves the capacity to admit differences as real and fundamental, even as profound and unbridgeable, yet at the same time to respect the rights of those who follow a religion different from one’s own (or no religion at all) to continue to do so without resentment, disadvantage or hindrance. Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms. The non-Buddhist systems will not be able to lead their adherents to the final goal of the Buddha’s Dhamma, but that they never proposed to do in the first place. For Buddhism, acceptance of the idea of the beginningless round of rebirths implies that it would be utterly unrealistic to expect more than a small number of people to be drawn towards a spiritual path aimed at complete liberation. The overwhelming majority, even of those who seek deliverance from earthly woes, will aim at securing a favorable mode of existence within the round, even while misconceiving this to be the ultimate goal of the religious quest. To the extent that a religion proposes sound ethical principles and can promote to some degree the development of wholesome qualities such as love, generosity, detachment and compassion, it will merit in this respect the approbation of Buddhists. These principles advocated by outside religious systems will also conduce to rebirth in the realms of bliss — the heavens and the divine abodes. Buddhism by no means claims to have unique access to these realms, but holds that the paths that lead to them have been articulated, with varying degrees of clarity, in many of the great spiritual traditions of humanity. While the Buddhist will disagree with the belief structures of other religions to the extent that they deviate from the Buddha’s Dhamma, he will respect them to the extent that they enjoin virtues and standards of conduct that promote spiritual development and the harmonious integration of human beings with each other and with the world. (Courtesy Buddhist Publication Society.) by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Features Seeing things as they truly are
Published 14 mins agoon 2026/06/29
Buddhism offers a profound moral and philosophical framework aimed at guiding individuals toward enlightenment and alleviating suffering. A key aspect of this journey is understanding reality through the lens of the Three Marks of Existence, a concept deeply rooted in Buddhist scriptures and teachings. This understanding can often become obscured by delusion and ignorance, hindering our ability to perceive the true nature of reality and trapping us in cycles of suffering. The Three Marks of Existence, also known as the Three Universal Truths, are (1) impermanence (Anicca), (2) suffering or unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha), and (3) non-self or insubstantiality (Anatta). These principles, articulated by the Buddha over 2,500 years ago, reveal universal truths applicable to all beings and serve as a foundation for deeper insights into life. They emphasise that all phenomena are transient, that lasting happiness is elusive, and that the notion of a fixed self is fundamentally illusory. In the Pali Canon, teachings highlight that all conditioned phenomena (saṅkhārāā) are subject to Anicca and Dukkha, while Anatta extends even further, applying to all dhammas. As stated in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, the Buddha underscores the reality that there is no enduring self within the five aggregates, indicating that the belief in “I” or “mine” is a source of Dukkha that must be relinquished. Understanding Anatta encourages practitioners to recognise the emptiness of the self and to understand how clinging to identity leads to suffering. These three characteristics are incontrovertible facts that apply to both animate and inanimate things. Whether Buddhas arise or not, these truths exist in the world. In Buddhism, to see things as they truly are means to consistently view them through the lens of the Three Marks. Failing to do so, or deceiving oneself about their reality and range of application, is the defining mark of ignorance (avijja). This ignorance of our true nature and the true nature of our surroundings leads to actions based on delusions, accumulating karma that keeps us bound to the cycle of rebirth and death. Dissolving that ignorance through direct insight into the Three Marks is said to bring an end to samsara and the resulting suffering (dukkha nirodha or nirodha sacca, as described in the third of the Four Noble Truths). To perceive things as they truly are, one must cultivate an understanding of these truths—not merely through intellectual contemplation but also through insights gained from personal experiences. A deeper comprehension of the Three Universal Truths fosters wisdom and leads to liberation from the cycle of rebirth, culminating in Nibbana, the ultimate goal of Buddhism. Recognising the interplay of these three characteristics in our lives is essential. Ignorance of these truths breeds delusion and results in actions that generate karma, confining us to a persistent cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Gaining direct insight into the Three Marks of Existence enables us to transcend suffering (Dukkha Nirodha), aligning with the third of the Four Noble Truths. Moreover, a lack of understanding regarding these universal truths can lead to frustration and despair. Conversely, a clear grasp of the Three Marks equips us to navigate life’s complexities, allowing for realistic expectations, resilient acceptance of suffering, and protection against misleading beliefs. The Satipatthana Sutta highlights mindfulness as a vital tool for engaging with reality as it is. By observing our thoughts, feelings, and sensations without attachment or aversion, we cultivate a clearer perception of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. The realisation that all phenomena are fleeting allows us to develop a compassionate response to ourselves and others, breaking the cycle of craving and clinging that fuels suffering. Rev. Nyanapoke further articulates that the Three Marks are observable in every facet of existence—physical, emotional, mental, and social. He notes that natural cycles, shifts in emotions, evolving thoughts, and changing relationships epitomise the transient nature of life. Even when contemplating minute aspects of life, we encounter an immense variety of living forms, from microbes to humans, demonstrating that these three basic features are common to everything that possesses animate existence. Through this comprehensive understanding, we can better navigate the complexities of life and deepen our connection to the essence of existence. By reflecting on the first of the Three Marks of Existence, the universal truth of impermanence, we come to understand the stark reality that everything we acquire and hold dear—possessions, achievements, cherished relationships, and loved ones—will ultimately succumb to time and cease to exist. This notion is poignantly captured by the philosopher Heraclitus, who famously remarked, “No man ever steps in the same river twice,” underscoring the idea that both the river and the man are in constant flux, the transient nature of existence. This idea of impermanence also resonates with the biblical acknowledgement, “Why do you not even know what will happen tomorrow? What is your life? You are but a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” (James 4:14). The first truth, impermanence, is intricately connected to all aspects of our existence. The second characteristic. Dukkha is an important concept in Buddhism, commonly referred to as suffering. It is the first of the Four Noble Truths. Suffering is an inescapable part of life, and it can come in many forms. It refers to the habitual experience of mundane life as fundamentally unsatisfactory and painful. There are many times in our lives when we feel overwhelmed by our suffering and wonder how we can overcome it. Dukkha refers to the inherent unsatisfactoriness and suffering present in life. It encompasses a broad range of experiences, including physical pain, emotional distress, and existential dissatisfaction. In other words, dukkha can vary from minor irritations to profound suffering, and it is not limited to overt suffering. It also highlights the subtle discomfort that arises from life’s impermanence and the transient nature of happiness. Even moments of joy are often tinged with the knowledge that they are fleeting, leading to a perpetual sense of longing or fear of loss. The Buddha applies the characteristic of suffering to all conditioned things in the sense that for living beings, everything conditioned is a potential cause of experienced suffering and is, at any rate, incapable of giving lasting satisfaction. Buddha says, “The world is established on suffering, is founded on suffering” (Dukkha loko patitthito). His whole doctrine rests on the pivot of suffering. He perceived the universality of suffering and propounded a remedy (Noble Eightfold Path) for the universal sickness of humanity. By that, Buddhism does not denote an attitude of hopelessness and pessimism toward life. Buddha did not expect his adherents to be constantly brooding over the ills of life and so make their lives unhappy. If you look at the world with dispassionate discernment, it becomes abundantly clear that there is only one problem in the world, which is suffering, dukkha. Today, people all over the world suffer untold suffering and agony, and there is so much misery all around us. People’s lives are plucked at a young age. Many people suffer from incurable diseases and tragic deaths. Humanity is continuously grappling with many natural disasters and destruction. Yet, through ignorance, people go chasing after shadows, dwelling in delusion, unable to confront the adversities that life brings. Suffering appears and passes away, only to reappear in other forms. All forms of suffering are either physical or psychological. All is in a whirl; nothing escapes this inexorable, unceasing change. Understanding Dukkha is crucial for practitioners, as it invites introspection about the nature of existence and our responses to experiences. Instead of viewing suffering as something to be avoided, Buddhism encourages us to confront it, recognize its roots, and understand its universal presence in human life. This acknowledgement allows us to cultivate compassion for ourselves and others who are also caught in this cycle of suffering. By facing Dukkha with awareness, we can begin to unravel the causes of our suffering and start the journey toward alleviation. The third truth, Anatta, embraces the concept of non-self or insubstantiality, suggesting that there is no permanent, unchanging self within us. This realisation challenges the deeply ingrained belief in a fixed identity or essence. Instead, Buddhism teaches that what we consider the “self” is actually a collection of ever-changing physical and mental components, known as the five aggregates: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. Understanding Anatta is liberating in that it encourages us to let go of attachments to our identities, beliefs, and notions of self. When we cling to a fixed identity, we create suffering through desires and fears related to maintaining that identity. By recognising that the self is contingent and fluid, we can reduce suffering and anxiety associated with self-identity and experience greater freedom. Embracing Anatta allows individuals to break free from the confines of ego, leading to a deeper connection with the world and others. Together, the truths of Dukkha and Anatta highlight the importance of understanding suffering and the illusion of self in the journey toward enlightenment. By facing these truths, practitioners can cultivate wisdom, compassion, and ultimately find liberation from the cycles of rebirth and suffering. by Dr. Justice Chandradasa Nanayakkara
Features How the world changed after the Iran War
Published 14 mins agoon 2026/06/29
US President Donald Trump (left) and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian sign deal to end Middle East War on June 17, 2026. A deal to end the war on Iran has been negotiated and there is speculation whether the ceasefire would hold. The fact that Trump was looking for an off-ramp to end the war was obvious and, therefore, there is hope that he may not want to resume hostilities, though Netanyahu may want to undermine the peace process. According to leading intellectuals, like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Prof. John Mearsheimer and others, the war on Iran was a stupid unnecessary act of illegal aggression, instigated by Israel, with considerable political, strategic, hegemonic and prestige loss to the US. It was not just the futility of war that the world saw, but that the supremacy of the US that Trump wanted to impose on the world with his “Make America Great Again” project, has been proved to be a fallacy. The US had not learnt the lesson that it had failed to achieve its objectives in every war that it had fought after the Second World War, in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. For instance, the Syrian government wants Russia to have bases in Syria, Iraq asked the US to withdraw its military from its land during the Iran war. Trump was encouraged by the apparent success he had in Venezuela and was easily persuaded by Netanyahu to join in the war on Iran. They meant it to be a quick job, just like in Venezuela, decapitate the leadership and install a puppet regime. That didn’t happen. The murdered Ayatollah’s son took over and the people seem to have rallied round their rulers. During the three-month-long war Iran managed not only to survive but also to inflict as much damage as it suffered, on Israel and US military assets in the region. Seventeen US bases in the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.. were made uninhabitable. Forty two US aircraft were damaged or destroyed. There were attacks on civilian infrastructure, such as energy plants, desalination units, oil and gas fields, and airports, threatening that there would be more on a wider scale if Iranian infra-structure was attacked, which Trump had threatened to do. If this had happened countries like Qatar and Bahrain which depend 100% on desalination for their water requirements would have been made unliveable. These countries asked Trump to stop the war. One may ask whether it’s legal to attack countries not directly involved in the war. The UN charter on war regulations allow such attacks if the land of those countries are used by the aggressor to launch the war. Most significant revelation of all these attacks by Iran was the fact that the US was not able to protect its allies in the Gulf nor its assets and the presence of US bases became a vulnerability and a danger to the host countries rather than a security guarantee. The experts say that the US may never be able to rebuild these bases and return to them. Gulf countries may want to reconsider this matter. As Henry Kissinger famously said “to be America’s enemy is dangerous but to be its friend is fatal”. Iran had the ingenuity and the capability to use the Strait of Hormuz as a weapon of immense power. By closing it, Iran could exert considerable pressure on Trump, domestically as well as globally, as fuel prices shot up, affecting the economy of most countries. All attempts to force Iran to open the Hormuz failed and finally it proved to be a decisive factor. And Hormuz has been proved to be a very strong weapon in Iran’s hands. After finalising the deal, both countries claimed victory. The US says it has managed to get the Hormuz opened, but it was open before the war! The US claimed Iran will never be able to acquire nuclear weapon capability, but Iran has always maintained that it needs no nuclear weapons and it has entered into a non-nuclear agreement in 2015 with provision for IEA monitoring. Iran, moreover, has emerged as a powerful, influential nation possessing considerable military capability. It has demonstrated its prowess in missile technology, unveiling several types of missiles. Though the US claimed that their strikes had decimated Iran’s missile capability, experts say 75% of it remains. Though Israel demanded that any agreement with Iran must guarantee restrictions on its missile manufacturing capacity no such conditions have been included in the MoU. If one were to look carefully at the individual clauses of the MoU, one could see that Iran has won most of its demands, such as lifting of sanctions, but what it gives back in return are what already existed before the war, such as open Hormuz, no-nuclear weapons agreement. Thus the US has not won any of its goals in this war except inflict heavy economic damage on Iran, which the latter could cope with, as it has shown throughout history. Another matter of significance is the change in the geopolitical configuration in the Middle East. The apparent invincibility of Israel has been considerably damaged. Both Iran and Hezbollah have been able to penetrate its much vaunted air defence system, the Iron Dome. Iran came close to striking Israel’s nuclear site. Israeli casualty figures are higher than in previous wars in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah had been written off after the last invasion by Israel but seems to have risen out of ashes. The Arab countries, which have established links with Israel, may be reconsidering their strategy, and the Abraham Accord, involving Israel, the UAE and Bahrain, may be in danger of being revoked. The UAE, which is the most anti-Iran state in the Gulf, has engaged in high-level face-to-face talks with Iran to de-escalate regional tensions. Saudi Arabia, wary of US incapacity to manage its many interests, has turned towards China, Pakistan and Turkey. This is just the beginning, more similar changes could be expected in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and others. Arab solidarity may gain in strength. This new geopolitical situation would facilitate the development plans that China with its Belt and Road Initiative was trying to implement in the region. The oil producing countries had a lot of money and small populations and they were spending this money on luxary living and investing the excess on weapons to defend themselves against Iran. China advised them to use the money to industrialize their countries and as for security, instead of buying weapons, to develop good relations with Iran. China was helping these countries to come together, Saudi Arabia was getting closer to Iran with Chinese mediation. Most of these countries had joined BRICS as well. In the aftermath of the war these countries may have realised they cannot rely on the US for their security as the US is more concerned about the security of Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says he wants to extend Israel borders and occupy 70% of Gaza and parts of Syria and Lebanon. However, Israel cannot do any of this without US support. Israel has become very unpopular among Americans. Trump, who adopted an extreme pro-Israel policy, recognising the Golan Heights as part of Israel and Jeruselam as Israel’s capital, and covertly helped Israel to commit genocide in Gaza, may have to change his attitude towards Israel, despite Jewish lobby. Else his party may suffer electoral setbacks. The US allies the UK, the EU, Canada, Australia and Japan did not join the war saying it was not their war. This again is very significant as these countries had been active partners in most wars that the US fought in countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria. The Canadian Prime Minister had been critical of Trump’s policies and had shown that he is aware of the emerging new world order and the need to adapt to it. These Western powers may not have wanted to displease the emerging power China with whom they would like to do business. What about Palestine, the forgotten reason for all this trouble; internationally enforced solutions rather than prolonged, stalled negotiations. Proposals have emerged pushing for specific plans, including the potential integration of administrative governance in Gaza, but implementation has stalled due to disagreements regarding the disarmament of armed groups. Israel will be accepted in the Chinese led new development model if it agrees to a Palestine state with 1967 borders. All this augurs well for the developing new world order. by N. A. de S. Amaratunga