China stands ready to work with all countries in the world including Sri Lanka, to firmly uphold multilateralism, oppose economic bullying and trade protectionism, jointly safeguard international fairness and justice, and strive to foster a stable global environment for development, Chinese ambassador to Sri Lanka – Mr. Qi Zhenhong says.

In an article he has written on the US tariffs, he says, “China and Sri Lanka are good friends, good brothers and good partners from history to present. Our cooperation has become a model of South-South cooperation. Under the new circumstances, China stands ready to work with all countries in the world including Sri Lanka, to firmly uphold multilateralism, oppose economic bullying and trade protectionism, jointly safeguard international fairness and justice, and strive to foster a stable global environment for development.”

“In this process, China will resolutely implement the important consensus reached between President Xi Jinping and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, bring greater opportunities to Sri Lanka through China’s high-quality development, and work together to jointly build a China-Sri Lanka community with a shared future for greater benefits of the people of the two countries and the region,” he adds.

The complete article is as follows : 

Uphold Solidarity and Cooperation to Build a China-Sri Lanka Community with a Shared Future

Recently, the US government, disregarding unanimous opposition from the international community, announced its decision to impose so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on all trading partners including China and Sri Lanka. This move was followed by repeated policy reversals, creating significant chaos and uncertainty on a global scale. Moreover, this uncertainty continues to accumulate, potentially causing broader turmoil and even triggering a global economic recession. 

By recklessly imposing tariffs on other countries, the US defies the fundamental laws of economics and market principles, disregards the balanced outcomes achieved through multilateral trade negotiations, ignores the fact that the US has long benefited substantially from international trade, and weaponizes tariffs to exert maximum pressure for selfish interests. This is a typical act of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying. Such actions not only directly infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of global trade partners, but also pose unpredictable and severe consequences for the US economy itself. Currently, the US stock market is plunging, Treasury bonds are being sold off, and inflationary pressures are mounting, living costs and financial strain on ordinary Americans are increasing. Voices of opposition within the US against the excessive use of tariffs are growing louder.

As a matter of fact, the US and other Western developed countries have been the architects and long-time leaders of the global free trade system established after World War II. People in Global South countries, including China and Sri Lanka, have only been able to earn meagre foreign exchange earnings by working really hard to provide high-quality, low-priced commodities to developed countries like the US. Meanwhile, the US, by occupying the high end of the industrial chain, has earned substantial profits by exporting services, high-tech products and equipment. What’s more, many products manufactured by developing countries like China and Sri Lanka and exported to developed countries are essentially products of Western companies. 

The US and its ruling class are the primary beneficiaries of economic globalization, while the Global South countries have long called for reform of the unjust international political and economic order. However, the US repeatedly claims to be harmed by trade deficits, ignoring the role of imported goods in reducing its living costs and diversifying its consumers’ choices, not to mention the dominant position the US holds in service trade. Today, the US is wielding tariffs as a weapon to intimidate other countries, attempting to force “manufacturing re-shoring” through measures that defy basic economics. This approach is a case of repaying kindness with enmity—it harms others while failing to solve the US’s own problems. This approach undermines the development rights of countries around the world, especially those in the Global South, and runs counter to the principles of globalization. Such actions are doomed to fail. This approach has caused widespread disappointment and unease across the globe and has been encountered with unanimous opposition from the international community.

Openness and cooperation are the prevailing trends of history, and mutual benefit is the shared aspiration of all. For the majority of countries committed to development and revitalization—including Sri Lanka—a free and open multilateral trading system is of vital importance. A secure and stable international environment is indispensable, and the more cooperative and reliable economic and trade partners there are, the better. Looking back at history, the evolution of globalization has always advanced through twists and turns amid turbulence. Since the formation of the modern world system, depressions and wars have occasionally erected high walls between countries and continents. But the common pursuit of cooperation and prosperity of humanity has always broken through these barriers and brought global integration to new heights. 

A major country should have the responsibilities of a major country. It must not pursue profit at the expense of principles, nor should it bully the weak with its strength. As the second largest economy, the second largest market for consumer goods, and a firm supporter of the multilateral trading system, China has always believed that cooperation is the only right path to addressing global challenges, and multilateralism is the inevitable choice for overcoming the difficulties the world faces. There are no winners in trade or tariff wars. Protectionism is a dead end. Solidarity and cooperation is the right way forward for humanity. China will continue to work with the international community to firmly oppose the US’s reckless imposition of tariffs. 

Moreover, China will continue to advance high-standard opening up, and implement high-standard policies for trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, share development opportunities with the world to achieve mutual benefits, win-win outcomes and shared prosperity, and promote a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization. Since 2017, the negative list for foreign investment has been shortened from 93 to 29 items nationwide, and all restrictions on access in the manufacturing sector have been removed. In 2024, 59,000 foreign-invested companies were newly established in China, up by 9.9 percent year-on-year. China’s total import and export of goods reached RMB 10.3 trillion in the first quarter this year, of which exports exceeded RMB 6 trillion with a relatively fast growth of 6.9 percent. China is the world’s market and a source of opportunities for every country. In a world full of uncertainties, China will continue to seek joining hands rather than throwing punches, removing barriers rather than erecting walls, and promoting connectivity rather than decoupling. We will further expand the trade network, be an even stronger magnet for investment, and provide stability and positive energy to the world economy through high-quality development and high-standard opening up.

China and Sri Lanka are good friends, good brothers and good partners from history to present. Our cooperation has become a model of South-South cooperation. Under the new circumstances, China stands ready to work with all countries in the world including Sri Lanka, to firmly uphold multilateralism, oppose economic bullying and trade protectionism, jointly safeguard international fairness and justice, and strive to foster a stable global environment for development. In this process, China will resolutely implement the important consensus reached between President Xi Jinping and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, bring greater opportunities to Sri Lanka through China’s high-quality development, and work together to jointly build a China-Sri Lanka community with a shared future for greater benefits of the people of the two countries and the region.

How would you identify the JVP, politically? The JVP is almost always labelled in media as “Left leaning” and at times as “Marxist-Leninist”. Since the two elections they won last year (2024), “Former Marxist” is how media often calls President Anura Kumara and the JVP now. This is more in English media and in foreign coverage.

Quite recently a media report said, the JVP led NPP does not anymore call for “nationalisation of private enterprises, does not oppose privatisation of State-Owned Enterprises, giving up on their earlier Marxist political stands on national economy” while another media report said, President Anura Kumara had assured the visiting IMF delegation, they would not deviate from the agreed IMF programme, thus leaving their “Left” politics aside.

The ruthless “revolutionary”

Rohana Wijeweera the unknown initiator of the JVP had his affiliations with the CP of Ceylon then through his paternal politics, that gave him the opportunity for higher studies in the USSR. He was, it is said, forced to leave Soviet Russia for his Beijing fancied politics, during the Soviet-China conflict in early ‘60s. That perhaps was reason for Wijeweera to join with Shanmugathasan’s CP (Beijing wing) on his return to Sri Lanka and to work with its youth federation.

In 1965 he broke off from Shanmugathasan’s politics and went on his own in organising a clandestine armed organisation, that subsequently was named the JVP (People’s Liberation Front). During the initial phase when Wijeweera was compelled to have a political programme to recruit youth, the famous “05 classes” he formulated, included one that strongly argued against the “Left Movement in Sri Lanka” and a crude history of “socialist revolutions” with interpretations that supported Wijeweera’s “single day armed revolution”. The fourth class was developed against “Indian expansionism”.

Let me stress. Clandestine or not, a political decision that commits for a very primitive armed “revolution” to take State power in just one day, can be nowhere near Marxism-Leninism. Not even close to “Narodnism” a political movement in rural Russia that emerged in late 19th Century borrowing Marxist slogans now and then, and “stood for agrarian politics in mobilising the peasantry to oust the Russian Tsar in a popular peasant uprising”. Adding a strong anti-Indian expansionist political call to its own, Wijeweera left no space whatever for “Left” politics, leave alone “Marxist-Leninism”. Left politics and Marxism-Leninism can never be racist to any degree at any time.

Their hardline anti-India and anti-Tamil racist politics were more than evident during their 88-90 savage insurgency, when they went on a killing spree of ordinary Sinhala citizens for supporting and voting at the initial ’88 PC elections and for selling products imported from India. They interpreted “Tamil nationalism” as divisive politics that stand for a separate “Thamil Eelam”. Thus, justifying their opposition to the Tamil nationalist demand for “power sharing” even to date.

This JVP was brutally crushed before end 1990 by State Security Forces. Entire leadership including Wijeweera and Gamanayake were eliminated after they were brought under the custody of the Security Forces, leaving district activists leaderless, scattered and still underground not knowing what they could do.

Democratic JVP and UNP’s RW

Over the years in early 1990’s, they began regrouping as a democratic group, while State
intelligence agencies were scouting for underground activists. After President Premadasa met with his tragic death in 1993 May, there apparently was a change in how President Wijetunge’s government led by PM Ranil Wickramasinghe accepted the regrouping of JVP for democratic politics, despite the JVP remaining proscribed. Perhaps the political reading of the ruling party leadership with Wickramsinghe was, JVP terror would come to an end, if the majority is brought to open politics, instead of rounding them up one by one. Nandana Gunathilake the General Secretary of the new JVP that was regrouping then in early 90’s, said in a public discussion recently, they knew they had to enter democratic politics to come out of trapped undercover, as people were not prepared to accept them as “revolutionaries”.

They entered parliamentary politics in 1994 August in alliance with SLFP dissident Ariya Bulegoda’s Sri Lanka Progressive Front (SLPF). They contested few districts including Hambantota and Matara. First elected JVP MP was from the Hambantota district. Elected on the preferential vote, he was not their choice. The new JVP leadership thus had a very ugly, rough tussle for many weeks with the elected candidate in forcing him to resign forthwith and the next two on the list as well, to have Nihal Galappaththy to be sworn in as the JVP MP.

For the November presidential elections in 1994, though contesting from SLPF, Galappaththy was presented to the public as the JVP candidate. JVP offered to withdraw him in favour of PA candidate Kumaratunge, if she undertakes in writing to abolish the executive presidency within 06 months from elections. She did provide a written undertaking as requested, but never bothered to look at it after she was elected with over 60 percent votes. For over 30 years thereafter, every political party at every election promised to abolish the presidency, but has not. Now as leader of the first political party to demand abolition of the Executive Presidency, Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) is sitting on that very chair, gradually glorifying the presidency in establishing his authority as Executive President.

It is quite clear now, politics of AKD is the decisive factor in this JVP/NPP government.
Evolving as its most attractive and effective platform speaker, AKD was also the political factor in the JVP leadership that reached out to the Sinhala urban middleclass in forming the NPP as a new democratic political platform.

He had the advantage of promoting colleagues like Vijitha Herath, Bimal Rathnayake, Vasantha Samarasinghe, Nalinda Jayatissa to the top leadership, who would be accepted within urban Sinhala middleclass circles. They are different to those like Somawansa, Weerawansa, Nandana and Tilvin from Kalutara district who were basically tied to lower social segments of the Southern Sinhala society, a fair distance away from the middleclass.

Racism & JVP

What is thus important is to know, it was not the NPP that diluted “Left” coinig in JVP rhetoric. Even during Somawansa’s leadership with AKD and his colleagues participating in decision making, the JVP never pushed for “Left” political positions as non-negotiable. Though they gave “Left” slogans loud voice in their May Day processions to impress workers, they never stood firm with “Left” slogans in parliamentary politics.

In 2001 September negotiating conditions for a “probationary” government with a desperate President Chandrika Kumaratunge, JVP’s first condition was halting discussions with the LTTE on power devolution and limiting the cabinet of ministers to 20 members. They were soft on ongoing IMF programme, proposing discussions with the IMF on “privatising State enterprises”, no different to where they stand on the Wickramasinghe agreed IMF programme. That “probationary” government never took shape with 15 MPs including 03 ministers of the Kumaratunge government crossing over to the opposition UNP.

Again, in 2004 April parliamentary elections, JVP joined President Kumaratunge’s UPFA on condition they would be given 04 ministries and 04 deputies including ministry of Agriculture, the portfolio held by AKD. The main condition once again remained the stalling of negotiations on devolution with LTTE. President Kumaratunge’s negotiations with LTTE for post-Tsunami relief, nevertheless led JVP to leave the government in June 2005.

A few months later, agreeing to Rajapaksa’s candidature at the November 2005 presidential elections, JVP signed a MoU with Mahinda Rajapaksa that said, “It is agreed to protect, defend and preserve the unitary nature of the Sri Lankan state under any solution to be presented, formed or formulated for the purpose of the resolution of the national question.”

All through their parliamentary political history since 1994, JVP has not been as firm on privatisation of State enterprises, and the IMF, as they have been against “devolution of power.” They have also stood firm and uncompromising on the “Unitary State” as no other Sinhala-Buddhist entity in the South. In fact, it was the JVP that went before the Supreme Court, appealing for the de-merger of the North-East Province. President AKD borrowing Rajapaksa’s post-war Sinhala-Buddhist phrase “This country has no minorities – all are Sri Lankans and equals”, leaves nothing “Left” nor “Marxist-Leninist” in JVP, and leaves no alternative for the NPP too, but to follow AKD, the “Pied Piper”.

– Kusal Perera
2025, April 18

(Credit: Getty Images)

Towns in France and Belgium have been giving out free chickens for years to combat food waste – could the idea catch on elsewhere?

Around Easter in 2015, the small French village of Colmar started handing out free chickens to its residents. The aim of this experimental new scheme, launched by the waste collection department in the small village in north eastern France, was to reduce food waste.

The project had been in the works for some time. The then-president of Colmar Agglomération (a role similar to a mayor), Gilbert Meyer, had been reelected in 2014 with the slogan “one family, one hen”, which aimed to encourage residents to adopt a chicken. The following year the operation was launched, in partnership with two nearby chicken farms. Residents were encouraged to think of the free eggs – the effort put into raising a chicken would pay off quickly.

More than 200 homes in four municipalities signed up and were given two chickens each – either red chickens (Poulet Rouge) or Alsace chickens, an old and local breed.

Each household signed a pledge committing to raising the chickens, with the understanding that the waste department could conduct welfare spot checks on the animals at any time. Henhouses were not provided; it was up to the residents to build or buy their own. The department ensured that each home had enough space for the hens – between 8 and 10 sq m (86 and 108 sq ft).

The scheme was a success – and is still underway. “Over the years, other municipalities have joined and since 2022 all 20 municipalities of the agglomération have participated,” says Eric Straumann, current president of the Colmar Agglomération.

To date, 5,282 hens have been distributed to local residents, and applications are currently open for the next round of distribution in June 2025. Not only have the residents received a plentiful supply of free eggs, but food waste has also been averted from landfill as chickens are fed kitchen scraps which would otherwise be thrown away.

“Considering that a hen has a life expectancy of four years on average and that she consumes 150g (5.3oz) of bio-waste per day, we estimate that we have avoided 273.35 tonnes of bio-waste [since 2015],” says Straumann.

The small French village of Colmar has been handing out free chickens to its residents since 2015 (Credit: Getty Images)

Food waste contributes more methane emissions to the atmosphere than any other landfilled materials, due to its quick decay rate. In the US, around 58% of methane emissions released into the atmosphere from waste landfills are from food waste. Although shorter-lived in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2), methane has a global warming impact more than 80 times higher than CO2 over a 20-year period.

Around one third of food produced for humans is lost or wasted globally, amounting to 1.3 billion tonnes per year. Food loss and waste account for 8-10% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions – which is nearly five times the total emissions from the aviation sector.

Even though chicken owners in the UK have been advised to avoid to feeding the birds kitchen scraps due to concerns about spreading disease, it’s perfectly legal to do so elsewhere in the world, and it can have a meaningful impact on reducing food waste – and kickstart a cycle that benefits everyone.

“Proposed with the aim of reducing food waste, chickens make it possible to promote traditional circular economy practices that are still relevant today, particularly in villages, and which are now developing even in urban areas: chickens fed on our food waste in return provide us with fresh eggs,” says Straumann.

An additional benefit is that the chickens can teach children in Colmar about animals and the importance of protecting the natural world, he adds.

Colmar is not the only town to hand out free birds – nor was it the first to do so. In 2012 in another a small north-western French town called Pincé, ­two chickens were offered to each household to help them cut down on organic waste. “To begin with it was a joke, but then we realised it was a very good idea,” Lydie Pasteau, the mayor of Pincé, told local media at the time. A total of 31 families were given chickens, along with a bag of feed, with Pasteau calling the scheme a “surprising” success.

In Belgium, chickens have been handed out in the cities of Mouscron and Antwerp and the province of Limburg, although residents had to sign an agreement not to eat the chickens for at least two years. More than 2,500 families adopted hens in one year alone in Limburg, according to some reports, while in Mouscron, 50 pairs of chickens were given out in the second round of the scheme, after the initial giveaway was a success. Residents, who had to prove they had sufficient space in their gardens to keep the birds, were given basic instructions on chicken keeping.

Colmar residents have been left with a plentiful supply of eggs since 2015 (Credit: Alamy)

In theory, the scheme seems like a good idea, especially in parts of the world where eggs are either in shortage or very expensive. In California or New York, for example, a dozen eggs cost around $9 (£7). As some chicken breeds can lay up to 300 eggs every year, one chicken could lay up to $225 (£178) worth of eggs each year.

In practice though, Paul Behrens, a professor at the University of Oxford focusing on food systems, says there are some hurdles in the way: “I’m sure it could be done in the UK but I’m not sure it’s a good idea,” he says. “Bird flu is an ever-present worry. Current regulations mean you have to keep birds in fenced areas or indoors – this may again be a problem for animal welfare, or even disease spread if people don’t do this.”

The idea wouldn’t work well in the US either, says Mark Bomford, director of Yale University’s sustainable food programme. “I love chickens, but I don’t love the sound of this, especially in the US,” Bomford says.

The US is currently experiencing an egg shortage due to an outbreak of bird flu – and as a result egg prices have skyrocketed 36% compared to 2023 – but handing out free chickens would not be an “appropriate” response, Bomford says.

“Economically, steep inflation for a basic grocery item like eggs hurts the poor far more than it hurts the rich. To care for chickens you need feed, water, housing, space and free time,” he says. “Most people with lower incomes don’t have access to these things. By the time you have factored in all these costs, chickens are rarely ‘free’ and few people realise any net cost savings on eggs.”

One couple, however, did come up with a unique solution – renting chickens. Christine and Brian Templeton of Rent The Chicken in New Hampshire provide hens, feed and support for six months, allowing customers to collect fresh eggs at home. Business, the couple reports, is booming.

It’s important to temper egg expectations though, warns Behrens – industrial birds lay far more eggs than a home-kept healthy bird would. “Common and modern egg-laying birds are often in huge pain their entire lives, partly due to their genetics which are centred on providing as much ‘output’ as possible,” he says. “If you use older breeds and allow them to live a long, healthy life then you can avoid many of the most egregious animal welfare issues.”

“But people should then understand the tradeoff and expectations around that, you are having a much healthier bird in return for fewer eggs,” he says.

And from a food waste perspective, the ideal thing is to simply not waste the food in the first place – some researchers believe that composting can actually increase food waste.

“They think ‘oh, it’s okay as we compost’,” says Behrens. “Which is better than nothing but much worse than not wasting things in the first place. It could be even worse with chickens because you are getting eggs from them. People might waste even more than if they composted.”

But one unexpected benefit that was observed in Colmar – that had nothing to do with eggs or food waste – was the community the chickens created. Residents would bond over raising the chickens and would work with neighbours to care for the chickens when they went on holiday. “Residents have welcomed this operation since its launch,” says Straumann. “And that’s why all the municipalities in Colmar still participate in our programme today.”

– Lucy Sherriff

(BBC News)