Midweek Review

Foreign policy quagmire

Published

3 years ago

2023/08/16

Chinese scientific survey and research vessel HAI YANG 24 HAO at the Colombo harbour

During the question-and-answer session, Dr. Dushni Weerakoon questioned the sustainability of Sri Lanka’s non-aligned foreign policy, as it weakened the country’s position in trade negotiations. The expert assertion was certainly not restricted to trade negotiations. Having signed ACSA (Access and Cross Servicing-Agreement) with the US, in August 2017, it would be ridiculous to still talk of non-aligned policy. The fact remains the US also sought o finalize SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) in addition to MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Compact. Sri Lanka first signed ACSA in early 2007 during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s first term. In the wake of ACSA, the US provided crucial intelligence that helped the Navy to hunt down floating LTTE arsenals on the high seas and accelerate their collapse.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

A scientific survey and research vessel, manned by the Chinese Navy, arrived at the Colombo port on 10 August. HAI YANG 24 HAO was here for a replenishment assignment. Commanded by Commander Jin Xin, the 129 m long vessel, crewed by 138 officers and men, departed Colombo on 12 August. The visit didn’t create controversy the way when Chinese surveillance vessel Yuan Wang 5 visited Hambantota in August last year close on the heels of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster.

HAI YANG 24 HAO was the first Chinese Navy vessel here since President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s two-day visit to New Delhi, the first since Parliament elected him in July last year to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term won at the November 2019 presidential election. The next presidential poll is a year away.

The growing Indian concerns over what they call Chinese ‘activity’ here is a huge challenge that has to be dealt with at the highest level. But bankrupt Sri Lanka dependent on the new Extended Fund Facility (EFF) secured with the support of India and the US faced the daunting task of convincing India that Colombo’s relationship with China didn’t pose any threat to their interests. As regards Chinese naval visits, the US, too, has expressed concerns on behalf of its Quad partner. Quad consists of the US, Australia, Japan and India.

Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies recently launched ‘LKI Foreign Policy Forum’ , a fresh initiative for a free and frank discussion on foreign policy matters, as well as related issues. The inaugural session at the LKI Lighthouse Auditorium, on 09 August, featured former Foreign Secretary H. M. G. S. Palihakkara, Executive Director Institute of Policy Studies, Director International Relations, KDU Dr. Harinda Vidanage, Executive Director Policy Studies Dr. Dushni Weerakoon and Executive Director, National Peace Council Dr. Jehan Perera. None of them need any introduction. They dealt with the topic ‘the changing global dynamics: implications for Sri Lanka.’ The Chinese vessel arrived in Colombo the following day.

The launch of ‘LKI Foreign Policy Forum coincided with the 18th death anniversary of former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, which fell on 12 August 2023. The LTTE assassinated Kadirgamar at his Buller’s Road residence. LK was 73 years old at the time he was felled by a sniper. How an LTTE sniper fired several gunshots at LK from the window of a bathroom located on the top floor of a house on Buller’s Lane is still a mystery. The person who resided in that house, the late Lakshman Thalayasingham, denied any knowledge of LTTE operatives being there when the law enforcement authorities rushed in soon after the assassination. Those responsible for LK’s security never explained how the surrounding houses of the man, high on the LTTE’s hit list, were never properly checked.

Ravinatha Aryasinha, career diplomat recently appointed Executive Director of LKI, moderated the inaugural programme which attracted a section of the Colombo-based diplomatic community. At the onset of the discussion, the one-time Foreign Secretary, who served as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Washington (Dec. 2020-Sept. 2021) before retirement, briefly explained the current global and regional status, taking into consideration the ongoing war in Ukraine where Russia is battling US-backed forces. The UK and Germany, among other NATO allies, have thrown their full weight behind American-led efforts to bring the Russians to their knees, using the Ukrainian forces as the battering ram.

Russian Ambassador in Colombo Levan S. Dzhagaryan, who took up the post here four months after President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster, was seated on the front row of the audience.

The conflict in Ukraine has sharply divided the world, with Japan campaigning against Russia. Japan has taken up the issue at hand with Sri Lanka, though it knows Colombo is not in a position to take sides. Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa who was here in the last week of July, took up Russian actions with Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, on 29 July. Their discussions also covered the situation in East Africa.

Pushing Sri Lanka to back their ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ (FOIP), Yoshimasa, towards the end of his discussion with Sabry, emphasized the importance of what is called the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) meant to facilitate grain exports from Ukraine, through the Black Sea, to various parts of the world.

Yoshimasa blamed Russian termination of the initiative, alleging that move ran counter to the international community’s efforts in addressing food insecurity.

Contrary to Western expectations and that of Japan and Australia, India has quite clearly indicated that it wouldn’t back resolutions moved against Russia at the UN. Sri Lanka abstained at the UN vote on Russia. China and Pakistan, too, abstained. But the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government is under heavy pressure to back the Western position. Foreign media reports suggest that the US forced Pakistan to remove their PM Imran Khan over the latter’s refusal to condemn Russia.. Therefore, MP Wimal Weerawansa’s accusations, regarding US and Indian involvement in the change of government here, last year, shouldn’t be dismissed as mere rhetoric.

The writer is of the view that whatever the domestic politics here, and external pressure, Sri Lanka shouldn’t back a UN resolution against Russia. Perhaps LKI, in consultation with all relevant parties, should thoroughly examine this issue, also taking into consideration Asia’s position, in general, and advise the government, accordingly, as an independent think tank, especially against unfair moves by India to smother our independence and sovereignty that we have jealously guarded throughout history, without being a threat to it.

We wonder how those who are still blindly pursuing an Eelam dream and have done every possible thing to wreck this country in the pursuit of that, now feel with India clearly calling the shots everywhere.

Indo-Lanka relations

From left: Dr. Dushni Weerakoon, Dr. Harinda Vidanage, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, Dr. Jehan Perera and Ambassador H.M.G.S. Palihakkara

During the brief question and answer session, civil society activist Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, the Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), called for closer alignment with India. The former board member of the LKI explained why bankrupt Sri Lanka should align herself with India as it struggled to navigate through the developing crisis. Reference was also made to continuing Indian and Chinese roles here and how flagship Chinese project, the Port City, could attract Indian investments. The academic reminded what could have happened if not for India’s swift intervention to meet Sri Lanka’s basic needs, in 2022. Against the backdrop of continuing economic-political-social crisis in Sri Lanka, the Modi administration, seeking a third consecutive term, has paid considerable attention to the developments here. Obviously, their primary objective is to enhance India’s influence here and outdo the Chinese who secured the Hambantota Port on a 99-year lease, and also sustained the flagship Port City project.

The entry of Chinese oil giant Sinopec recently to the Sri Lanka market underscored how they sustained their operations, regardless of the change of government in July 2022. In fact, China appeared to have subtly exploited the crisis, and the political setup here, to secure the best possible terms for their entry as the third player in the retail oil market. Until their entry, the CPC and Lanka IOC shared the market, with the latter gradually expanding its influence at Trincomalee where the strategically located British built oil tank farm is situated. Similarly, the Chinese consolidated the strategic Hambantota Port with subsequent investments.

Sri Lanka needs to take both Chinese and Indian investments here into consideration as the Asian giants sought to further enhance and consolidate their position here. During Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President, the then CEB Chairman M.M.C. Ferdinando caused quite a controversy when he explained how President Gotabaya intervened on behalf of the Adani Group. The declaration, though subsequently denied, cannot be simply dismissed as the close relationship between controversial tycoon Gautam Adani and Indian Premier Narendra Modi, now seeking a third consecutive term, is well established. Gautam Adani had an opportunity to meet President Wickremesinghe during the latter’s two-day July visit to New Delhi where an assurance was given that Adani renewable power projects at Mannar and Pooneryn would be completed in January 2025.

During Wickremesinghe’s visit, an agreement was reached on cooperation on further renewable energy projects and development of Trincomalee as an energy hub. A permit clearing the joint venture between the Ceylon Electricity Board and India’s NTPC for a solar park in the eastern town of Sampur, in the Trincomalee district, too, was also issued in line with overall understanding.

Since the end of the war in May 2009 India has gradually stepped up interest in Sri Lanka. India wants Sri Lanka to fully implement the 13th Amendment to its Constitution. New Delhi has the US backing for the project that some concerned here say would lead to a federal state.

In the wake of Narendra Modi’s election, as Premier, in May 2014, India steadily increased investments here during his two terms and further expansion is likely in his third term. Indian parliamentary elections are scheduled for May 2024.

Following President Wickremesinghe’s visit to New Delhi where he had one-on-one with Premier Modi, the two countries announced an agreement on development of ports and logistics infrastructure in Colombo, Kankesthurai (KKS) and Trincomalee and launch ferry services between Nagapattinam in India and KKS, Rameswaram and Talaimannar and other mutually agreed places, welcoming resumption of flights between Chennai and Palaly, agreed to explore the possibility of expanding air connectivity to Colombo (BIA or Ratmalana) as well as Trincomalee and Batticaloa, development of infrastructure at Palaly.

In addition, enhanced cooperation on the development of the renewable energy sector here, establishment of a high capacity power grid interconnection between India and Sri Lanka to enable bidirectional electricity trade between Sri Lanka and other regional countries, including the BBIN countries, implementation of understanding reached on Sampur Solar power project and LNG infrastructure, development of Trincomalee oil tank farms in line with overall project focused on the eastern port city. As part of this project launch construction of a multi-product petroleum pipeline from South India to Sri Lanka, exploration and production of hydrocarbons in Sri Lanka’s offshore basins with an aim to develop Sri Lanka’s upstream petroleum sector, divestment of state owned enterprises (Indian investments in those selected sectors), fresh discussion on Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA), designation of INR as currency for trade settlements between the two countries and the agreement to operationalise UPI based digital payments, use of India’s Digital Public Infrastructure to meet Sri Lanka’s requirements and, finally, establishment of land connectivity between the two countries.

Let me reproduce the relevant section as released in a joint communique, titled ‘Promoting Connectivity,

Catalyzing Prosperity: India-Sri Lanka Economic Partnership Vision’ issued following talks between Premier Modi and President Wickremesinghe. “To establish land connectivity between Sri Lanka and India for developing land access to the ports of Trincomalee and Colombo, propelling economic growth and prosperity in both Sri Lanka and India, and further consolidating millennia old relationship between the two countries. A feasibility study for such connectivity will be conducted at an early date.”

Those agreements have consolidated Indo-Lanka relationship, regardless of serious concerns in some sections that Sri Lanka’s independence is at stake. The powers that be must realize that Sri Lanka shouldn’t promote a particular relationship at its own expense as well as other powers interested in developing further ties.

There cannot be a better example than the cancellation of tenders awarded to China to execute hybrid renewable energy systems in Delft, Nagadeepa and Analativu, off the Jaffna coast. Having awarded the tenders in January 2021, the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government cancelled those following Indian protests.

India never knew of those projects funded by the ADB until the CEB made the announcement in January 2021.

The Chinese project was going to be carried out with an ADB loan. India offered alternative arrangements to implement the same. In spite of the Rajapaksas making a desperate effort to save the Chinese project, India finally compelled the cancellation of the project about a year after the awarding of tenders. When Sri Lanka pointed out that the ADB funded project couldn’t be cancelled unilaterally, New Delhi is believed to have intervened with the ADB.

However, Premier Modi’s criticism of the late Premier Indira Gandhi over handing over of Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka in 1974 is a grim reminder how fresh issues could be raised ahead of elections. India parliamentary polls are scueduled for next year.

Accountability issues and origins of

terrorism here

Now that there is no question about post-war Indo-Sri Lanka relationship, it would be pertinent to ask how Sri Lanka addressed accountability issues in line with overall measures meant for reconciliation. Of the four panelists, Dr. Jehan Perera emphasized the responsibility on the part of all concerned to ensure those responsible for human rights violations at all levels be dealt with regardless of their standing in society. The peace icon who had been engaged in the peace process over a period of time stressed that the country couldn’t move forward unless accountability issues were addressed, based on the 2015 Geneva Resolution, co-sponsored by the then Yahapalana government. While pressing Sri Lanka on accountability issues, Dr. Perera ironically and with no shame went out of his way to praise the human rights record of US-led powers, regardless of death and destruction caused all over the world in the name of democracy. The civil society activist also didn’t comment on the origins of terrorism here. Obviously, Dr. Perera forgot he was at the LK commemoration and the fact that the much respected leader was killed by an organization, established by India.

Those demanding accountability on the part of Sri Lanka should explain how they proposed to deal with India for (1) launching a terrorist campaign in the early ’80s. In addition to the losses caused to the Sri Lanka military, fighting among rival northern groups claimed the lives of hundreds if not thousands (2) killings blamed on the Indian military during its deployment here, July 1987-March 1990 period (3) killing carried out by Tamil National Alliance, formed by India, in the wake of Sri Lanka’s request for complete withdrawal of its military and (4) Indian trained PLOTE raid on the Maldives in November 1988, if succeeded, could have caused regional instability.

They should also explain in what way the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), now represented in Parliament, could be dealt with. Having recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people in 2001, Trincomalee District MP R. Sampanthan’s outfit under any circumstances couldn’t absolve itself of the complicity for the catastrophic devastation caused by the LTTE, especially to innocent people everywhere. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government must realize that post-war reconciliation couldn’t be achieved through the South Africa-type Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) examining the Eelam War IV (Aug. 2006-May 2009).

The TNA collaborated with the LTTE to the hilt until the very end. Their relationship was built on 2004 ‘agreement’ that helped the TNA to secure 21 seats in the Northern and Eastern districts at the 2004 general election with the LTTE stuffing ballot boxes on their behalf. The blatant LTTE partnership with the TNA attracted the attention of the European Union Election Observation Mission. The EU mission, in its report, pointed out how the TNA won the lion’s share of the seats in the then temporarily merged North and East with direct LTTE support. Except The Island no other print media and electronic media bothered to report this. The Election Department did nothing.

The Parliament, too, conveniently turned a blind eye to the issue. In the following year, the LTTE set the stage for the final war by ordering the Tamil electorate to boycott the presidential poll. The TNA issued the ‘directive’ on behalf of the LTTE. Again, the Election Department and Parliament did nothing. How could a political party, represented in Parliament, ask the entire northern population to boycott the national election to facilitate the terrorist strategy?

Five years later, the same TNA backed war-winning Army Commander, retired General Sarath Fonseka, after having accused him and his Army of genocide, when he emerged as the common candidate at the presidential election. Fonseka lost badly by over 1.8 mn votes though he handsomely won all electorates in the Northern and Eastern provinces where his Army, over a period of three years, eradicated the LTTE completely.

LKI can certainly examine the entire gamut of issues, including the circumstances leading to the 2015 Geneva Resolution, co-sponsored by the Yahapalana administration. Sri Lanka backed the US led move, regardless of serious concerns expressed by the then Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the incumbent Executive Director of LKI. The Island covered the Geneva issue extensively hence no need to repeat how the then government acted recklessly in that regard and the subsequent declaration made by TNA heavyweight M.A. Sumanthiran in Washington (2016) pertaining to a tripartite agreement involving the US, GoSL and TNA on hybrid war crimes mechanism.

A thorough examination of events and developments is necessary as accountability issues are used to influence the leadership on post-war reconciliation. Sri Lanka struggling with a mountain of debt, both local and foreign, seems to be easy prey for those interested parties.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Chinese scientific survey and research vessel HAI YANG 24 HAO HAI YANG 24 HAO at the Colombo harbour

Up Next

Year Three Crisis

Don't Miss

Oases in a Scorched Isle

Click to comment

Midweek Review

Fonseka clears Rajapaksas of committing war crimes he himself once accused them of

Published

5 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

With Sri Lanka’s 17th annual war victory over separatist Tamil terrorism just months away, warwinning Army Chief, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka (Dec. 06, 2005, to July 15, 2009) has significantly changed his war narrative pertaining to the final phase of the offensive that was brought to an end on May 18, 2009.

The armed forces declared the conclusion of ground operations on that day after the entire northern region was brought back under their control. LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, hiding within the secured area, was killed on the following day. His body was recovered from the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon.

With the war a foregone conclusion, with nothing to save the increasingly hedged in Tigers taking refuge among hapless Tamil civilians, Fonseka left for Beijing on May 11, and returned to Colombo, around midnight, on May 17, 2009. The LTTE, in its last desperate bid to facilitate Prabhakatan’s escape, breached one flank of the 53 Division, around 2.30 am, on May 18. But they failed to bring the assault to a successful conclusion and by noon the following day those fanatical followers of Tiger Supremo, who had been trapped within the territory, under military control, died in confrontations.

During Fonseka’s absence, the celebrated 58 Division (formerly Task Force 1), commanded by the then Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva, advanced 31/2 to 4 kms and was appropriately positioned with Maj. Gen. Kamal Gunaratne’s 53 Division. The LTTE never had an opportunity to save its leader by breaching several lines held by frontline troops on the Vanni east front. There couldn’t have been any other option than surrendering to the Army.

The Sinha Regiment veteran, who had repeatedly accused the Rajapaksas of war crimes, and betraying the war effort by providing USD 2 mn, ahead of the 2005 presidential election, to the LTTE, in return for ordering the polls boycott that enabled Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory, last week made noteworthy changes to his much disputed narrative.

GR’s call to Shavendra What did the former Army Commander say?

* The Rajapaksas wanted to sabotage the war effort, beginning January 2008.

* In January 2008, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Navy Commander VA Wasantha Karannagoda, proposed to the National Security Council that the Army should advance from Vavuniya to Mullithivu, on a straight line, to rapidly bring the war to a successful conclusion. They asserted that Fonseka’s strategy (fighting the enemy on multiple fronts) caused a lot of casualties.

* They tried to discourage the then Lt. Gen. Fonseka

* Fonseka produced purported video evidence to prove decisive intervention made by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa on the afternoon of May 17. The ex-Army Chief’s assertion was based on a telephone call received by Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva from Gotabaya Rajapaksa. That conversation had been captured on video by Swarnavahini’s Shanaka de Silva who now resides in the US. He had been one of the few persons, from the media, authorised by the Army Headquarters and the Defence Ministry to be with the Army leadership on the battlefield. Fonseka claimed that the videographer fled the country to escape death in the hands of the Rajapaksas. It was somewhat reminiscent of Maithripala Sirisena’s claim that if Rajapaksas win the 2015 Presidential election against him he would be killed by them.

* Shanaka captured Shavendra Silva disclosing three conditions laid down by the LTTE to surrender namely (a) Their casualties should be evacuated to Colombo by road (b) They were ready to exchange six captured Army personnel with those in military custody and (c) and the rest were ready to surrender.

* Then Fonseka received a call from Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on a CDMA phone. The Defence Secretary issued specific instructions to the effect that if the LTTE was to surrender that should be to the military and definitely not to the ICRC or any other third party. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, one-time Commanding Officer of the 1st battalion of the Gajaba Regiment, ordered that irrespective of any new developments and talks with the international community, offensive action shouldn’t be halted. That declaration directly contradicted Fonseka’s claim that the Rajapaksas conspired to throw a lifeline to the LTTE.

Fonseka declared that the Rajapaksa brothers, in consultation with the ICRC, and Amnesty International, offered an opportunity for the LTTE leadership to surrender, whereas his order was to annihilate the LTTE. The overall plan was to eliminate all, Fonseka declared, alleging that the Rajapaksa initiated talks with the LTTE and other parties to save those who had been trapped by ground forces in a 400 m x 400 m area by the night of May 16, among a Tamil civilian human shield held by force.

If the LTTE had agreed to surrender to the Army, Mahinda Rajapaksa would have saved their lives. If that happened Velupillai Prabhakaran would have ended up as the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, he said. Fonseka shocked everyone when he declared that he never accused the 58 Division of executing prisoners of war (white flag killings) but the issue was created by those media people embedded with the military leadership. Fonseka declared that accusations regarding white flag killings never happened. That story, according to Fonseka, had been developed on the basis of the Rajapaksas’ failed bid to save the lives of the LTTE leaders.

Before we discuss the issues at hand, and various assertions, claims and allegations made by Fonseka, it would be pertinent to remind readers of wartime US Defence Advisor in Colombo Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s June 2011 denial of white flag killings. The US State Department promptly declared that the officer hadn’t spoken at the inaugural Colombo seminar on behalf of the US. Smith’s declaration, made two years after the end of the war, and within months after the release of the Darusman report, dealt a massive blow to false war crimes allegations.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in 2010, appointed a three-member Panel of Experts, more like a kangaroo court, consisting of Marzuki Darusman, Yasmin Sooka, and Steven Ratner, to investigate war crimes accusations.

Now Fonseka has confirmed what Smith revealed at the defence seminar in response to a query posed by Maj. General (retd.) Ashok Metha of the IPKF to Shavendra Silva, who had been No 02 in our UN mission, in New York, at that time.

White flag allegations

‘White flag’ allegations cannot be discussed in isolation. Fonseka made that claim as the common presidential candidate backed by the UNP-JVP-TNA combine. The shocking declaration was made in an interview with The Sunday Leader Editor Frederica Jansz published on Dec. 13, 2009 under ‘Gota ordered them to be shot – General Sarath Fonseka.’

The ‘white flag’ story had been sensationally figured in a leaked confidential US Embassy cable, during Patricia Butenis tenure as the US Ambassador here. Butenis had authored that cable at 1.50 pm on Dec. 13, 2009, the day after the now defunct The Sunday Leader exclusive. Butenis had lunch with Fonseka in the company of the then UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya, according to the cable. But for the writer the most interesting part had been Butenis declaration that Fonseka’s advisors, namely the late Mangala Samaraweera, Anura Kumara Dissanayake (incumbent President) and Vijitha Herath (current Foreign Minister) wanted him to retract part of the story attributed to him.

Frederica Jansz fiercely stood by her explosive story. She reiterated the accuracy of the story, published on Dec. 13, 2009, during the ‘white flag’ hearing when the writer spoke to her. There is absolutely no reason to suspect Frederica Jansz misinterpreted Fonseka’s response to her queries.

Subsequently, Fonseka repeated the ‘white flag’ allegation at a public rally held in support of his candidature. Many an eyebrow was raised at The Sunday Leader’s almost blind support for Fonseka, against the backdrop of persistent allegations directed at the Army over Lasantha Wickrematunga’s killing. Wickrematunga, an Attorney-at-Law by profession and one-time Private Secretary to Opposition Leader Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was killed on the Attidiya Road, Ratmalana in early January 2009.

The Darusman report, too, dealt withthe ‘white flag’ killings and were central to unsubstantiated Western accusations directed at the Sri Lankan military. Regardless of the political environment in which the ‘white flag’ accusations were made, the issue received global attention for obvious reasons. The accuser had been the war-winning Army Commander who defeated the LTTE at its own game. But, Fonseka insisted, during his meeting with Butenis, as well as the recent public statement that the Rajapaksas had worked behind his back with some members of the international community.

Fresh inquiry needed

Fonseka’s latest declaration that the Rajapaksas wanted to save the LTTE leadership came close on the heels of Deputy British Prime Minister David Lammy’s whistle-stop visit here. The UK, as the leader of the Core Group on Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council, spearheads the campaign targeting Sri Lanka.

Lammy was on his way to New Delhi for the AI Impact Summit. The Labour campaigner pushed for action against Sri Lanka during the last UK general election. In fact, taking punitive action against the Sri Lankan military had been a key campaign slogan meant to attract Tamil voters of Sri Lankan origin. His campaign contributed to the declaration of sanctions in March 2025 against Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, General (retd) Shavendra Silva, General (retd) Jagath Jayasuriya and ex-LTTE commander Karuna, who rebelled against Prabhakaran. Defending Shavendra Silva, Fonseka, about a week after the imposition of the UK sanctions, declared that the British action was unfair.

But Fonseka’s declaration last week had cleared the Rajapaksas of war crimes. Instead, they had been portrayed as traitors. That declaration may undermine the continuous post-war propaganda campaign meant to demonise the Rajapaksas and top ground commanders.

Canada, then a part of the Western clique that blindly towed the US line, declared Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide and also sanctioned ex-Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Other countries resorted to action, though such measures weren’t formally announced. General (retd) Jagath Dias and Maj. Gen (retd) Chagie Gallage were two of those targeted.

Against the backdrop of Fonseka’s latest claims, in respect of accountability issues, the urgent need to review action taken against Sri Lanka cannot be delayed. Although the US denied visa when Fonseka was to accompany President Maithripala Sirisena to the UN, in Sept. 2016, he hadn’t been formally accused of war crimes by the western powers, obviously because he served their interests.

On the basis of unsubstantiated allegations that hadn’t been subjected to judicial proceedings, Geneva initiated actions. The US, Canada and UK acted on those accusations. The US sanctioned General Shavendra Silva in Feb. 2020 and Admiral Karannagoda in April 2023.

What compelled Fonseka to change his narrative, 18 years after his Army ended the war? Did Fonseka base his latest version solely on Shanaka de Silva video? Fonseka is on record as claiming that he got that video, via a third party, thereby Shanaka de Silva had nothing to do with his actions.

DNA and formation of DP

Having realised that he couldn’t, under any circumstances, reach a consensus with the UNP to pursue a political career with that party, Fonseka teamed up with the JVP, one of the parties in the coalition that backed his presidential bid in 2010. Fonseka’s current efforts to reach an understanding with the JVP/NPP (President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is the leader of both registered political parties) should be examined against the backdrop of their 2010 alliance.

Under Fonseka’s leadership, the JVP, and a couple of other parties/groups, contested, under the symbol of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) that had been formed on 22 Nov. 2009. but the grouping pathetically failed to live up to their own expectations. The results of the parliamentary polls, conducted in April 2010, had been devastating and utterly demoralising. Fonseka, who polled about 40% of the national vote at the January 2010 presidential election, ended up with just over 5% of the vote, and the DNA only managed to secure seven seats, including two on the National List. The DNA group consisted of Fonseka, ex-national cricket captain Arjuna Ranatunga, businessman Tiran Alles and four JVPers. Anura Kumara Dissanayake was among the four.

Having been arrested on February 8, 2010, soon after the presidential election, Fonseka was in prison. He was court-martialed for committing “military offences”. He was convicted of corrupt military supply deals and sentenced to three years in prison. Fonseka vacated his seat on 7 Oct .2010. Following a failed legal battle to protect his MP status, Fonseka was replaced by DNA member Jayantha Ketagoda on 8 March 2011. But President Mahinda Rajapaksa released Fonseka in May 2012 following heavy US pressure. The US went to the extent of issuing a warning to the then SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena that unless President Rajapaksa freed Fonseka he would have to face the consequences (The then Health Minister Sirisena disclosed the US intervention when the writer met him at the Jealth Ministry, as advised by President Rajapaksa)

By then, Fonseka and the JVP had drifted apart and both parties were irrelevant. Somawansa Amarasinghe had been the leader at the time the party decided to join the UNP-led alliance that included the TNA, and the SLMC. The controversial 2010 project had the backing of the US as disclosed by leaked secret diplomatic cables during Patricia Butenis tenure as the US Ambassador here.

In spite of arranging the JVP-led coalition to bring an end to the Rajapaksa rule, Butenis, in a cable dated 15 January 2010, explained the crisis situation here. Butenis said: “There are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power. In Sri Lanka this is further complicated by the fact that responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President Rajapaksa and his brothers and opposition candidate General Fonseka.”

Then Fonseka scored a major victory when Election Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya on 1 April, 2013, recognised his Democratic Party (DNA was registered as DP) with ‘burning flame’ as its symbol. There hadn’t been a previous instance of any service commander registering a political party. While Fonseka received the leadership, ex-Army officer Senaka de Silva, husband of Diana Gamage ((later SJB MP who lost her National List seat over citizenship issue) functioned as the Deputy Leader.

Having covered Fonseka’s political journey, beginning with the day he handed over command to Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya, in July, 2009, at the old Army Headquarters that was later demolished to pave the way for the Shangri-La hotel complex, the writer covered the hastily arranged media briefing at the Solis reception hall, Pitakotte, on 2 April, 2023. Claiming that his DP was the only alternative to what he called corrupt Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government and bankrupt Ranil Wickremesinghe-led Opposition, a jubilant Fonseka declared himself as the only alternative (‘I am the only alternative,’ with strapline ‘SF alleges Opposition is as bad as govt’. The Island, April 3, 2013).

Fonseka had been overconfident to such an extent, he appealed to members of the government parliamentary group, as well as the Opposition (UNP), to switch allegiance to him. As usual Fonseka was cocky and never realised that 40% of the national vote he received, at the presidential election, belonged to the UNP, TNA and the JVP. Fonseka also disregarded the fact that he no longer had the JVP’s support. He was on his own. The DP never bothered to examine the devastating impact his 2010 relationship with the TNA had on the party. The 2015 general election results devastated Fonseka and underscored that there was absolutely no opportunity for a new party. The result also proved that his role in Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE hadn’t been a decisive factor.

RW comes to SF’s rescue

Fonseka’s DP suffered a humiliating defeat at the August 2015 parliamentary polls. The outcome had been so bad that the DP was left without at least a National List slot. Fonseka was back to square one. If not for UNP leader and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Fonseka could have been left in the cold. Wickremesinghe accommodated Fonseka on their National List, in place of SLFPer M.K.D.S. Gunawardene, who played a critical role in an influential section of the party and the electorate shifting support to Maithripala Sirisena. Gunawardena passed away on 19 January, 2016. Wickremesinghe and Fonseka signed an agreement at Temple Trees on 3 February, 2016. Fonseka received appointment as National List MP on 9 February, 2016, and served as Minister of Regional Development and, thereafter, as Minister of Wildlife and Sustainable Development, till Oct. 2018. Fonseka lost his Ministry when President Sirisena treacherously sacked Wickremesinghe’s government to pave the way for a new partnership with the Rajapaksas. The Supreme Court discarded that arrangement and brought back the Yahapalana administration but Sirisena, who appointed Fonseka to the lifetime rank of Field Marshal, in recognition of his contribution to the defeat of terrorism, refused to accommodate him in Wickremesinghe’s Cabinet. The President also left out Wasantha Karannagoda and Roshan Goonetilleke. Sirisena appointed them Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of Air Force, respectively, on 19, Sept. 2019, in the wake of him failing to secure the required backing to contest the Nov. 2019 presidential election.

Wickremesinghe’s UNP repeatedly appealed on behalf of Fonseka in vain to Sirisena. At the 2020 general election, Fonseka switched his allegiance to Sajith Premadasa and contested under the SJB’s ‘telephone’ symbol and was elected from the Gampaha district. Later, following a damaging row with Sajith Premadasa, he quit the SJB as its Chairman and, at the last presidential election, joined the fray as an independent candidate. Having secured just 22,407 votes, Fonseka was placed in distant 9th position. Obviously, Fonseka never received any benefits from support extended to the 2022 Aragalaya and his defeat at the last presidential election seems to have placed him in an extremely difficult position, politically.

Let’s end this piece by reminding that Fonseka gave up the party leadership in early 2024 ahead of the presidential election. Senaka de Silva succeeded Fonseka as DP leader, whereas Dr. Asosha Fernando received appointment as its Chairman. The DP has aligned itself with the NPP. The rest is history.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

Strengths and weaknesses of BRICS+: Implications for Global South

Published

5 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

The 16th BRICS Summit, from 22 to 24 October 2024 in Kazan, was attended by 24 heads of state, including the five countries that officially became part of the group on 1 January: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia. Argentina finally withdrew from the forum after Javier Milei’s government took office in 2023.

In the end, it changed its strategy and instead of granting full membership made them associated countries adding a large group of 13 countries: two from Latin America (Bolivia and Cuba), three from Africa (Algeria, Nigeria, Uganda) and eight from Asia (Belarus, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Vietnam). This confirms the expansionary intent of the BRICS, initiated last year and driven above all by China, which seeks to turn the group into a relevant multilateral forum, with focus on political than economic interaction, designed to serve its interests in the geopolitical dispute with the United States. This dispute however is not the making of China but has arisen mainly due to the callous bungling of Donald Trump in his second term in office.

China has emerged as the power that could influence the membership within the larger group more than its rival in the region, India. Obviously, the latter is concerned about these developments but seems powerless to stop the trend as more countries realize the need for the development of capacity to resist Western dominance. India in this regard seems to be reluctant possibly due to its defence obligations to the US with Trump declaring war against countries that try to forge partnerships aiming to de-dollarize the global economic system.

The real weakness in BRICS therefore, is the seemingly intractable rivalry between China and India and the impact of this relationship on the other members who are keen to see the organisation grow its capacity to meet its stated goals. China is committed to developing an alternative to the Western dominated world order, particularly the weaponization of the dollar by the US. India does not want to be seen as anti-west and as a result India is often viewed as a reluctant or cautious member of BRICS. This problem seems to be perpetuated due to the ongoing border tensions with China. India therefore has a desire to maintain a level playing field within the group, rather than allowing it to be dominated by Beijing.

Though India seems to be committed to a multipolar world, it prefers focusing on economic cooperation over geopolitical alignment. India thinks the expansion of BRICS initiated by China may dilute its influence within the bloc to the advantage of China. India fears the bloc is shifting toward an anti-Western tilt driven by China and Russia, complicating its own strong ties with the West. India is wary of the new members who are also beneficiaries of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. While China aims to use BRICS for anti-Western geopolitical agendas, India favors focusing on South-South financial cooperation and reforming international institutions. Yet India seems to be not in favour of creating a new currency to replace the dollar which could obviously strengthen the South-South financial transactions bypassing the dollar.

Moreover, India has explicitly opposed the expansion of the bloc to include certain nations, such as Pakistan, indicating a desire to control the group’s agenda, especially during its presidency.

In this equation an important factor is the role that Russia could play. The opinion expressed by the Russian foreign minister in this regard may be significant. Referring to the new admissions the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said: “The weight, prominence and importance of the candidates and their international standing were the primary factors for us [BRICS members]. It is our shared view that we must recruit like-minded countries into our ranks that believe in a multipolar world order and the need for more democracy and justice in international relations. We need those who champion a bigger role for the Global South in global governance. The six countries whose accession was announced today fully meet these criteria.”

The admission of three major oil producing countries, Saudi Arabia, Iran and UAE is bound to have a significant impact on the future global economic system and consequently may have positive implications for the Global South. These countries would have the ability to decisively help in creating a new international trading system to replace the 5 centuries old system that the West created to transfer wealth from the South to the North. This is so because the petro-dollar is the pillar of the western banking system and is at the very core of the de-dollarizing process that the BRICS is aiming at. This cannot be done without taking on board Saudi Arabia, a staunch ally of the west. BRICS’ expansion, therefore, is its transformation into the most representative community in the world, whose members interact with each other bypassing Western pressure. Saudi Arabia and Iran are actively mending fences, driven by a 2023 China-brokered deal to restore diplomatic ties, reopen embassies, and de-escalate regional tensions. While this detente has brought high-level meetings and a decrease in direct hostility rapprochement is not complete yet and there is hope which also has implications, positive for the South and may not be so for the North.

Though the US may not like what is going on, Europe, which may not endorse all that the former does if one is to go by the speech delivered by the Canadian PM in Brazil recently, may not be displeased about the rapid growth of BRICS. The Guardian UK highlighted expert opinion that BRICS expansion is rather “a symbol of broad support from the global South for the recalibration of the world order.” A top official at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Caroline Kanter has told the daily, “It is obvious that we [Western countries] are no longer able to set our own conditions and standards. Proposals will be expected from us so that in the future we will be perceived as an attractive partner.” At the same time, the bottom line is that BRICS expansion is perceived in the West as a political victory for Russia and China which augurs well for the future of BRICS and the Global South.

Poor countries, relentlessly battered by the neo-liberal global economy, will greatly benefit if BRICS succeeds in forging a new world order and usher in an era of self-sufficiency and economic independence. There is no hope for them in the present system designed to exploit their natural resources and keep them in a perpetual state of dependency and increasing poverty. BRICS is bound to be further strengthened if more countries from the South join it. Poor countries must come together and with the help of BRICS work towards this goal.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga