Features

SLFP – What fate awaits it

Published

5 years ago

2021/09/15

By Gunadasa Amarasekera

The reason for the SLFP leaders to celebrate its 70th birth Anniversary, I believe was promoted by a desire to make a comeback out of the depths to which it has sunk in recent times. Despite the desire to come back, has it the vitality, the elan left to do so? This is a question to be asked not only by the SLFPers themselves, but by the vast majority that happens to be the children of ’56 and also by all those who are interested in the well- being of the country-the nation. To answer this question, one needs at least a brief analysis of its genesis, its history and its past performance.

The biggest misfortune the SLFP has faced and is facing even today is its inability to identify itself, understand why it came into being. Except for a discerning few, most of the present generation including our so- called intellectuals and even those who have undertaken to lead the Party, lack this understanding.

For many, even today, it is a quirk of fate; for some elitist groups it’s the result of a demagogy spawned by a disgruntled few. Very few have addressed their minds to find an answer. GC Mendis was one among the few who sought to delve deep to seek an answer. He saw it as a lapse on the part of the main civilised political stream which allowed the barbaric tide languishing at the periphery to overtake it!

However, the die- hard SLFPers see it as nothing but the creation of its great leader-SWRD Bandaranaike – Bandaranaike with his slogan of ‘Sinhala in 24 hours’ was able to sway the masses, achieve victory and create history. Little do they realise that it is not the leaders that create history; instead it is history that creates leaders. Bandaranaike did not create a new party as such; he only delivered what was created by history, and played the role of the midwife or the obstetrician. This historical perspective has eluded those devotees of Bandaranaike.

The SLFP is a party that is different from all other parties that have emerged after Independence. The UNP was founded on the liberal ideology of the West, the Socialist parties were founded on Marxism, which once again was a product of the West. The SLFP, on the contrary, has its origins in the soil; it is rooted in the Sinhala Buddhist civilisation, which has nourished this nation over the centuries. This can be ascertained from the historical background that gave birth to this party.

After the Uva-Wellassa rebellion, the national liberation movement gave up the armed struggle and opted for a non-violent path. By then the renaissance movement initiated by Asarana Sarana Saranankara, during the Dutch period, had permeated to the rest of the country, especially to Ruhuna. It produced the intelligentsia, the educated Sangha community who were to spearhead the movement. Two great seats of learning – Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara were established by the pupils of Sarankara.it was this background that made Anagarika Dharmapala emerge by the end of the 19th century. It was he who took the message to the masses with a number of cultural movements. In his travels across the country, he realised that those villagers, the peasants, though living in poverty, had retained a civilisational consciousness inherited from a past; he also realised that this civilisational consciousness which lay dormant could be awakened in his fight against imperialist forces. By the beginning of the twentieth century the British ruler realised the threat imposed by Anagarika. The IGP said there was a likelihood of Anagarika surrounding Colombo one morning with ‘his barbaric hordes’. The rulers with the help of the comprador class and the deracinated members of the National Congress groomed by them were determined to take Anagarika off the stage, silence him and destroy his movement. They succeeded in doing so, but failed to destroy the seeds sown by him in the minds of the vast masses. Those seeds took root and flourished unnoticed with the passage of time, the nourishment needed was produced by the indigenous intelligentsia, the writers, novelists and poets of the time – sanga-veda-guru – the forces of ’56, came out of that milieu.

Except the young Bandaranaike, who had returned from UK, no other leader was aware of the silent revolution initiated by Anagarika. It was that awareness that made Bandaranaike establish the Sinhala Maha Sabha in 1934.The Sinhala Maha Sabha produced the blue print needed for the formation of the SLFP in 1951. The Sinhala Maha Sabha has suffered great injustice being labelled a chauvinistic Sinhala caucus. The truth is far from it. The SMS envisaged a political organisation that would not only look after the economic needs but also the cultural aspirations of the people who had suffered at the hands of the colonials. It addressed its mind to the unity of different communities and as a prerequisite to that unity it emphasised the need to unite the Sinhalese who were divided by political affiliations, by religion, caste and creed. It maintained that; it is only then, that other groups could be brought in as stake holders, participating in a common civilisation. This is possible when there is a non- antagonistic symbiotic relationship between these cultures and civilisations. (I think this a point that Huntington missed when he considered /assumed culture and civilization as one and the same.) This, I believe was the state of affairs in this country prior to the advent of the foreigner. This is so, even today at the village peasantry level, and this is what prompted President DB Wijetunge, a great villager himself, to make that most misunderstood statement -comparing the Sinhala nation to a tree around which the other ethnic groups should wind themselves for their survival. I believe this vision of the Sinhala Maha Sabha is more relevant today when the so -called reconciliation at the expense of the major community has failed miserably. It was a mistake on the part of Bandaranaike to have dissolved the Sinhala Maha Sabha when he joined the UNP; ironically what made Bandaranaike form the SLFP was the rejection of the proposals of the Sinhala Maha Sabha at the Madampe sessions by the UNP.

The great victory achieved by the SLFP in ’56 was not one that was anticipated by many. I don’t think that even Bandaranaike anticipated it; his close friend and founder member of the Party, Bernard Aluwihare left the party on the eve of the elections saying that he was not prepared to carry the coffin. There is a story I have heard from a reliable source that is symbolic of the situation and the quandary faced by the great leader and the nation. Bandaranaike, after a hectic election campaign had retired early to bed, the night, the election results were to be announced. He had told the family members, not to put him up; the family members though overjoyed by the results, had remained silent till the following morning. When they heard his footsteps coming down the stairs they rushed to announce the victory- Bandaranaike had stopped coming down and sat on the steps, silent, wrapped in deep thought for a long period.

I think this premature victory had its ill-effects on the party; it had the vision, but lacked the political structures, institutions, and the economic policies that were needed to translate the vision into praxis. Though it spoke of a nebulous middle path, a socialism of its own, there were no concrete plans to achieve those ends. I believe Bandaranaike had the vision, the intellect, to translate that vision. His death––a result of a conspiracy still unraveled––denied him that opportunity.

Sirimavo Bandaranaike was able to implement some of the policies that were envisaged by her husband. But she had no holistic agenda. The Marxists who were with her, were partly responsible for it; they were interested not in a nationalist plan but a Marxist agenda. Some of the results were horrendous, such as taking away the lands of the locals; indiscriminate nationalisation followed by corruption, discouraging local entrepreneurship, austere measures –hal polu. miris polu and bread queues that made life impossible for the middle class, and the poor.

The situation was seized by the old fox JR to present the coalition as an adharmista evil force. What was ironical is that he was able to use the same lingo, the same terms dharmista which formed the core moral and ethical values of the SLFP. But this debacle suffered by the SLFP was temporary, it was no threat to its survival.

However, it was Chandrika Kumaratunga who assumed the leadership of the Party who was capable of thwarting) its survival.

It was Chandrika Kumaratunga who was able to destroy for the first time, the Sinhala Buddhist cultural foundation on which the SLFP was built. It was no longer the Party of the Sinhala majority-the backbone of the SLFP. It was turned into a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multireligious, multi-cultural party. Having transformed it, she was prepared to hand over North and East to Mr Prabhakaran for 10 years; invited the Norwegians to divide the country in the name of reconciliation, and was ready to execute the P-Toms together with Prabhakaran. She confessed later that the decision she made to dissolve Parliament was a mistake, which action was what allowed the war to be continued.

In all these, Chandrika Kumaratunga was ably supported by Mangala Samaraweera, with his thavalam and sudu nelum campaigns. I do not wish to believe that she extended her blessings to Samaraweera to co-sponsor the traitorous resolution by the US against our country.

The greatest harm inflicted on the SLFP was the derailing and destroying the economic policies followed by it from its inception. Though they may have not been clearly defined, they were always anti-imperialist, pro nationalist and pro socialist. Sirimavo Bandaranaike was always guided by her civilisational consciousness, she never allowed imperialist powers to exploit this country, she was fearless and bold enough to nationalise the American oil companies in spite of the threats of that super power. Her government cleared all the debts we had accumulated, JR Jayewardene reversed all this with his open economy -a euphuism for neo colonialism.

Chandrika never tried to get back to the economic policies of the SLFP, she was happy with the neo liberal policies of JRJ. Under the pretext of giving a human face, she embraced them gladly. However, what is most disappointing and damaging was that Mahinda Rajapakse who followed her als o continued with the same policies when he had the opportunity to change them.

The result of these contradictory, harmful trends, was the loss of vision, direction and loss of ideology, resulting ultimately in the loss of confidence of the people. The SLFP became a headless body-a kawandaya. No attempt was made to recover the lost head; what was attempted was to graft the heads of liberal donkeys and heads of Marxist horses, adding insult to injury. ( In my address at the Bandaranaike Commemoration I pointed this out.)

It was left to President Sirisena to complete the task and finish off the Party. He did so by doing the very opposite of what the founder of the Party did 70 years ago, by making the SLFP an appendage of the UNP, and taking it back to the folds of the UNP. The last supper (of hoppers) at the Temple Trees was followed by the crucification of the kawandaya.

This was the fate of the SLFP; the fate that awaits it today, cannot be much different.

What is really worrying is not so much the demise of the kawandaya, but its repercussions. Ranil Wickremasinghe may have thought that it was a superb strategy on his part to embrace Sirisena. He would have thought embracing Sirisena means destroying his opponent the SLFP for good. Little did he realize that it was the embrace of death, that it would kill his party as well as himself. He had ultimately secured a dishonorable grave for his grand old party after 75 years. In spite of all these repercussions, one would say that not everything is lost. The two main parties in their death throes have thrown up two saplings; the Pohottuwa and the Telephone which would carry on their mission. It would be extremely naive to believe in such a fantasy. The Pohottuwa will wither away before it blossoms, and the telephone will be dead before it answers the call.

Ultimately, we are left with a political dessert, a wasteland with no hope and nothing in sight as visualised by the poet – “What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow out of this this stony rubbish,”. All signs are there, that we are fast approaching that stage. (On the other hand the poet may be wrong where this resplendent isle of ours is concerned… that stony rubbish can produce heroes out of clowns and comedians as well as politicians to lead us.)

However, let me not end what I have to say only with this dismal picture to the children of ‘56, who had pinned their faith on this party and now feel betrayed and let down. There is no need to lose faith. The SLFP as a party may be dead, but not the ideology that gave it birth, it’s alive. It’s that ideology that made 6,900,000 of you to vote Gotabaya to power. That ideology founded on our centuries old civilisation as old as the Chinese civilisation will die only with the death of our civilisation. That it has not suffered such an untimely death is proved beyond all doubt by the victory of Gotabaya.

In 1959, three years after ’56, I wrote an article to that prestigious- now obsolete -journal Sanskrithi; I made the observation — that you the children of ’56 are the ones who would come to power and redeem this country. As you know that has not come to pass, it has remained a dream. The blame lies with you. You, living through dark times, especially after ’77, did not realise that what is needed is an enlightened dialogue, an intellectual engagement to prepare you for such a task. As a matter of fact, there had not been such a dialogue since Independence for you to get ‘connected to it’. What was there, was the despicable politics of power-hungry politicians to which you too became a prey. You thought the answer was in the barrel of the gun which wiped out a whole generation of you -that should have been a lesson to you.

I hope this present discussion on ‘the role of the children of ‘56’ would open your eyes to the need for such an intellectual engagement and an enlightened dialogue based on the civilisational ideology and the civilisational consciousness that it has generated, which you have not lost. It is only then, and then only that you can claim to seek power.

(Based on the contribution made on zoom seminar ‘On the role of the Children of 56.)

All News Advertisement

Features

A World Order in Crisis: War, Power, and Resistance

Published

4 hours ago

2026/03/28

Thilina Walpola

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits member states from using threats or force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Violating international law, the United States and Israel attacked Iran on February 28, 2026. The ostensible reason for this unprovoked aggression was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

The United States is the first and only country to have used nuclear weapons in war, against Japan in August 1945. Some officials in Israel have threatened to use a “doomsday weapon” against Gaza. On March 14, David Sacks, billionaire venture capitalist and AI and crypto czar in the Trump administration, warned that Israel may resort to nuclear weapons as its war with Iran spirals out of control and the country faces “destruction.”

Although for decades Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, opposed nuclear weapons on religious grounds, in the face of current existential threats it is likely that Iran will pursue their development. On March 22, the head of the WHO warned of possible nuclear risks after nuclear facilities in both Iran and Israel were attacked. Indeed, will the current war in the Middle East continue for months or years, or end sooner with the possible use of a nuclear weapon by Israel or the United States?

Widening Destruction

Apart from the threat of nuclear conflagration—and what many analysts consider an impending ground invasion by American troops—extensive attacks using bombs, missiles, and drones are continuing apace, causing massive loss of life and destruction of resources and infrastructure. US–Israel airstrikes have killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and top Iranian officials. Countless civilians have died, including some 150 girls in a primary school in Minab, in what UNESCO has called a “grave violation of humanitarian law.” Moreover, the targeting of desalination plants by both sides could severely disrupt water supplies across desert regions.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks on United States military bases in Persian Gulf countries have disrupted global air travel. Even more significantly, Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz—the critical maritime energy chokepoint through which 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas pass daily—has blocked the flow of energy supplies and goods, posing a severe threat to the fossil fuel–driven global economy. A global economic crisis is emerging, with soaring oil prices, power shortages, inflation, loss of livelihoods, and deep uncertainty over food security and survival.

The inconsistent application of international law, along with structural limitations of the United Nations, erodes trust in global governance and the moral authority of Western powers and multilateral institutions. Resolution 2817 (2026), adopted by the UN Security Council on March 12, condemns Iran’s “egregious attacks” against its neighbours without any condemnation of US–Israeli actions—an imbalance that underscores this concern.

The current crisis is exposing fault lines in the neo-colonial political, economic, and moral order that has been in place since the Second World War. Iran’s defiance poses a significant challenge to longstanding patterns of intervention and regime-change agendas pursued by the United States and its allies in the Global South. The difficulty the United States faces in rallying NATO and other allies also reflects a notable geopolitical shift. Meanwhile, the expansion of yuan-based oil trade and alternative financial settlement mechanisms is weakening the petrodollar system and dollar dominance. Opposition within the United States—including from segments of conservatives and Republicans—signals growing skepticism about the ideological and moral basis of a US war against Iran seemingly driven by Israel.

A New World Order?

The unipolar world dominated by the United States—rooted in inequality, coercion, and militarism—is destabilising, fragmenting, and generating widespread chaos and suffering. Challenges to this order, including from Iran, point toward a fragmented multipolar world in which multiple actors possess agency and leverage.

The BRICS bloc—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, along with Iran, the UAE, and other members—represents efforts to create alternative economic and financial systems, including development banks and reserve currencies that challenge Western financial dominance.

However, is BRICS leading the world toward a much-needed order, based on equity, partnership, and peace? The behaviour of BRICS countries during the current crisis does not indicate strong collective leadership or commitment to such principles. Instead, many appear to be leveraging the situation for national advantage, particularly regarding access to energy supplies.

A clear example of this opportunism is India, the current head of the BRICS bloc. Historically a leader of non-alignment and a supporter of the Palestinian cause, India now presents itself as a neutral party upholding international law and state sovereignty. However, it co-sponsored and supported UN Security Council Resolution 2817 (2026), which condemns only Iran.

India is also part of the USA–Israel–India–UAE strategic nexus involving defence cooperation, technology sharing, and counterterrorism. Additionally, it participates in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) with the United States, Japan, and Australia, aimed at countering China’s growing influence. In effect, despite its leadership role in BRICS, India is closely aligned with the United States, raising questions about its ability to offer independent leadership in shaping a new world order.

As a group, BRICS does not fundamentally challenge corporate hegemony, the concentration of wealth among a global elite, or entrenched technological and military dominance. While it rejects aspects of Western geopolitical hierarchy, it largely upholds neoliberal economic principles: competition, free trade, privatisation, open markets, export-led growth, globalisation, and rapid technological expansion.

The current Middle East crisis underscores the need to question the assumption that globalisation, market expansion, and technological growth are the foundations of human well-being. The oil and food crises, declining remittances from Asian workers in the Middle East, and reduced tourism due to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and regional airspace all highlight the fragility of global interdependence.

These conditions call for consideration of alternative frameworks—bioregionalism, import substitution, local control of resources, food and energy self-sufficiency, and renewable energy—in place of dependence on imported fossil fuels and global supply chains.

Both the Western economic model and its BRICS variant continue to prioritise techno-capitalist expansion and militarism, despite overwhelming evidence linking these systems to environmental destruction and social inequality. While it is difficult for individual countries to challenge this dominant model, history offers lessons in collective resistance.

Collective Resistance

One of the earliest examples of nationalist economic resistance in the post-World War II period was the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the creation of the National Iranian Oil Company in 1951 under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was overthrown on August 19, 1953, in a coup orchestrated by the US CIA and British intelligence (MI6), and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed to protect Western oil interests.

A milestone for decolonisation occurred in Egypt in 1956, when President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company. Despite military intervention by Israel, the United Kingdom, and France, Nasser retained control, emerging as a symbol of Arab and Third World nationalism.

Following political independence, many former colonies sought to avoid entanglement in the Cold War through the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), officially founded in Belgrade in 1961. Leaders including Josip Broz Tito, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah, Sukarno, and Sirimavo Bandaranaike promoted autonomous development paths aligned with national priorities and cultural traditions.

However, maintaining economic sovereignty proved far more difficult. Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was assassinated in 1961 with the involvement of US and Belgian interests after attempting to assert control over national resources. Kwame Nkrumah was similarly overthrown in a US-backed coup in 1966.

In Tanzania, Julius Nyerere’s Ujamaa (“African socialism”) sought to build community-based development and food security, but faced both internal challenges and external opposition, ultimately limiting its success and discouraging similar efforts elsewhere.

UN declarations from the 1970s reflect Global South resistance to the Bretton Woods system. Notably, the 1974 Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (Resolution 3201) called for equitable cooperation between developed and developing countries based on dignity and sovereign equality.

Today, these declarations are more relevant than ever, as Iran and other Global South nations confront overlapping crises of economic instability, neocolonial pressures, and intensifying geopolitical rivalry. Courtesy: Inter Press Service

by Dr. Asoka Bandarage

Features

Neutrality in the context of geopolitical rivalries

Published

1 day ago

2026/03/27

Thilina Walpola

President Dissanayake in Parliament

The long standing foreign policy of Sri Lanka was Non-Alignment. However, in the context of emerging geopolitical rivalries, there was a need to question the adequacy of Non-Alignment as a policy to meet developing challenges. Neutrality as being a more effective Policy was first presented in an article titled “Independence: its meaning and a direction for the future” (The Island, February 14, 2019). The switch over from Non-Alignment to Neutrality was first adopted by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and followed through by successive Governments. However, it was the current Government that did not miss an opportunity to announce that its Foreign Policy was Neutral.

The policy of Neutrality has served the interests of Sri Lanka by the principled stand taken in respect of the requests made by two belligerents associated with the Middle East War. The justification for the position adopted was conveyed by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to Parliament that Iran had made a formal request on February 26 for three Iranian naval ships to visit Sri Lanka, and on the same evening, the United States also requested permission for two war planes to land at Mattala International Airport. Both requests were denied on grounds of maintaining “our policy of neutrality”.

WHY NEUTRALITY

Excerpts from the article cited above that recommended Neutrality as the best option for Sri Lanka considering the vulnerability to its security presented by its geographic location in the context of emerging rivalries arising from “Pivot to Asia” are presented below:

“Traditional thinking as to how small States could cope with external pressures are supposed to be: (1) Non-alignment with any of the major centers of power; (2) Alignment with one of the major powers thus making a choice and facing the consequences of which power block prevails; (3) Bandwagoning which involves unequal exchange where the small State makes asymmetric concessions to the dominant power and accepts a subordinate role of a vassal State; (4) Hedging, which attempts to secure economic and security benefits of engagement with each power center: (5) Balancing pressures individually, or by forming alliances with other small States; (6) Neutrality”.

Of the six strategies cited above, the only strategy that permits a sovereign independent nation to charter its own destiny is neutrality, as it is with Switzerland and some Nordic countries. The independence to self-determine the destiny of a nation requires security in respect of Inviolability of Territory, Food Security, Energy Security etc. Of these, the most critical of securities is the Inviolability of Territory. Consequently, Neutrality has more relevance to protect Territorial Security because it is based on International Law, as opposed to Non-Alignment which is based on principles applicable to specific countries that pledged to abide by them

“The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977” (ICRC Publication on Neutrality, 2022).

As part of its Duties a Neutral State “must ensure respect for its neutrality, if necessary, using force to repel any violation of its territory. Violations include failure to respect the prohibitions placed on belligerent parties with regard to certain activities in neutral territory, described above. The fact that a neutral State uses force to repel attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act. If the neutral State defends its neutrality, it must however respect the limits which international law imposes on the use of force. The neutral State must treat the opposing belligerent States impartially. However, impartiality does not mean that a State is bound to treat the belligerents in exactly the same way. It entails a prohibition on discrimination” (Ibid).

“It forbids only differential treatment of the belligerents which in view of the specific problem of armed conflict is not justified. Therefore, a neutral State is not obliged to eliminate differences in commercial relations between itself and each of the parties to the conflict at the time of the outbreak of the armed conflict. It is entitled to continue existing commercial relations. A change in these commercial relationships could, however, constitute taking sides inconsistent with the status of neutrality” (Ibid).

THE POTENTIAL of NEUTRALITY

It is apparent from the foregoing that Neutrality as a Policy is not “Passive” as some misguided claim Neutrality to be. On the other hand, it could be dynamic to the extent a country chooses to be as demonstrated by the actions taken recently to address the challenges presented during the ongoing Middle East War. Furthermore, Neutrality does not prevent Sri Lanka from engaging in Commercial activities with other States to ensuring Food and Energy security.

If such arrangements are undertaken on the basis of unsolicited offers as it was, for instance, with Japan’s Light Rail Project or Sinopec’s 200,000 Barrels a Day Refinery, principles of Neutrality would be violated because it violates the cardinal principle of Neutrality, namely, impartiality. The proposal to set up an Energy Complex in Trincomalee with India and UAE would be no different because it restricts the opportunity to one defined Party, thus defying impartiality. On the other hand, if Sri Lanka defines the scope of the Project and calls for Expressions of Interest and impartially chooses the most favourable with transparency, principles of Neutrality would be intact. More importantly, such conduct would attract the confidence of Investors to engage in ventures impartial in a principled manner. Such an approach would amount to continue the momentum of the professional approach adopted to meet the challenges of the Middle East War.

CONCLUSION

The manner in which Sri Lanka acted, first to deny access to the territory of Sri Lanka followed up by the humanitarian measures adopted to save the survivors of the torpedoed ship, earned honour and respect for the principled approach adopted to protect territorial inviolability based on International provisions of Neutrality.

If Sri Lanka continues with the momentum gained and adopts impartial and principled measures recommended above to develop the country and the wellbeing of its Peoples, based on self-reliance, this Government would be giving Sri Lanka a new direction and a fresh meaning to Neutrality that is not passive but dynamic.

by Neville Ladduwahetty

Features

Lest we forget

Published

1 day ago

2026/03/27

Thilina Walpola

Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh

The interference into affairs of other nations by the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) started in 1953, six years after it was established. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company supplied Britain with most of its oil during World War I. In fact, Winston Churchill once declared: “Fortune brought us a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams.”

When in 1951 Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was reluctantly appointed as Prime Minister by the Shah of Iran, whose role was mostly ceremonial, he convinced Parliament that the oil company should be nationalised.

Mohammed Mosaddegh

Mosaddegh said: “Our long years of negotiations with foreign companies have yielded no result thus far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease and backwardness of our people.”

It was then that British Intelligence requested help from the CIA to bring down the Iranian regime by infiltrating their communist mobs and the army, thus creating disorder. An Iranian oil embargo by the western countries was imposed, making Iranians poorer by the day. Meanwhile, the CIA’s strings were being pulled by Kermit Roosevelt (a grandson of former President Theodore Roosevelt), according to declassified intelligence information.

Although a first coup failed, the second attempt was successful. General Fazlollah Zahedi, an Army officer, took over as Prime Minister. Mosaddegh was tried and imprisoned for three years and kept under house arrest until his death. Playing an important role in the 1953 coup was a Shia cleric named Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Mostafavi-Kashani. He was previously loyal to Mosaddegh, but later supported the coup. One of his successors was Ayatollah Ruhollah Mostafavi Musavi Khomeini, who engineered the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Meanwhile, in 1954 the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company had been rebranded as British Petroleum (BP).

Map of the Middle East

When the Iran-Iraq war broke out (September 1980 to August 1988), the Persian/Arabian Gulf became a hive of activity for American warships, which were there to ensure security of the Gulf and supertankers passing through it.

CIA-instigated coup in Iran in 1953 Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh

The Strait of Hormuz, the only way in and out of the Gulf, is administered by Oman and Iran. While there may have been British and French warships in the region, radio ‘chatter’ heard by aircraft pilots overhead was always from the US ships. In those days, flying in and out of the Gulf was a nerve-wracking experience for airline pilots, as one may suddenly hear a radio call on the common frequency: “Aircraft approaching US warship [name], identify yourself.” One thing in the pilots’ favour was that they didn’t know what ships they were flying over, so they obeyed only the designated air traffic controller. Sometimes though, with unnecessarily distracting American chatter, there was complete chaos, resulting in mistaken identities.

Air Lanka Tri Star

Once, Air Lanka pilots monitored an aircraft approaching Bahrain being given a heading to turn on to by a ship’s radio operator. Promptly the air traffic controller, who was on the same frequency, butted in and said: “Disregard! Ship USS Navy [name], do you realise what you have just done? You have turned him on to another aircraft!” It was obvious that there was a struggle to maintain air traffic control in the Gulf, with operators having to contend with American arrogance.

On the night of May 17, 1987, USS Stark was cruising in Gulf waters when it was attacked by a Dassault Mirage F1 jet fighter/attack aircraft of the Iraqi Air Force. Without identifying itself, the aircraft fired two Exocet missiles, one of which exploded, killing 37 sailors on board the American frigate. Iraq apologised, saying it was a mistake. The USA graciously accepted the apology.

Then on July 3, 1988 the high-tech, billion-dollar guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, equipped with advanced Aegis weapons systems and commanded by Capt. Will Rogers III, was chasing two small Iranian gun boats back to their own waters when an aircraft was observed on radar approaching the US warship. It was misidentified as a Mirage F1 fighter, so the Americans, in Iranian territorial waters, fired two surface-to-air Missiles (SAMs) at the target, which was summarily destroyed.

The Vincennes had issued numerous warnings to the approaching aircraft on the military distress frequency. But the aircraft never heard them as it was listening out on a different (civil) radio frequency. The airplane broke in three. It was soon discovered, however, that the airplane was in fact an Iran Air Airbus A300 airliner with 290 civilian passengers on board, en route from Bandar Abbas to Dubai. Unfortunately, because it was a clear day, the Iranian-born, US-educated captain of Iran Air Flight 655 had switched off the weather radar. If it was on, perhaps it would have confirmed to the American ship that the ‘incoming’ was in fact a civil aircraft. At the time, Capt. Will Rogers’ surface commander, Capt. McKenna, went on record saying that USS Vincennes was “looking for action”, and that is why they “got into trouble”.

Although USS Vincennes was given a grand homecoming upon returning to the USA, and its Captain Will Rogers III decorated with the Legion of Merrit, in February 1996 the American government agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement of a case lodged by the Iranians in the International Court of Justice against the USA for its role in that incident. However, no apology was tendered to the families of the innocent victims.

These two incidents forced Air Lanka pilots, who operated regularly in those perilous skies, to adopt extra precautionary measures. For example, they never switched off the weather radar system, even in clear skies. While there were potentially hostile ships on ground, layers of altitude were blocked off for the exclusive use of US Air Force AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) aircraft flying in Bahraini and southern Saudi Arabian airspace. The precautions were even more important because Air Lanka’s westbound, ‘heavy’ Lockheed TriStars were poor climbers above 29,000 ft. When departing Oman or the UAE in high ambient temperatures, it was a struggle to reach cruising level by the time the airplane was overhead Bahrain, as per the requirement.

In the aftermath of the Iran Air 655 incident, Newsweek magazine called it a case of ‘mistaken identity’. Yet, when summing up the tragic incident that occurred on September 1, 1983, when Korean Air Flight KE/KAL 007 was shot down by a Russian fighter jet, close to Sakhalin Island in the Pacific Ocean during a flight from New York to Seoul, the same magazine labelled it ‘murder in the air’.

After the Iranian coup, which was not coincidentally during the time of the ‘Cold War’, the CIA involved itself in the internal affairs of numerous countries and regions around the world: Guatemala (1953-1990s); Costa Rica (1955, 1970-1971); Middle East (1956-1958); Haiti (1959); Western Europe (1950s to 1960s); British Guiana/Guyana (1953-1964); Iraq (1958-1963); Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia (1955-1973); Laos, Thailand, Ecuador (1960-1963); The Congo (1960-1965, 1977-1978); French Algeria (1960s); Brazil (1961-1964); Peru (1965); Dominican Republic (1963-1965); Cuba (1959 to present); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Uruguay (1969-1972); Chile (1964-1973); Greece (1967-1974); South Africa (1960s to 1980s); Bolivia (1964-1975); Australia (1972-1975); Iraq (1972-1975); Portugal (1974-1976); East Timor (1975-1999); Angola (1975-1980); Jamaica (1976); Honduras (1980s); Nicaragua (1979-1990); Philippines (1970s to 1990s); Seychelles (1979-1981); Diego Garcia (late 1960s to present); South Yemen (1979-1984); South Korea (1980); Chad (1981-1982); Grenada (1979-1983); Suriname (1982-1984); Libya (1981-1989); Fiji (1987); Panama (1989); Afghanistan (1979-1992); El Salvador (1980-1992); Haiti (1987-1994, 2004); Bulgaria (1990-1991); Albania (1991-1992); Somalia (1993); Iraq (1991-2003; 2003 to present), Colombia (1990s to present); Yugoslavia (1995-1995, and to 1999); Ecuador (2000); Afghanistan (2001 to present); Venezuela (2001-2004; and 2025).

If one searches the internet for information on American involvement in foreign countries during the periods listed above, it will be seen how ‘black’ funds were/are used by the CIA to destabilise those governments for the benefit of a few with vested interests, while poor citizens must live in the chaos and uncertainty thus created.

A popular saying goes: “Each man has his price”. Sad, isn’t it? Arguably the world’s only superpower that professes to be a ‘paragon of virtue’ often goes ‘rogue’.

God Bless America – and no one else!

BY GUWAN SEEYA