Midweek Review

Colombo Port City: Who can be entrusted with safeguarding Sri Lanka’s interests?

Published

5 years ago

2021/04/28

By Shamindra Ferdinando

SLPP National List lawmaker Gevindu Cumaratunga, on Sunday (25) raised three issues in respect of the controversial Bill, titled ‘Colombo Port City Economic Commission’, that had been challenged in the Supreme Court.

Addressing the media at the Sri Sambuddhajayanthi Mandiraya, lawmaker Cumaratunga expressed concerns over (I) the composition of the proposed Economic Commission (EC) with the focus on the President being the sole authority in deciding its members, (ii) authority over the newly reclaimed land, adjacent to the Galle Face Green, and finally (iii) automatic approval granted to those making applications for projects through the EC.

Cumaratunga called the briefing in the wake of Friday’s (23) conclusion of hearing of petitions filed by those opposed to the project on the basis the Bill, as whole, is inconsistent with many provisions of the Constitution. There were also several intervenient petitions defending the Bill. These petitions were heard before a five-judge-bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, Justice Murdhu Fernando, and Justice Janak de Silva.

Cumaratunga, in addition to being an SLPP lawmaker, also expressed views on the Bill in his capacity as the Chairman of the nationalist civil society pressure group Yuthukama. Yuthukama is represented in the current Parliament by two lawmakers – Cumaratunga and Anupa Pium Pasqual who entered Parliament from the Kalutara district.

At the commencement of the briefing, the MP appealed to the media to ensure priority to the Port City issue though they could raise any other matter pertaining to simmering controversy over the Easter Sunday carnage, the Covid-19 rampage, and the developments since the Presidential Political Victimisation Commission handed over its report to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa on Dec 8, 2020.

Having compared the proposed Bill, with two concept papers submitted during the previous UNP-led administration, and the current, on Sept 09, 2019 and June 16, 2020, respectively, lawmaker Cumaratunga questioned the failure on the part of those who prepared the Bill, at issue, to take into consideration the salient points therein.

The arch nationalist emphasized the responsibility on the part of the SLPP government to take remedial measures on its own, in respect of the Bill, regardless of the position taken by the Supreme Court. With the country crossroads, in the wake of implementation of the mega project, the government couldn’t, under any circumstances, shirk its responsibility to introduce the required changes, he argued.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to convey its ruling to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.

Out of the 145-member SLPP parliamentary group, lawmaker Cumaratunga is the second to express concerns over the Bill. Having fired a broadside at the Bill, Colombo District SLPP lawmaker Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, represented Ven. Muruththettuwe Ananda Nayaka Thera, Chief Incumbent of the Sri Abhayarama Purana Viharaya and President of the Public Service United Nurses’ Union, Sri Abhayarama, Narahenpita, and Nagashenage Dasun Yasas Sri Nagashena, of 90/12, Gramasanwardana Road, Polwatta, Pannipitiya.

Former President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Dr. Rajapakse’s written submissions in respect of the case filed against the Secretary General of Parliament, Dhammika Disanayake, and Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, depicted a far more serious picture than lawmaker Cumaratunga’s criticism.

Having found fault with the incumbent administration for placing the responsibility of naming the EC on the President, MP Cumaratunga stressed that the appointing process should be subjected to parliamentary supervision. The lawmaker pointed out the concept papers presented by the previous government and the present, under the leadership of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, underscored the need for the EC to consist of Sri Lankans. Referring to the concept paper presented on June 16, 2020, Cumaratunga said that it proposed the appointment of 10 members, including the Chairman of the EC. The Yuthukama Chief asserted that the issue at hand could be resolved by ensuring the majority of appointments to the EC, depending on the number, be placed under parliamentary supervision whereas the President/the minister in charge of the Port City, too, could make appointments. However, all should be Sri Lankans whereas required foreign experts could be hired for suitable positions, including that of the Director General.

MP Cumaratunga questioned the rationale in giving the sole authority, as regards appointments, to the President, or the minister in charge, in case the government brought the Port City under a particular Ministry.

Cumaratunga pointed out that the Office of the President shouldn’t be the sole decision-making authority, as elections were held every five years. Referring to statements as regards the Greater Colombo Economic Commission (GCEC) law, introduced by late President J.R. Jayewardene, in 1978, lawmaker Cumaratunga said that over the years there were many amendments to the Constitution. The government member expressed the view that the Bill, at issue, couldn’t be discussed taking into consideration JRJ’s law. The Constitution, the lawmaker emphasized, had undergone far reaching changes with the enactment of the 17th (Oct. 2, 2001) 18th (Sept. 10, 2010) 19th (April 28, 2015) and 20th Amendments (Oct 22, 2020) Amendments. Therefore, the incumbent government couldn’t go back on those Amendments, the MP said, pointing out that the two concept papers submitted in terms of the 19th and 20th Amendments envisaged the EC being subjected to the supervision of the Constitutional Council and the Parliamentary Council, respectively.

The 20th Amendment did away with the 10-member CC thereby passing the responsibility to the five-member Parliamentary Council. MP Cumaratunga explained that in terms of those concept papers mentioned, the officials who should be appointed to the EC. They included Governor, Central Bank, Secretary to the Treasury et al.

Parliament shirks its responsibilities

Before discussing concerns in respect of the Bill, at issue, raised by nearly 20 petitioners, including lawmaker Rajapakse, it would be pertinent to take up the failure on the part of those responsible to ensure financial stability. The country is experiencing severe difficulties for want of financial discipline, at every level, with the Parliament yet to take tangible remedial measures. The revelations made by House parliamentary watchdog committees, the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA), as well as the Public Finance Committee (PFC), since the last general election, painted a bleak picture. The situation is so bad, a guarantee that the EC would comprise only Sri Lankan nationals holding responsible positions does not promise a clean administration. It would be pertinent to mention that Sri Lankans, being at the helm of the EC wouldn’t necessarily guarantee safety, security, political stability and uppermost the country’s interest without oversight.

JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s hard hitting speech in Parliament, last Friday (23), painted a grim picture of the national economy. The JVPer didn’t mince his words when he named those allegedly responsible for massive waste, corruption and irregularities during successive governments.

Dissanayake pointed out how wrongdoers continued to enjoy political power, regardless of their public exposure. Lawmaker Dissanayake’s fiery speech highlighted Sri Lanka’s overall failure to tackle corruption, now, possibly, even threatening the very survival of the country. The JVP leader cited the Treasury bond scams, perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016, as well as the massive sugar tax scam executed by the present lot. Reference was also made to the payment of a staggering USD 6.5 mn in 2014 to US national Imaad Shah Zuberi, 50, of Indian and Pakistani origins, to lobby the US Government to save Sri Lanka from human rights scrutiny by Washington. The then Rajapaksa government wired a total of USD 6.5 mn to a venture capitalist and political fundraiser who was sentenced recently to 12 years in a federal prison in the US on charges of embezzlement.

According to the US Department of Justice, Sri Lanka hired Zuberi of Arcadia, California, in 2014, to improve the country’s image in the United States, in the wake of investigations undertaken by the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council. Of course, in this instance the then government would have turned to a questionable lobbyist out of sheer desperation, like a drowning man clutching at a straw, as the powerful West piqued by the ignominious defeat of the LTTE at the hands of our security forces, which they had always claimed were incapable of defeating it, was and still is out to punish us for defying their mantra.

Zuberi had promised to make substantial expenditures on lobbying efforts, legal expenses, and media buys, which prompted Sri Lanka to agree to pay Zuberi a total of USD 8.5 million over the course of six months, in 2014. But actual payments amounted to USD 6.5 mn.

Examination of recent statements, issued by the Communication Department of the Parliament, pertaining to proceedings at the COPE, COPA and PFC, chaired by Prof. Charitha Ratwatte, Prof. Tissa Vitharana and Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, respectively, revealed the absence of proper scrutiny at any level in all sectors. Let me briefly discuss the shocking disclosure of the happenings at the Football Federation of Sri Lanka at the recently concluded COPE proceedings. The watchdog committee questioned a range of irregularities during the tenure of Attorney-at-Law Manilal Fernando as its President. And, finally, he was forced to quit because of those controversial dealings. The COPE queried how a sum of Euro 40,400 (approximately Rs 6 mn) received from the Italian Football Players’ Association to construct a football ground in his home town, Kalutara, ended up in Fernando’s private account. Prof. Herath’s committee also questioned the misappropriation of a sum of USD 60,000 (nearly Rs 6 million) provided by the Asian Football Federation to conduct competitions, a sum of Rs.10 mn given by a private company to construct 20 houses for tsunami victims and a sum of USD 200,000 donated by the Asian Football Federation.

It also transpired, during the COPE proceedings, that the current President of the Federation, Anura de Silva, has submitted an affidavit to the court claiming that financial irregularities hadn’t taken place in spite of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) moving the courts. The committee pointed out the seriousness in submitting such an affidavit.

In addition, it is reported that Anura de Silva now wants to quit from the post of President of the Sri Lanka Football Federation to make way for Manilal’s son to climb to that post!

Prof. Herath directed both Manilal Fernando and Anura de Silva to appear before COPE on May 06. COPE also dealt with controversial circumstances under which elections to the Football Federation of Sri Lanka was conducted with the Chairman of the Elections Committee as well as two other members given Rs 750,000 and Rs 600,000 each, respectively. The crisis at the Football Federation of Sri Lanka should be examined against the backdrop of the disgraceful conduct of the Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) administrations.

Over the past couple of decades, under the watch of successive governments, the financial discipline has deteriorated to such an extent that the national economy is in deepening turmoil. Therefore, the Port City undertaking is a vast challenge that requires the highest consideration and, under any circumstances, the public shouldn’t be duped by the promise that Sri Lankan nationals, holding responsible positions at the helm of the EC, would ensure the best interests of the country.

Wijeyadasa isolated

Contrary to lawmaker Wijeyadasa Rajapakse’s high profile stand as regards the Port City project, the SLPP constituents endorsed it. The National Freedom Front (NFF) parliamentary group threw its weight behind the Port City project. Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU), too, defended the project while those appointed on the SLPP National List, except Yuthukama leader Cumaratunga, refrained from causing any friction. However, Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, who had represented both the SLFP and the UNP cabinets since his entry into parliamentary politics, pursued his agenda.

Let me verbatim the section headlined ‘Threat to the National Security’ in Dr. Rajapakse’s written submissions to the SC: “The zone has been exempted from the Customs Ordinance. The Customs is debarred from exercising its powers within the Zone and the people in the Zone. There may be importation of prohibited substances, such as drugs, weapons, etc. The South jetty of the Colombo Port is situated, adjoining the said Zone, and it is controlled by the company belonging to the Chinese government.

As the proposed Commission is formed, in the event of any violation or disregard of International Charters and Treaties including, UN Charter, UN Charter for Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity within the said zone, the Sri Lankan State is responsible, not the purported commission.

There is a turmoil situation prevailing in the region, as well as in the World, due to the power struggle between China on one side and India, the USA, Europe, Japan on the other side. This kind of unprecedented facilitation to China would undoubtedly expose the whole country and the whole nation to danger. When presenting Bills of this nature, it is necessary to take geo-political factors into consideration.

In the course of argument, it was submitted that the government of Sri Lanka could not be able either to resist and control the import of any prohibited substance, including weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, atomic, multi-barrel, etc., as the operation of the Customs Ordinance is excluded. On 21st April, a ship loaded with Uranium, meant to be used for nuclear, which belongs to China, docked at the Hambantota Port by misleading the Authorities. The Government was able to direct it to leave the Port because that power of the government was preserved in the Agreement. But the present Bill does not contain any such safeguard.

One must not forget that the Colombo South Jetty is adjoining the zone. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the Chinese government will not resort to such devastation, compelling the other super powers to destroy the economy of the country and to expose national security to danger.

The total consideration of the Bill, as a whole is inconsistent to the rudimental principles of our Constitution and it shall be ruled out ab initio.”

Former Ports and Shipping Minister Arjuna Ranatunga, in a recent interview with the writer over the phone, pointed out how Sri Lanka lost the strategic Hambantota port, to China, in 2017, and was now about to suffer a similar fate as regards the Port City project. Ranatunga recalled how the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration went ahead with the Hambantota project in spite of him giving up the Ports and Shipping portfolio. The country would one day pay a very heavy price for irresponsible actions of politicians and officials, the outspoken defeated UNP candidate, at the 2020 August general election, told the writer.

All News Advertisement

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