Midweek Review

Formation of TNA, post-war politics and Sumanthiran’s role

Published

2 years ago

2024/05/29

MP Dhamalinham Siddharathan with President Wickremesinghe at the Nelum Piyasa Hall, Iranimadu, where land deeds were granted to the people (pic courtesy PMD)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Jaffna district parliamentarian Mathiaparanan Abraham Sumanthiran’s recent declaration supportive of the militarily defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) particularly captured the public attention.

Then soon after, MP Sumanthiran surprised all by appearing on stage with President Ranil Wickremesinghe, in Jaffna, where the UNP leader bestowed land deeds on a selected group of people.

With them on stage were EPDP leader Douglas Devananda, MP, and Dharmalingam Siddharthan, MP, of PLOTE/TNA whose father, Visvanather Dharmalingam, MP (Jaffna District) was assassinated by TELO at the behest of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Sept 1985. (Siddharthan himself told the writer that his father and colleague Jaffna District MP Arumugam Murugesu Alalasundaram were abducted and killed in a Mafia-style TELO operation). Will deal with Sumanthiran’s Jaffna move later.

Issuing a statement ahead of Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day that was marked on May 18 around the world, Sumanthiran, PC, now in his third term as a lawmaker, said: “Although it is my personal belief that a just political liberation cannot be achieved at the point of a gun, I have repeatedly stated that we cannot today decry or judge the decision taken by the Tamil youth who saw no other option at a time when oppression and military….”

The Illankai Arasu Katchi (ITAK) MP went on to say: “I have also consistently emphasized that the commitment and sacrifices unselfishly made by those who took up arms on our behalf should be regarded very highly.”

Sumanthiran tweeted hours before he paid respects to those who perished in fighting and the civilians at the Mullivaikkal commemoration site. However, Sumanthiran attended another commemoration also on the same day organized at the Viharamahadevi Park by several groups, including the Global Tamil Forum (GTF), to remember “all victims of war over 30 years in the North and South.”

Some found fault with MP Sumanthiran for attending the Colombo event where organizers quite rightly refrained from making reference to any particular group or community. There hadn’t been a similar remembrance event in Colombo since the end of the war 15 years ago. The same group organized an inter-religious prayer event at the Vavuniya Town Hall grounds, also on the same day.

The GTF should be commended for taking a courageous stand in spite of criticism by those who still seek advantage of the LTTE’s crushing defeat.

Perhaps, the GTF-led group should have made reference to Sri Lankans killed overseas due to terrorism, Indian military deaths here (July 1987-March 1990) and former Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in May 1991 while campaigning during a general election by a brainwashed LTTE teenage suicide cadre.

The Tamil community shouldn’t confine the war dead commemoration to those who died during the last phase of the fighting with the focus on Mullivaikkal. Commemorations whether in the North, East or Colombo should be devoid of any petty racial connotation, for all were human beings. Such events shouldn’t be allowed to cause further divisions among the communities, under any circumstances. Those who make unnecessary interventions with a view to attracting media attention should be appropriately dealt with by law enforcement authorities.

We also like to ask self-proclaimed international do-gooders why they don’t show even an iota of interest in the unimaginable suffering undergoing by Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis, while they make a song and dance about imaginary genocide they claim to have happened here during the last phase of fighting.

The ITAK is the main constituent of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that had been formed in late Oct 2001 in line with the community’s overall politico-military strategy to achieve Eelam. Against the backdrop of the worst-ever battlefield defeat that had been inflicted on the Army in April 2000, Eelam seemed achievable. Having defeated the 54 Division, deployed at the Elephant Pass sector then widely believed to be impregnable, thereafter the LTTE almost succeeded in overwhelming the Army in the rest of the peninsula.

Muslims’ dilemma

The Sinhalese and Tamils should also publicly repent the suffering experienced by the Muslim community. That community suffered untold hardships for being steadfastly taking a stand against separatism. Had they thrown their weight behind the LTTE, the country could have been overwhelmed and the 2009 absolute victory over the LTTE couldn’t have been achieved. So, do not hesitate to recognize the Muslims’ commitment as a whole to Sri Lanka’s unitary status. They paid a very heavy price for being always supportive of the government stand for a united Sri Lanka, whoever was in power.

The 2019 Easter Sunday massacre, carried out by a group of extremist misguided Muslims, shouldn’t in any way be used against the community. Officers and men of the Muslim and Tamil communities served in the armed forces and police with distinction and made quite a contribution to the overall success of the war.

Just five months after the LTTE resumed war in June 1990 in the wake of the IPKF withdrawal from the temporarily-merged North and East Provinces, the LTTE ordered the Muslims out of the Northern region, comprising Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mannar, Mullaithivu and Vavuniya giving them a matter of hours to leave. The then President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s government couldn’t do anything about it. The international community turned a blind eye. Tamil politicians remained silent. No one dared to challenge the LTTE’s inhumane and drastic move.

Twenty-one years later a deranged Norwegian Andres Breivik massacred 77 persons, mostly children in two attacks the attacker claimed was influenced by the LTTE’s eviction of the Muslim community from Northern Sri Lanka.

Did the late LTTE theoretician and ideologue Anton Balasingham approve of Velupillai Prabhakaran’s plan to force Muslims out of the Northern Province? Balasingham, the one-time British High Commission employee in Colombo, passed away in the UK, in Dec 2006, of kidney failure, a couple of months before the LTTE lost control of the Eastern Province.

Far right Breivik, then 32, a few hours before he went on the rampage on July 22, 2011, made reference to the LTTE’s eviction of the Muslim community from the Northern Province, in his so-called manifesto posted online. The following are the references (1) Pro-Sri Lanka (supports the deportation of all Muslims from Sri Lanka) (Page 1235) and (2) Fourth Generation War is normally characterized by a ‘stateless’ entity fighting a state or regime (the EUSSR). Fighting can be physical such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to use a modern example. (Page 1479).

Perhaps, Sri Lanka should have asked those who had been demanding international inquiry to include the Norwegian massacre in their agenda. One of Sri Lanka’s foremost diplomats, the late Jayantha Dhanapala, appearing before the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in 2010, stressed on the need for accountability on the part of foreign governments. The then Mahinda Rajapaksa government, probably blinded by unfathomable victory, was not bothered. It only saw immediate political advantage out of the developments even forgetting the long term ramifications for the country.

Focus on Sumanthiran

Sumanthiran on his knees before the Mullaivaikkal monument
(pic courtesy Tamil Guardian)

Maybe MP Sumanthiran should have recognized the LTTE as the group that continued the war until the very end. The parliamentarian shouldn’t have hesitated to do so though terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstances. The LTTE, however, proved its conventional capabilities throughout the war. The casualties, and the losses the group inflicted on the Indian Army underscored its fighting capabilities.

As Sumanthiran entered Parliament at the 2010 General Election, perhaps he hadn’t been affected by the LTTE’s wartime strategies and unprecedented developments that characterized the conflict, with him comfortably settled down in Wellawatte.

The writer first met Sumanthiran at A.J.M. Muzammil’s (incumbent Governor of the Uva Province) residence at No 07, Alfred House Road, Colombo 03 in June 2011. Muzammil, who had been a UNP member of the Western Provincial Council (WPC), arranged the writer to interview former Tamil Nadu State Assembly Congress I member Hasanali Kuddus at his residence. The new entrant to the Parliament Attorney-at-Law Sumanthiran, too, was there on that occasion and the writer had an opportunity to seek his opinion on some contentious matters.

Naturally, matters raised herein included the recognition of the LTTE by the TNA as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people ahead of the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement (Feb 2002), LTTE-TNA joint boycott of 2005 presidential poll that cost UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe victory (the writer wouldn’t humiliate the defunct LTTE by repeating allegation that the Rajapaksas bribed the LTTE to order the boycott. The LTTE may have accepted money but the boycott was not certainly inspired by that) and still unbelievable was the TNA backing for the war-winning Army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 Presidential Poll. The TNA ensured a comfortable victory for Fonseka in the entire then merged North-East Province though he lost badly in the rest of the country. Mahinda Rajapaksa secured a second term by obtaining 1.8 mn votes more than Fonseka. A silly claim of computer “jilmaart” by Fonseka’s camp made his defeat even worse.

Kuddus, in an exclusive interview with The Island, strongly defended the eradication of the LTTE though concerns remained of atrocities allegedly committed by the military. Declaring that Sri Lanka couldn’t be punished on the basis of unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, Kuddus said that no country would be safe if legitimate governments were deprived of the opportunity to neutralize threats posed by terrorism. If Sri Lanka could be questioned over its right to hit back hard at the LTTE, what would be the position of the Indian military battling those who had taken up arms? (Congress I member Hasanali speaks out, The Island, June 16, 2011 edition)

At the April 2010 General Glection, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) won 14 seats. Thirteen were elected while the party secured just one of the 29 National List slots. The TNA picked Sumanthiran as its NL member. It would be pertinent to mention that the TNA was placed third in terms of the number of seats won at that election. The UPFA secured a staggering 144 seats, including 17 NL slots whereas the UNP-led United National Front obtained 60 seats. Nine NL MPs were among them.

The TNA tally drastically dropped due to the eradication of the LTTE. At the previous general election conducted in April 2004, close on the heels of the devastating split in the group, the TNA won a record 22 seats, including two NL slots. The European Union Election Observation Mission, in its report found fault with the TNA for being the beneficiary of poll violence unleashed by the Tigers to stuff ballot boxes in TNA’s favour. That was the best outcome for the TNA at a general election.

At the last General Election, the TNA tally was reduced to 10 MPs. It is a pity that Sumanthiran couldn’t gain the leadership of the ITAK at a keenly contested election in January this year. Jaffna District lawmaker Sivagnanam Sritharan secured 184 votes while M.A. Sumanthiran obtained 137 votes.

Let us get back to MP Sumanthiran’s appearance on stage in Jaffna with President Wickremesinghe last week. During his brief statement, the President’s Counsel made reference to the LTTE-TNA boycott of the 2005 Presidential Poll that caused Wickremesinghe’s defeat, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s election and the unthinkable annihilation of the LTTE. The Presidential Media Division (PMD) quoted Sumanthiran as having told the gathering: “It is possible that the challenges in the North may have impeded your journey in 2005, a fact that I believe is now regretfully acknowledged by the people of the region.”

In the wake of a minor commotion over MP Sumanthiran’s appearance on stage with Wickremesinghe, the PC tweeted that his attendance at the state functions in his electorate shouldn’t be considered as an endorsement of the UNP leader’s candidature at the forthcoming Presidential Poll. The Jaffna District MP’s tweet is irrelevant. His declaration pertaining to the 2005 Presidential Poll clearly meant his support for Wickremesinghe.

The bottom line is that if not for that strategic mistake made by the LTTE and TNA in 2005, they could have achieved military superiority in the North after the then expected UNP victory as Wickremesinghe hardly making even a whimper against the LTTE. MP Sumanthiran’s politically charged statement in Jaffna should be examined also taking into consideration two key developments-in April 2003 (LTTE quit negotiating table) and January 2010 (backed General Fonseka).

The TNA could have used the opportunity to reach a consensus with President Rajapaksa if the party at least adopted a neutral stance. Instead, the TNA joined with the UNP and the JVP to defeat President Rajapaksa, thereby causing a lot of hostility. Backing Fonseka also dealt a severe blow to the TNA’s credibility in the backdrop of war crimes accusations directed at the Army.

GR meets Sampanthan at India House

Sumanthiran cannot be unaware of an attempt made by India in 2011 to work out an arrangement between President Rajapaksa’s government and the TNA.

TNA leader R. Sampanthan has been keen to normalize relations between his party and the government. The veteran politician appeared to have felt that such an arrangement could have helped his community and sought Indian intervention. But a section of the party sabotaged that effort, thereby undermining reconciliatory moves.

Following an incident at Alaveddi that had been staged by the group opposed to Sampanthan’s bid, an angry Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa told the writer of a hitherto unreported meeting between him and Sampanthan at India House on June 08, 2011. The meeting that had taken place in the presence of the then Indian High Commissioner Ashok Kantha could have facilitated post-war reconciliation.

Pointing out that the June 16 incident at Alaveddi was meant to harm reconciliatory moves, Gotabaya Rajapaksa said that unwarranted interventions made by various interested parties, including the US, caused complications (GR alleges TNA split over Sampanthan’s reconciliation move with strapline ‘TNA pressured US State Department, several diplomatic missions to take up Alaveddi issue’ in the June 20, 2011 edition of The Island.

Recently SJB MP Mano Ganesan attacked TNA over what he called its post-war honeymoon with the government. A comprehensive post-war examination of political developments, commencing with the formation of the TNA at the behest of the LTTE, is necessary to comprehend the situation today.

The arrest of four persons in February 2017 during the Yahapalana administration, over an alleged attempt on Sumanthiran’s life, underscores the need for a wider examination of developments. The suspects held under Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) were granted bail in Oct 2022.

During that administration, the TNA played quite an important role with Sampanthan receiving the Opposition Leader’s post though his party had only 16 seats, including two NL slots whereas the breakaway UPFA faction comprised over 50 MPs. But, Yahapalana bosses decided in favour of TNA. In return, the TNA helped thwart President Maithripala Sirisena’s bid to form a new government under the premiership of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Formed in late Oct 2018, the Sirisena-Rajapaksa effort collapsed in 52 days. Sumanthiran played a significant role in the counter attack in support of ousted Wickremesinghe, who continued to insist he was the Premier regardless of the appointment made by Sirisena. Finally, the SC ruled in favour of Wickremesinghe. The rest is history. However, in the wake of 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, MP Sumanthiran said something which he shouldn’t have said under any circumstances. Addressing the first anniversary event of the political weekly ‘Annidha’ on April 29, 2019 at the BMICH, the TNA spokesman justified the heinous crime. He warned of dire consequences unless the government addressed the grievances of the minorities.

Sumanthiran is best remembered for his role in working out a tripartite agreement on a hybrid war crimes court as announced in Washington in June 2016.

Political parties need to make a genuine effort to move forward. The post-war reconciliation wouldn’t be realistic until parties represented in Parliament stopped playing politics with the war. The Tamil community should accept the LTTE had ample opportunities to reach consensus with the Sinhala leadership, particularly Ranil Wickremesinghe, who pursued a strategy even at the expense of his political life. The LTTE’s cardinal sin or serious error of judgment was the April 2003 withdrawal from the Norway-led peace effort. That was meant to create an environment conducive for full scale war that the group felt could have been brought to a successful conclusion by it. The LTTE was certainly ready for war in August 2005. If not, Prabhakaran wouldn’t have ordered Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar’s assassination. Full scale war commenced exactly a year later and what was widely believed to be an invincible force collapsed within two years and 10 months. Had the military not taken the civilian factor into consideration, the LTTE could have been wiped out much earlier. The ICRC said so as revealed by WikiLeaks.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:President Wickremesinghe Sumanthiran

Up Next

President’s agenda on track

Don't Miss

15th anniversary reflections: Sri Lanka’s diplomatic victory, Geneva, May 2009

Click to comment

Midweek Review

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

Published

4 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

4 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