Midweek Review

GR’s ouster: Another narrative

Published

3 years ago

2023/05/17

Sahan Weerasooriya

Dilith Jayaweera

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Derana Chief Dilith Jayaweera says the Port City Colombo could have given Sri Lankan economy the turbo boost it required but, unfortunately, the powers that be failed to handle it properly though the country accepted the modern concept. The mega project was in line with contemporary global economy, therefore Sri Lanka’s move received global recognition, Jayaweera said, calling it a progressive economic decision.

But Sri Lanka missed the opportunity for want of a cohesive strategy as well as destructive party politics that dealt a severe blow to the flagship Chinese project, the top entrepreneur who does not shy away from speaking the truth, he said.

Jayaweera questioned the failure on the part of Sri Lanka to properly manage the Chinese flagship project, with national interest at heart, and burying petty party divisions, for the country’s sake. China launched the project in late 2014 as the country was heading for early presidential elections.

Having sabotaged the project, the then Yahapalana administration (2015-2019) went to the extent of ridiculing even the concept, thereby undermining a mega investment that could have laid the foundation to give a turbo boost to the country’s image, as well as its economy.

Their utterly irresponsible actions caused rapid erosion of investors’ confidence in the project, Jayaweera declared, and the decision to revisit a project, launched by the previous government, caused chaos. “Calls for renegotiation of the agreement resulted in inordinate delay in the implementation and the loss of investors,” Jayaweera said, declaring that the Colombo Port City was yet to receive a significant investment, since those deliberate interruptions. The Yahapalana action tainted the project as corrupt and denied investors’ confidence, hence the difficulties in attracting funds. Let me stress: “Sri Lanka couldn’t attract large scale investments because we ruined the project.”

Jayaweera said so, in an interview with The Island, at his posh office at T. B. Jayah Mawatha, a few days ago. The controversial businessman, widely believed to be one of the close associates of ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, discussed a spate of issues, ranging from the formation of ‘Aramuna’ meant to strengthen the business environment with the focus on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), collapse of the national economy, foreign relations and interventions, as well as the hand of a jealous Rajapaksa family, in the ruination of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, elected with an overwhelming majority of 6.9 mn votes.

BR-Dilith meet

Asked about course correction, attempted by him in 2021, as the country was heading rapidly towards economic catastrophe, Jayaweera said that he discussed the issue at hand with the then Finance Minister, Basil Rajapaksa, right there. Jayaweera said: “The Minister couldn’t comprehend the crisis, regardless of my efforts. In fact, Basil Rajapaksa took things lightly, very lightly. Perhaps, the Minister simply didn’t know the situation he was dealing with and the implications, in case the Rajapaksa government failed to address the growing cash flow problem.”

So was Basil part of the grand conspiracy to topple that government by playing dumb at such a crucial juncture?

Basil Rajapaksa was sworn in as the Finance Minister, on July 08, 2021, at the Presidential Secretariat. It was soon after his second entry to Parliament, on the National List, though the circumstances were vastly different.

The Rajapaksas amended the Constitution to accommodate the US, Sri Lanka dual citizen in Parliament in spite of strong opposition from a section of the ruling party. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Wimal Weerawansa, Udaya Gammanpila and Gevindu Cumaratunga opposed the move. Their concerns were disregarded.

Asked what really had prompted Basil Rajapaksa to visit his spacious office, furnished much better than ministerial offices, Jayaweera explained how the President arranged for the meeting after he brought the impending crisis to the notice of the head of State. Jayaweera strongly maintained that those who had been around the President deliberately furnished him with utterly wrong estimates pertaining to the economic status. “There is absolutely no ambiguity regarding their despicable strategy. As a result of a spate of uninformed and hasty decisions, the country ended up bankrupt and at the mercy of the International Monetary Fund (IMF),” Jayaweera said.

Commenting on Opposition accusations that the government intended to launch a domestic debt restructuring process, having repeatedly assured the people it would not do so, Jayaweera pointed out that this was to be done at the behest of the IMF. Debt restructuring was certainly not a national requirement at the moment though the issue at hand is why Sri Lanka shouldn’t subject itself to a domestic debt restructuring if the country expected relief from bilateral and multilateral creditors.

IMF bailout package not a panacea

for all our ills

Jayaweera accepted the writer’s suggestion that a domestic debt restructuring was a fair condition laid down by the IMF to provide the USD 2.9 bn bailout package, to be made available over a period of four years. Sri Lanka received the first tranche of the package at the end of the third week of March this year.

Jayaweera stressed that the country, as a whole, should deliberate whether debt restructuring should take place at the IMF’s directive or in line with Sri Lanka’s overall response to the current economic challenges. The media and business tycoon underscored the responsibility on the part of the government, and all other stakeholders, to examine the impact of such an exercise on the economy with the focus on the money market and the banking sector. The stakeholders should be sensitive to the developments, in case a far reaching debt restructuring process was undertaken, Jayaweera said, calling for a dialogue on the contentious and possible consensus without imposing debt restructuring as a prerequisite.

Asked to compare the latest IMF bailout package and the 16 previous ones that Sri Lanka obtained from it, Jayaweera said those engaged in talks with the lending body as well as other creditors, should be extra cautious as the country was now in the worst possible situation. “On all previous occasions when we sought IMF interventions, the economy was in a much better condition. We were in a much more comfortable environment then. But we are in the worst possible situation, today.”

Jayaweera stressed the responsibility on the part of the government to be vigilant in ongoing talks with lending bodies and other creditors. The businessman quite rightly asserted that the country was in such a precarious situation and therefore it could become vulnerable to various machinations.

During the nearly 90-minute long interview, Jayaweera was not interrupted by calls on his hand phone or the intercom, though a smartly dressed woman brought a tall glass of iced tea for the writer. Sipping the delicious iced tea, with a straw, the writer asked whether President Gotabaya Rakapaksa inadvertently did something good by refusing to seek IMF intervention in 2020. Otherwise, the country would have obtained more loans to settle debt and interest and continued the farce, perhaps for another decade, and placed the economy in an even far worse situation, Jayaweera was told.

A smiling Derana Chief responded that perhaps the President’s intention was good though he was ill-informed of how to implement it. The self-made tycoon pointed out the failure on the part of the then administration have alternative arrangements, in place, to do away with the IMF assistance. The need to meet recurrent expenditure couldn’t have been ignored under any circumstances, Jayaweera said, squarely blaming the then Secretary to the President Dr. Punchi Banda Jayasundera, and Basil Rajapaksa, for the crisis. The duo had been so reckless in taking far-reaching decisions, Jayaweera said, claiming that he didn’t believe even a small vendor would have been so irresponsible. Jayaweera cited a highly controversial Cabinet decision to do away with a spate of taxes at the first meeting of the Cabinet-of-Ministers, in the last week of Nov, 2019, less than two weeks after the last presidential election. So it looks as if the die had already been cast to doom the Presidency of Gotabaya Rajapaksa from the word go.

The government never made contingency plans to recover the losses caused by that fateful decision. The Treasury is believed to have lost as much as Rs 600 billion per year due to the abolition of taxes.

Rating agencies deliver knockout blow

Jayaweera explained how international rating agencies downgraded the country due to the significant loss of income. Once rating agencies recognized a country as a badly managed economy, that economy rapidly lost opportunity to raise loans at reasonable interest rates, Jayaweera said, emphasizing that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa shouldn’t be faulted for believing that Sri Lanka could stop taking further loans. Jayaweera again stressed that Dr. PBJ and Basil Rajapaksa should accept the responsibility for their failure to manage the economy. Instead of taking remedial measures, the government challenged those rating agencies, he said.

When the writer pointed out that Basil Rajapaksa re-entered Parliament only in the first week of July 2021, Jayaweera hit back: “That was how you viewed the situation. But what really happened? Soon after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory, Basil Rajapaksa and the clan appointed Dr. PBJ as the President’s Secretary. That was done to take over the management of the economy. In spite of Basil Rajapaksa not being a lawmaker at that time, he received the appointment as somebody who managed the economy from behind the scene. And Dr. PBJ, though only the Secretary to the President, got the de-facto control of the economy.”

We don’t for a moment question the capabilities of Dr. PBJ, the former Central Banker had been seconded to the Finance Ministry, even before the time R. Paskaralingam (Pandora Papers’ fame) was the Treasury Secretary in the Premadasa regime because of his capabilities and served virtually under all regimes before and thereafter as far as we can recall. Dr. PBJ also scored big by managing the economy deftly especially during the last phase of the war as Treasury Secretary and thereafter. But the question is did he double as an “economic hitman” as alleged by some.

Jayaweera accepted the writer’s suggestion that it would be better to assert that grouping took control of the economy than blaming an individual. Jayaweera alleged that the group took advantage of the then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, who also served as the Finance Minister (Nov. 2019 to July 2021) as he was not in good health. Jayaweera explained how interested parties exploited the much deteriorated health of the former President, particularly periodic loss of memory. “I had no option but to take up this issue with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The President accepted the ugly truth.”

Jayaweera said that he sought a meeting with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to discuss the forex crisis, about 20 months ago. Having explained the looming crisis on the basis of the widening gap between government income and expenditure,

Jayaweera had got involved in an argument with President Gotabaya over the latter’s accusation that the Derana Chief misinterpreted facts as he was in dispute with Dr. PBJ. “I denied that allegation, insisting that my assessment was entirely based on official figures, also made available to the President. The President regretted the situation but scolded me. But, three or four days later, the President called me again for a meeting. I was provided with a cash flow statement. I quickly pointed out how unrealistic the income column was.”

The President’s economic team quite conveniently failed to explain the impact of rising crude oil prices at that time. That lot provided the President with unsubstantiated and unrealistic figures therefore the decisions taken on such advice caused the crisis, Jayaweera said, referring to the silly bloated assessment of USD 6 bn from tourism, whereas we know not even one bn USD income was realistic, after the Easter carnage, followed by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic.

Jayaweera said that he contacted the President again as he couldn’t bear the impending catastrophe. Jayaweera recalled how President Gotabaya Rajapaksa suggested that he discuss the situation with Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa and the meeting took place at the very place where we met last week.

Basil Rajapaksa’s simple dismissive reaction had caused fear and anxiety in the Derana Chief, especially pertaining to the direction of the national economy, Jayaweera said, adding that over dinner, too, he tried to convince the Finance Minister of the threat due to the frightening cash flow problem.

Jayaweera quoted Basil Rajapaksa as having declared that the public wouldn’t come to the streets to protest scarcity in goods though they demonstrate against high cost of living. “I suggested that fuel consumption should be cut by 50 percent. The need for a realistic pricing formula was also suggested. But, the Minister simply dismissed my suggestions. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa himself told me Basil Rajapaksa and Dr. PBJ managed the economy. Therefore, they couldn’t absolve themselves of the responsibility for the current crisis.”

Jayaweera didn’t mince his words when he alleged that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s first major fault was accepting the family nominee Dr. PBJ as the Presidential Secretary. The President did so in spite of knowing it would be the end of his presidency, Jayaweera said.

Aramuna

vision

In this context, ‘Aramuna’ that had been established years before the public protest campaign against the Rajapaksa administration, in March 2022, was making representations on behalf of the affected communities, Jayaweera said. When queried about the recent declaration in Jaffna that they should pursue talks with banks as a group to secure much needed relief, Jayaweera explained the discussions they had with top level management of state and private banks. “We are trying to obtain as much relief as possible. But, overwhelming challenges cannot be surmounted without political will,” Jayaweera said. The outspoken ‘Aramuna’ initiator found fault with the government for shrinking the economy. That was disastrous, Jayaweera said, comparing the current situation with that of a gravely ill person deprived of medicine.

Citing the deterioration in the construction industry as a case in point (From 10 percent of the GDP to just one percent), Jayaweera said that import restrictions badly affected the export sector for want of intermediary goods. Volatile foreign currency market undermined all sectors as they found it difficult to furnish a proper quotation.

Acknowledging that certain restrictions were necessary, Jayaweera, however ,insisted that it was the responsibility of the government to properly manage the crisis by ensuring the sectors which contributed to the growth of the GDP received the support they deserved.

Jayaweera emphasized that one of their key missions was to motivate what he called human capital. If human capital lost confidence a country could face catastrophic consequences, he said, pointing out that professionals and others alike wanted to migrate in the absence of a proper strategy. Obviously, they felt concerned and not sure whether the country could overcome the unprecedented mess, Jayaweera said.

“In response to the challenge, we intended to promote entrepreneurship among the population. But, it would be important at least now to recognize the shortcomings, failures, mismanagement and unproductive investments by way of loans,” he said.

Jayaweera explained how unbridled use of loans for consumption and not sufficient returns for investments contributed to the current mess while flaying the powers that be for failing to adopt course correction even after the declaration of bankruptcy.

Responding to another query, Jayaweera said that the latest IMF intervention, too, hadn’t been sought in line with strategy to uplift the country but simply as a reaction to the crisis. He declared that nothing had changed as the existing political party apparatus continued to do the same.

Jayaweera denied any similarity whatsoever between ‘Aramuna’ and Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ‘Viyathmaga’ while insisting the former didn’t promote political strategy at all. Pointing out that at the time they established ‘Aramuna’, four years ago, it didn’t have a political outlook, Jayaweera explained in response to the current challenges, the outfit now operated on the premise that the issues at hand couldn’t be addressed without a ‘political solution.’

Asked whether ‘Aramuna’ would take a stand at the next national level election, particularly against the backdrop of the UNP propagating the possibility of presidential election before Local Government polls, the maverick businessman said that on the basis of a set of minimum conditions, meant to overcome national challenges, they would push for a consensus with most suitable party/alliance.

Need for infallible systems

Pointing out that the country suffered for want of infallible systems and recklessly having faith in people, Jayaweera was asked whether he believed in systems or politicians. This was raised on the basis of accommodating businessman Dhammika Perera on the SLPP National List, in early June 2022, and Ranil Wickremesinghe receiving appointment as President after entering Parliament on the National List, though rejected by the Colombo electorate. Jayaweera declared: “We need a system not a system change. We are in such an unstable situation, unless remedial measures were taken the country can be shut down overnight. That is the reality,” he said emphatically.

Jayaweera strongly denied the query whether he in any way influenced and benefited from the utterly reckless tax cut announced in Nov. 2019. “How could I benefit when that idiotic decision ruined our economy. What is the point in my enterprises receiving some benefits against the backdrop of economic annihilation? That decision cannot be justified under any circumstances,” Jayaweera said.

The Derana top honcho quoted the then Inland Revenue Chief having told him that there was no basis for assertion such tax cuts could trigger significant economic growth.

Jayaweera questioned the rationality in pushing for a new Anti-Terrorism law to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) at a time the government should fully concentrate on economic recovery programme. An irate Jayaweera said that the new anti-Terrorism law should be at the bottom of the list of priorities.

Commenting on the leasing of Hambantota port to China for a period of 99 years in 2017, during the Yahapalana administration, for USD 1.2 bn, Jayaweera said that shouldn’t have happened, under any circumstances.

The deal deprived Sri Lanka of its most strategic asset but USD 1.2 bn received was not even used to settle the loans procured from China for the building of the harbour.

Asked whether he supported constitutional restrictions imposed on the number of ministers (30) and non-cabinet ministers (40), Jayaweera ridiculed the concept. Such constitutional interventions had been made in response to a greedy political party system. The number of ministers should be entirely based on the requirement of the government of the day and certainly not to appease greedy lawmakers, Jayaweera said, asserting that the country could manage with a much smaller Cabinet if appointments were on a scientific basis. Jayaweera also dismissed the much-touted National Government concept, too, as a mechanism to appease a far larger number lawmakers by appointing an extra-large Cabinet.

The outspoken businessman, who does not fear to call a spade a spade, asserted that print, electronic and social media would have to re-examine overall strategy as their impact on the electorate, particularly the floating vote,would be much less in the developing political-economic-crisis. It would be a grave mistake to believe the electorate could be exploited the way they did before the 2022 explosion.

The indefinite postponement of Local Government polls has deprived the JVP of an opportunity to improve its vote. Pointing out that the JVP, at the moment had just three percent of the vote, Jayaweera said that even if it doubled that it wouldn’t make a big difference. But with the relatively improved ground conditions, the JVP couldn’t sustain its strategy, Jayaweera said.

The JVP based its campaign on the allegation that the economy collapsed due to Rajapaksa corruption. Against the erosion of JVP’s new support base, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has emerged stronger and acceptable to a section of the electorate, he observed.

Finally, The Island raised two vital questions (i) who would be the two major opposing parties at the next presidential or parliamentary polls and (ii) what should be our foreign policy whether to stand with China and Russia or Quad comprising the US, Japan, Australia and India.

Jayaweera asserted that the electorate would look at the two major alliances on the basis of their economic programmes. The better grouping would win but the electorate wouldn’t ignore the nationalistic views and those who voted for Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the last presidential election as a group remained a force to be reckoned with, Jayaweera said. In the current context, President Wickremesinghe could lead one alliance and the other spearheaded by the SJB. But, both camps essentially follow the same strategies pertaining to the economy et al. The issue at hand is whether President Wickremesinghe could follow the identical strategy while receiving the backing of the ‘Pohottuwa’ vote that represented the interests of what he called ‘jahikathwa’ kandawura.

Jayaweera warned the powers that be against taking sides in the continuing US-China battle. Stressing the pivotal importance in our relations with New Delhi, Sri Lanka couldn’t afford to pursue foreign policy strategy at China’s expense, Jayaweera said. The success of Sri Lanka’s short-medium and long term recovery depends on how the country manages foreign relations. Asked whether he backed signing of MCC and SOFA against the backdrop of entering into ACSA with the US in August 2017, Jayaweera said that as he said before there is no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to that query, too. “We as a modern nation it is important for us to get into bilateral agreements. We need to evaluate the pros and cons of them along with a comprehensive country strategy and then decide.”

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

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

Published

6 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

6 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