Midweek Review

New diplomatic postings, current priorities and challenges

Published

3 years ago

2023/01/4

Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, addresses a group of newly appointed heads of missions/posts at the main conference hall of the Foreign Ministry. The SLPP National List lawmaker is flanked by State Minister of Foreign Affairs Tharaka Balasuriya and Foreign Secretary Aruni Wijewardane(pic courtesy FM)

Defeated UNP candidate among new appointees

Sri Lanka’s growing dependence on bilateral assistance in addition to the anticipated USD 2.9bn credit facility from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is frightening. A statement issued by the Indian High Commission, in Colombo, on Dec 23, 2022, after the handing over of 125 Sport Utility Vehicles to Public Security Minister, Tiran Alles, emphasized the seriousness of the economic crisis. The supply of the first batch of altogether 500 vehicles, to be procured under a USD 100 mn credit line, made available, some time ago, should be examined against the backdrop of the following: (1) Concessional credit lines worth USD 3.2 bn provided by Delhi in diverse sectors including railways, infrastructure, defence, renewable energy, supply of petroleum products, fertiliser, etc. (2) In addition, Sri Lanka received another concessional credit facility amounting to USD 1 bn, through the State Bank of India, for the procurement of essential items.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Foreign Ministry, in a press release dated Dec. 27, 2022, announced the appointment of 14 heads of diplomatic missions, and two heads of posts. The new appointees included 13 members of the Sri Lanka Foreign Service (SLFS).

The statement issued by the Public Diplomacy Division appreciated President Ranil Wickremesinghe for giving the lion’s share of appointments to the SLFS. There hadn’t been a previous instance of the Foreign Ministry issuing such a commendation to any of Wickremesinghe’s predecessors.

The FM says it has conducted an orientation programme (Dec. 16-23, 2022) for the group with Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Sabry, PC, discussing his Ministry’s current priorities and foreign policy challenges. Sabry, a close confidant of the ousted President, received the Foreign Affairs portfolio at the expense of academic Prof. G. L. Peiris.

Foreign Secretary Aruni Wijewardane has discussed the leadership role of heads of missions, whereas the orientation programme included discussions on economic, political, security, cultural and consular matters and field visits to the Northern Province, as well as to other government institutions.

Political appointees in the group are Admiral Jayanath Colombage (Indonesia), Udaya Indrarathna (UAE) and Sandith Samarasinghe (Consul General in Melbourne). Sandith Samarasinghe represented the UNP, in Parliament, (2015-2020/Kegalle district). Samarasinghe was one of the few MPs who remained loyal to Wickremesinghe, in the wake of the formation of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), in early 2020. Samarasinghe, like all other UNPers, failed to retain his Kegalle district seat, at the last general election, held later that year. Even Wickremesinghe only managed to enter Parliament, through the sole seat the party secured, via its National seat.

One-time Navy Commander, Colombage, who served as the Additional Secretary (Foreign Affairs) to the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, since Dec., 2019, received the appointment as Foreign Secretary till August 2020. Wimal Weerawansa and sevearl others accused Colombage of pursuing an agenda inimical to Sri Lanka. Colombage earned the wrath of some over his affiliation with the Pathfinder Foundation, founded by our High Commissioner in New Delhi, Milinda Moragoda. It focuses on bilateral relations with China and India. Colombage has strongly denied any wrongdoing.

The incumbent FS Wijewardane was brought in as FS in May, 2020 amidst unprecedented political turmoil, triggered by violent protests, directed at the then President. Wijewardane succeeded Colombage, who has now received a diplomatic posting, to Indonesia, after he lost an opportunity to secure the ambassadorship in Japan.

Had President Gotabaya Rajapaksa realised the gravity of the situation, he wouldn’t have allowed his media team to declare those who launched high profile protest campaign, most probably instigated by hidden hands on March 31, 2022, outside his private residence, at Pangiriwatte, Mirihana, as extremists seeking to stage an ‘Arab Spring’ type revolution without an inclination to stand up to them. The government’s overall lackadaisical response emboldened protests, while the core reason for the crisis, the lack of foreign currency to finance basic needs, remained unaddressed, as it was beyond its means.

Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, in the second week of April, 2022, declared what he called a pre-emptive negotiated default as Sri Lanka made unilateral announcement that it wouldn’t repay foreign loans. Dr. Weerasinghe earned the appreciation of the public for making the declaration of bankruptcy, regardless of the consequences. Sabry, who served as the Finance Minister at that time had the courage to accept responsibility for Dr. Weerasinghe’s statement.

However, the declaration of bankruptcy also accelerated anti-government protests. The US threw its weight behind the campaign. US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Julie Chung interfered with the government strategy so much so that she issued a statement on May 09 as well organised mobs with specific intelligence, went on the rampage across the country, mainly against government politicians and their properties, calling on law enforcers not to crack down on peaceful protesters. Lawmaker Wimal Weerawansa, both in and out of Parliament, alleged that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa hesitated to suppress the protest campaign as he didn’t want to antagonize the US.

The current crisis cannot be examined without taking into consideration the overall failure of successive governments, particularly President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s war-winning administration (2005-2014) and the Yahapalana government (2015-2019) and the disastrous President Gotabaya Rajapaksa rule (2019-July 2022). This is not to say that the Chandrika Kumaratunga administration was any better as, under that dispensation, the country, for the first time, even recorded a negative growth.

UNP leader President Ranil Wickremesinghe in July last year received a parliamentary mandate to lead the economic recovery. As President, and the Minister in charge of the Finance portfolio, Wickremesinghe should address political, economic and social issues with an open mind. The continuing crisis is extraordinary, the executive needs the unstinted support of the legislature to ensure successful economic recovery in a reasonable time.

But the Executive President must also ensure that ‘robber barons’ are not allowed to exploit the situation, in the name of capitalism, which he wholeheartedly backs, and he must ensure greater discipline and adherence to fair play by the private sector while it continues to be the engine of growth. Particularly, he must ensure that exporters who have surreptitiously stashed export proceeds abroad bring them back to the country as such practices have exacerbated the foreign exchange crisis here, He also must stamp out the underground banking system that has been stealing billions in foreign exchange, earned by our expatriate workers, through punitive punishment and active crackdown by the law enforcers and the Central Bank. Then there are the professional tax dodgers who with the help of unscrupulous firms of Chartered accountants, have been robbing the country, with the help of the lax legal system, while the honest tax payers are often harassed to the limit.

Unfortunately, the executive and legislature seemed to be pulling in different directions, as underscored by the failure on the part of President Wickremesinghe and his parliamentary sponsor, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) to reach a consensus on Cabinet appointments.

As many as 12 vacancies remained in the 30-member Cabinet-of-Ministers. Wickremesinghe named his first set of ministers, on July 22, 2022, soon after the SLPP overwhelmingly elected the UNPer as the first President appointed by Parliament.

Irreversible damage

The Foreign Ministry’s success largely depends on the overall political strategy adopted by the government. There is no point in denying the fact that those who caused irreversible and catastrophic damages never accepted responsibility for their actions. The Yahapalana government decision to co-sponsor an accountability resolution against Sri Lanka, in Oct., 2015, is a case in point.

The then Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and President Maithripala Sirisena never absolved themselves of the responsibility for betraying the war-winning armed forces. The Yahapalana government co-sponsored the US-led resolution, in spite of then Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative, in Geneva, Ravinatha Aryasinha, rightfully, and spontaneously, taking a strong stand against it. The career diplomat was, however, ordered by Colombo to toe the then government’s line, soon after, which came as strange news to many, like how the UNP government signed a disastrous one sided ceasefire agreement with the LTTE, in 2001, unknown to many in that regime, including then President Chandrika Kumaratunga, who was the country’s Defence Minister.

Sri Lanka is firmly on the Geneva agenda, though Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government tried to deceive the public by high profile pronouncement that it withdrew from the controversial resolution. The Rajapaksa administration absolutely did nothing to set the record straight, in Geneva. Regardless of promises and accusations, the then Joint Opposition (breakaway faction of the UPFA, led by Mahinda Rajapaksa) directed at the Yahapalana leadership over the handling of Geneva issue, the Rajapaksa administration treacherously refrained from defending the military. The government ensured that the powerful ‘ammunition’, provided by Lord Naseby, way back, in Oct. 2017, and other available ‘evidence’, was never properly utilized. May be the Rajapaksas did not have the required backing from our career diplomatic service as it had been much compromised, especially since 1977.

Rudderless diplomatically, the Rajapaksa administration allowed the Western agenda to continue. In other words, Sri Lanka fully cooperated with those who mercilessly exploited unsubstantiated war crimes allegations to advance their cause. The declaration of Sri Lanka’s bankruptcy status, in April 2022, should be examined against the Western agenda that continuously harassed the country over eradication of terrorism. Some couldn’t obviously stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism, hence the persistent campaigning at the UNHRC.

Western powers will unashamedly use trumped up war crimes and unprecedented economic fallout to pressure Sri Lanka to give in. Foreign Minister Sabry never denied Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera’s accusation that the President’s Counsel pushed for 21st Amendment on the basis that the finalization of the IMF’s USD 2.9 bn loan depends on the enactment of the new law. What else would the Western powers/IMF demand to help Sri Lanka recover from the economic turmoil?

Premier’s advice

Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena’s Office, in a statement issued on Dec. 26, 2022, quoted the MEP leader as having told a group of newly appointed heads of missions that “traditional diplomacy has changed and today’s top priority is economic diplomacy.”

Addressing the group at Temple Trees, the Premier has stressed the importance of attracting investments, promoting exports, tourism and enhance Sri Lanka’s image as a ‘non-aligned neutral country with friendship towards all.’ The Premier was quoted as having declared: “We have not deviated from that policy and our ports are open to everybody and it is your duty to get this message across to the world.”

SLFS members are Permanent Representative designate to the UN in Geneva Himalee Arunathilaka, Ambassador designate to Bahrain Reethi Wijeratne, High Commissioner designate to Australia Chitranganee Wagiswara, Ambassador designate to Vietnam Dr. Saj Mendis, Ambassador designate to France Manisha Gunasekera, Ambassador designate to Kuwait B. Kandeepan, Ambassador designate to Ethiopia and the Africa Union Theshantha Kumarasiri, Ambassador designate to Germany Varuni Muthukumarana, Ambassador designate to Lebanon Kapila Jayaweera, Ambassador designate to Jordan Priyangika Wijegunasekara, Ambassador designate to the Philippines Dr. Chanaka Talpahewa, Ambassador designate to Israel Nimal Bandara and Consul General designate to Milan Dilani Weerakoon .

Let me appreciate and congratulate Dr. Chanaka Talpahewa again for ‘Peaceful Intervention in intra-state conflicts: Norwegian Involvement in the Sri Lankan Peace Process.’ His work. while being in SLFS, is perhaps the most courageous and fearless response of a career diplomat to a treacherous project that was meant to weaken the Sri Lankan State. Although Sri Lanka emerged victorious in that ‘war’ to save its unitary status, an utterly corrupt and reckless lot had destroyed the country.

Sri Lanka shouldn’t expect a significant improvement in the Foreign Service, regardless of new appointments. That should be obvious. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government cannot be so stupid as to believe that a change of heads of missions/filling vacancies may result in major changes. Regardless of President Wickremesinghe repeatedly assuring his administration wouldn’t take sides, in international and regional ‘conflicts,’ controversy over high-tech Chinese research ship, Yuan Wang 5, visit to the Hambantota Port, last August, underscored Sri Lanka’s predicament, with India kicking up a fuss, trying to treat Sri Lanka as a vassal state.

Colombo struggling to cope up with political turmoil, in the wake of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster, delayed the visit by about a week following India’s objections. Debt-ridden Sri Lanka needs to address concerns of both India and China, two major bilateral creditors and generous donors, whose cooperation is vital for the successful conclusion of debt restructuring talks. In fact, the whole process, in spite of this being Sri Lanka’s 17th IMF facility, has been delayed for want of approval by New Delhi and Beijing.

India’s membership, in the US-led four-nation grouping, meant to counter China, has further complicated matters for hapless Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka recklessly caused irreparable damage to her relations with Japan by unilaterally cancelling the Japan-funded light train transit system, in Sept. 2020. An angry Japanese leadership, smarting from that incident, ignored Sri Lanka’s plea for urgently required financial assistance, at the onset of the financial crisis, though Tokyo seemed to have changed its approach, after the change of government. The four-member grouping, includes the US, Japan, Australia and India.

Sri Lanka’s relations with Australia remain quite friendly with both countries, in spite of political upheaval here, cooperating closely to block illegal refugees. Australia has extended extraordinary support for Sri Lanka’s efforts by paying for fuel required by the cash-strapped Navy, and Air Force, to maintain sufficient patrols.

However, India’s stand on the continuing Ukraine war should be a case study for poorly led Sri Lanka. After gaining independence, over seven decades ago, the country is in the hands of a pathetic lot whose capabilities are highlighted in the Auditor General’s reports to Parliament.

Necessity for reappraisal of policy

Sri Lanka needs to reappraise the whole gamut of issues, ranging from continuing destructive Indian fishers, poaching in Sri Lankan waters, to humiliating failure to convince Singapore to extradite former Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Arjuna Mahendran, despite President Wickremesinghe wanting to go ahead with the hastily concluded free trade agreement between the two countries.

Sri Lanka’s stand on the Access and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA), that the Yahapalana government entered into, in August 2017, as well as Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact and Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), should be made public. Although the previous UNP-led administration discussed MCC and SOFA, they never materilized. The possibility of the US seeking to revive MCC and SOFA cannot be ruled out as the developing situation can take a turn for the worse.

The signing of an energy agreement with the US-based New Fortress Energy, in September 2022, under controversial circumstances, and the subsequent declaration made by the then CEB Chairman M.M.C. Ferdinando, regarding Indian Premier Narendra Modi’s intervention, on behalf of the Adani Group, should prompt a thorough examination of such ‘deals’ to prevent recurrence. The deal with New Fortress Energy led to the breaking up of the SLPP parliamentary group, with a small section of the Cabinet-of-Ministers moving the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, against the transaction whereas Ferdinando denied making allegations against Modi on the basis of what President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had told him.

The signing of the one-sided Ceasefire Agreement, in Feb. 2002, co-sponsorship of accountability resolution, in Oct. 2015, as well as the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (SSLFTA), in January 2018, highlighted the absence of at least basic decision-making process. Perhaps, the Foreign Ministry, at least now, should undertake a study of its failures/inadequacies with the focus on major developments over the years.

The cancellation

No less a person than Foreign Minister Sabry has disclosed how President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on the advice of those near and dear to him allowed the collapse of the economy.

The Minister didn’t mince his words when he named the culprits by their positions during an exclusive live interview on Swarnavahini, in June, last year. But, that doesn’t clear him of the often repeated collective responsibility of the Cabinet-of-Ministers in case relevant issues had been taken up therein.

The reckless ban on fertiliser, agrochemicals, cancellation of the Light Train Transit System and refusal to engage the IMF on the 17th loan facility, needed by Sri Lanka at the correct time led to the ruination of the economy.

Having ruined the economy, those at the helm now expect a miracle to save the country. The much-touted economic diplomacy seems part of the deception as the crisis deepens with no tangible solutions in sight.

All News Advertisement

Up Next

How bankruptcy paves way for exploitation of Sri Lanka

Don't Miss

Sri Lanka’s foreign policy dilemma

Click to comment

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