Midweek Review

Post-Aragalaya look at security and related developments

Published

1 year ago

2024/10/23

Commander of US Pacific Fleet Admiral Steve Koehler meeting President Anura Kumara Dissanayake at the Presidential Secretariat, October 10 (pic courtesy PMD)

Colonel Nalin Herath

Referring to Israel’s war on Gaza, Defence Ministry Spokesman Colonel Nalin Herath speculated about further escalation though he refrained from commenting on the Jewish State’s relentless attacks in Lebanon and Iranian missile barrages directed at Israel. The Middle East is on the brink of a regional conflict, Herath declared, in an interview with Supreme TV. Since the interview, the war has taken a new turn with Israeli attacks on Lebanon-based UN peacekeepers causing injuries to personnel, including two Sri Lankan military personnel serving there and the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar during a chance encounter between Israeli troops and Hamas. Like LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, Sinwar, the alleged mastermind of the large-scale Oct. 07 Hamas invasion of southern Israel, the first such invasion of the Jewish territory since the first Arab-Israel war in 1948. Those who compared Sri Lanka’s war against the LTTE and the ongoing war should be able to differentiate the conflicts.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The urgent need for a comprehensive examination of daunting political-economic-security-social challenges cannot be overestimated. Bankrupt Sri Lanka is at a crossroads as the Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB) seeks to consolidate its position with a convincing victory at the parliamentary election scheduled to be conducted in three weeks. Although its triumph is apparently a foregone conclusion, the Janatha Vimukthi Peremuna (JVP)-led JJB, however, faces formidable domestic and external challenges.

With the former main Opposition party Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and the former ruling party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP, as well as the UNP-backed New Democratic Front (NDF) in disarray, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s JJB enjoys a clear advantage in such a scenario.

Regardless of putting up a brave patriotic face, the new party, Sarvajana Balaya does not appear to stand a chance at its first parliamentary election. Going by past experience, the local voters usually go with the trend set by the presidential election. To make matters worse, the opposition is badly split among the SJB, NDF and the SLPP. The SLPP that secured 145 seats, including 17 National List slots at the last parliamentary election, in August 2020, can be reduced to just one NL seat at the forthcoming election. The decision on the part of the Rajapaksas to field generally unproven Namal Rajapaksa on the SLPP NL meant that they realized the grave danger of the party being wiped out. Therefore, the Sarvajana Balaya may find the current ground situation intimidating, though several former SLPP parliamentarians, who have always watched over the country’s national interests, back entrepreneur Dilith Jayaweera’s outfit. However, since the presidential election, Sarvajana Balaya has lost Wimal Weerawansa and Gevindu Cumaratunga.

Defence Ministry spokesman and Director General of the Institute of National Security Studies (INSS) Colonel Nalin Herath recently discussed post-Aragalaya security challenges at different levels, taking into consideration both traditional and non-traditional threats.

During the discussion with Mariella Vandort on ‘Spotlight’ on Supreme TV, the Armoured Corps officer covered related issues, such as ex-military men joining the Russian and Ukrainian militaries, foreign relations where he underscored the need for, what he called, a middle-path, and Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), in May 2009 ,against grave doubts expressed by so-called experts.

At the onset, Colonel Herath explained how developments largely depends on sustainable security in an ever-changing globalized world and the responsibility on the part of political and military leaderships to protect the public. Emphasizing the need to neutralize and address both traditional and non-traditional threats, Colonel Herath made reference to the eradication of terrorism.

However, the interviewer failed to take up the origins of separatist terrorism in the ’80s and New Delhi’s role in the terror project that resulted in the formation of half a dozen terrorist groups.

Except the LTTE, the other groups joined the political mainstream during the late Ranasinghe Premadasa’s presidency (1990-1993). Against the backdrop of Anura Kumara Dissanayake, a member of the once-proscribed JVP becoming the President last month, the discussion should have covered the two southern insurgencies in 1971 and 1987-1990. Unfortunately, quite a significant development in our history didn’t receive the required attention. May be it was too dicey a topic to tackle under the current circumstances, especially for a serving military officer. In fact, the emergence of the JJB in mid-2019, a few months before the Presidential Election that was won by wartime Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, could have been examined, leaving out the JVP’s horrid past.

The Sri Lanka Army can quite rightly be proud of its record-defeating two insurgencies and winning a conventional war that the Western powers asserted was impossible. Of course, the Navy and Air Force, as well as police, including its Special Task Force, made an immense contribution, and the annihilation of the enemy (LTTE) couldn’t have been achieved if not for President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s steadfast leadership.

Unforgettable situation report

During the course of the interview, Colonel Herath disclosed that he had been with the 68.1 Brigade assigned to the 53 Division deployed at Vellamullivaikkal, on the Vanni east front, where the combined forces brought the war to a successful end. A smiling MoD spokesman recalled how he signed the situation report that dealt with the death of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran at 9.32 am on May 19, 2009.

Troops recovered Prabhakaran’s body that morning, the day after the conclusion of the Vanni offensive. Colonel Herath said the vast majority appreciated the successful war effort, though others quite conveniently forgot the sacrifices made by the military.

Responding to another query, the armoured corps officer recalled two incidents in the Vanni theatre where he survived death. Both incidents had been in the ’90s, one in Kilinochchi and the other at Oddusuddan off Nedunkerni, when the LTTE fired at the SLA escorting then de facto Defence Minister Anuruddha Ratwatte.

Incidentally, the writer had been among a group of journalists on their way to cover Minister Ratwatte’s visit to Oddusudan when the LTTE fired mortars. The buffel armoured personnel carrier carrying us ended up in a paddy field in the chaos and for about 30 minutes we were stuck there.

Although a conventional military threat appears to be unlikely, the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage underscores the responsibility on the part of the government to remain alert. Although Vandort made reference to Easter Sunday attacks as in emergency situations such as floods and Covid-19, yet the only post-war incident that grabbed international attention was not discussed. Nearly 50 foreigners perished in coordinated attacks on churches and five-star hotels that exposed the severe shortcomings in the political and military leaderships.

In the context of traditional and non-traditional threats, how do we categorize the unprecedented Easter Sunday bombings or Aragalaya (March –July 2022) that forced the democratically elected President out of Office. That removal, for whatever the reasons which contributed to public anger, cannot justify unconstitutional removal, while the armed forces and police just looked on. Perhaps the Defence Ministry-funded think tank INSS should thoroughly examine Aragalaya with a fine tooth comb. Their findings can be at least shared among the military top brass, State Intelligence Service (SIS), Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) and the IGP. The writer, however, understands the dilemma the armed forces are in as the JVP/JJB had been one of the parties directly involved in Aragalaya and, in fact, the only party accused of trying to take control of Parliament by physically storming it, using young activists. The JVP/JJB never denied that accusation. In fact, that accusation or declaration cannot be denied as senior party men were on record urging the people to overrun Parliament.

The SLA had no option but to use brute force to neutralize the serious threat to Parliament in July 2022, days before Gotabaya Rajapaksa gave up office.

Now, the JJB is on the verge of a historic parliamentary election victory. Veteran politician Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, who had been the Speaker at the time of the Aragalaya, confirmed an external hand in the ouster of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa is in the National List of the NDF. Abeywardena is fifth on that list, headed by former Premier and leader of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) Dinesh Gunawardena. Although Abeywardena conveniently refrained from disclosing the name of the external party involved, the then lawmakers Wimal Weewawansa and retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, as well as award-winning writer Sena Thoradeniya, alleged a clear US role in Aragalaya. On behalf of the US, its Ambassador here Julie Chung denied the accusation. However, the whole world knows that former Secretary of State John Kerry crowed publicly about how Washington spent millions of dollars for a regime change operation here in 2015 that ousted Mahinda Rajapaksa, along with similar covert acts to topple governments in several other countries.

No less a person than former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, as well as his predecessor Gotabaya Rajapaksa, too, alleged external interference. The incumbent government owed the public an explanation regarding the status of the investigations into the massive destruction caused by Aragalaya.

Those contesting on the NDF ticket backed Ranil Wickremesinghe at the recently concluded Presidential Election. It was the third defeat Wickremesinghe suffered at a presidential election, the first at the hands of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga in 1999, followed by 2005. Mahinda Rajapaksa won the 2005 contest by less than 200,000 votes due to the LTTE and TNA (Tamil National Alliance) ordering the northern voters to boycott that election.

Impact of economic crisis on armed forces

Colonel Herath also discussed the requirement to maintain the military strength even during the economic crises and why sufficient investment of public funds is essential. The Colonel didn’t mince his words when he emphasized such investments shouldn’t be considered a waste of money, under any circumstances. Let us hope the executive and the legislature, in unison, accept the need for a robust military. Colonel Herath stressed the need to enhance fighting capability. Over 15 years after the conclusion of the war, and the retirement of thousands of fighting men, the military must take every possible measure to retain their fighting capability.

Colonel Herath placed the current strength of the SLA at 150,000 down from 205,000 at the time of Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism. Perhaps, the new government should explain whether it intends to carry out the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government decision to reduce the SLA strength to 100,000 by 2030.

Amidst the continuing economic difficulties that made expected investments on armed forces impossible, foreign powers have stepped in. The recent visit undertaken by Adm. Steve Koehler, commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, to Colombo, and the transfer of Beechcraft King Air 360ER aircraft underscored the US commitment to strengthening partnerships in the Indo-Pacific and advancing, what the superpower called, a shared vision for peace and stability by upholding the rules based international order.

The US and its allies, including India, have invested in the Sri Lankan armed forces. The China Bay-based No 03 Maritime Squadron consists of dedicated US and Indian maritime surveillance aircraft. The squadron is expected to take delivery of an ex-Australian Air Force Beech 350 King Air patrol aircraft before the end of this month. The US and its allies seem to be inclined to go ahead with their overall strategy vis a vis Sri Lanka, adopted during Wickremesinghe’s presidency. The US decision to go ahead with the handing over of the fourth US Coastguard Cutter to Sri Lanka, gratis, in the coming year, further emphasized their strategy. All that we can say to the new government is beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Colonel Herath explained the measures taken by the previous government to address the contentious issue of Sri Lankans on the Russia-Ukraine front. According to him, there had been 470 to 500 officers and men involved on both sides and substantial progress was made during discussions in Moscow and with the Russian Embassy in Colombo. It would be pertinent to mention that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is actually a war between the Russian Federation and the West in Ukraine.

Russian Ambassador to Colombo Levan Dzhagaryan, during a recent conversation with this writer, stressed how the combined West utilized the Ukrainian conflict/territory to achieve their objective of bringing NATO to Russia’s border if not for the counter measures now being implemented by Moscow.

Unfortunately, India, the beneficiary in the Ukraine-Russia war as a result of a massive increase in cheap crude oil purchases since 2022, is trapped in the US strategy.

India’s decision not to sign a Joint Letter supporting the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in the wake of the recent declaration by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel designating the Head of the premier world body as “persona non grata”, underscored New Delhi’s dilemma. Among others who refrained from backing Chilean coordinated efforts were the US along with its close allies the UK, Japan and South Korea, considered by some to be its lap dogs.

There is no other way to explain India backing Ukrainian and Israeli war efforts as discussed by the international media. But, the US, British and Australian reactions to the continuing diplomatic row between India and Canada over the killing of Sikh activist and naturalized Canadian citizen Hardee Singh Nijjar in British Columbia last year is a grim reminder of Western double standards.

Canadian Premier Justin Trudeau’s Oct. 15 declaration on the conduct of India and its representatives based in Canada underscored Ottawa’s stand that it wouldn’t under any circumstances accept the Modi government’s actions. The Canadian declaration that Indian High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma had a hand in the Nijjar affair caused irreparable damage to Canada –India relations.

Perhaps Canada, having alleged Sri Lanka committed genocide during war against Tamil separatism, should inquire how many ex-Sri Lankan terrorists received Canadian citizenship. Similarly, many wanted for terrorism in India are Canadian passport holders now.

Post-Aragalaya development

The moving of the Court of Appeal against the Defence Ministry decision to collect weapons issued for personal protection under license to selected persons is an eye-opener. The petition underscores the failure on the part of the then government and the security establishment to provide security during Aragalaya when law and order simply disintegrated.

Close on the heels of Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s victory at the Sept. 21 Presidential Election, the Defence Ministry ordered those having licensed weapons and ammunition to hand them over to the Commercial Explosive Firearms and Ammunition Procurement Unit (CEFAP) at Sri Lanka Navy camp, in Welisara, before Nov. 07, this year.

The Defence Ministry declared that this order did not apply for weapons used for the protection of property/crop and sports activities.

H.D. Navinthaka de Silva, CEO of Avenra Hotel Group, in his petition, argued that the Defence Ministry decision posed a significant risk to his safety.

The Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, the Director of the State Intelligence Service, and the Acting Inspector General of Police have been named as respondents in the case. Filed through Attorney-at-Law Sanath Wijayawardena, the petition claimed that Navinthaka de Silva obtained licensed firearms from the Ministry of Defence around 2012 or 2013 due to serious personal threats.

The petitioner emphasized that his businesses, including hotels, suffered considerable damages during recent political unrest, compounding his security concerns.

Declaring that his plea for reconsidering the Defence Ministry decision pertaining to him, petitioner has requested the Court of Appeal to issue a writ order invalidating the Defence Ministry’s order. The petitioner also sought an interim injunction be issued suspending the implementation of the directive until a final decision is reached after the hearing of his case.

Grandeeza, one of the hotels owned by the Avenra Hotel Group situated at Katunayake, on the main Colombo-Negombo road, and just 15 minutes walking distance from the Katunayake airbase, was set on fire and looted in broad daylight. The same fate befell two other hotels owned by them in the Negombo division. The destruction caused by Aragalaya had never been properly established and none of those responsible was brought before a court of law though some progress was made in respect of MP Atukorale’s killing in May 2022.

The operation carried out by Aragalaya was so meticulously planned that perhaps they would have gone ahead with countrywide attacks even if Temple Trees didn’t make the foolish decision to unleash SLPP goons on the Galle Face protesters. As that was used as the pretext to launch violence against the then SLPP government politicians and their friends and relatives with meticulous intelligence from the evening of May 09, 2022, leaving properties looted and torched across the country.

The Avenra CEO’s petition reminds the government of its fundamental responsibility to take all possible measures to protect citizens.

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