Midweek Review

Solheim is back

Published

2 years ago

2024/05/8

A smiling Solheim holds two crabs at a Taprobane sea food factory in the north (pic courtesy twitter)

The Norwegians mollycoddled the LTTE. The way the government in Oslo went out of its way to appease the LTTE during the time it facilitated the peace process is unbelievable. Once a group of LTTE cadres visiting Norway was afforded an opportunity to see how the Norwegian military prepared for UN peacekeeping missions. Several weeks after the signing of the CFA in late Feb 2002, Balasingham and his Australian-born wife who had been pictured handing over cyanide capsules to female child soldiers arrived from London via Dubai and the Maldives to the Vanni in late March 2002. The Special Norwegian Peace Envoy Solheim and the then Norwegian Ambassador in Colombo Jon Westborg personally got involved in travel arrangements with Solheim accompanying the Balasingham’s from London to Dubai. It was quite a show.When Balasingham, a former Colombo British High Commission employee passed away in the UK in late Dec 2006, Solheim, in his capacity as the Norwegian International Development Minister was at Alexandra Palace in north London to pay his last respects. Balasingham departed the world three years before the Sri Lanka military eradicated the LTTE militarily in the battlefield itself.

Ex-SCOPP Chief on Solheim’s latest move

In response to The Island query, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, Secy General of SCOPP, sent us the following response: ” It was most entertaining to see Erik Solheim back in Sri Lanka, celebrating his dinner with his old friends Ranil and Maithree Wickremesinghe. Needless to say he reiterated what Mahinda Rajapaksa has been trumpeting, that Ranil did not run away when there was a crisis.

Of course Ranil did not run away, because he was prepared to swallow anything to revive his political career, even slavish adherence to the Rajapaksa forces, which confirmed him as Prime Minister under the President the country at large thought responsible for the crisis. These were not conditions anyone else could accept, though now they might regret that they did not know radical and not so radical forces would insist on the President going, and that his quondam hangers on realize that that would relieve the pressures on them and allow them to carry on as before.

Solheim, whose business instincts have always affected his political judgment, has not registered that the only improvement has been that the Sri Lankan government under Ranil has been able to borrow more money so as to pay for fuel, which is why that is available and power cuts have stopped. But when he says businesses were on the verge of collapse, he does not note that many businesses have indeed now collapsed, and that there have been no measures to improve productivity, not understanding that the only justification for more and more loans is to generate economic activity, not just more debt.

He claims inflation is low, but does not note how food prices rose so high that malnutrition has increased, and there is no effort to reduce this, instead the government is concentrating on selling off even profitable government undertakings. Ironically he ends his apology for an analysis with a Mahinda Rajapaksa catchphrase, doubtless now Ranil’s too, about a better future.

And then, to underline his point, after praising Ranil he also praises the dinner he enjoyed. It would be nice to know what he and his opulent globe trotting hosts ate, and how this compares with what most people have now to eat.”

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Attorney-at-Law Ambika Satkunanathan responded angrily on ‘X’ on May Day to a recent declaration made by former Norwegian International Development Minister Erik Solheim and top peace (or planned pieces) facilitator here during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure as the President that ‘Northern Sri Lanka is at peace.’

Solheim also commended the security situation in the northern region on ‘X’ posted on May Day following a recent visit to Jaffna and Kilinochchi where he met Northern Governor P.S.M. Charles and Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) leader Sritharan Sivagnanam.

Jaffna District parliamentarian Sivagnanam received appointment as the ITAK leader in late January this year. He comfortably defeated M.A. Sumanthiran PC in an internal party election. Sivagnanam succeeded Mavai Senathiraja.

Former Human Rights Commission member (Oct 2015-2019) Satkunanathan contradicted Solheim’s assertion.

She alleged that the Northern Province continued to be heavily militarized with security agencies carrying out surveillance, harassing and intimidating civil society and generally targeting those who defied the government. She claimed the targeted group included the media as well.

The Northern Province consists of the electoral districts of Jaffna and Vanni. The former LTTE stronghold Vanni comprises administrative districts of Mannar, Mullaithivu and Vavuniya. The last phase of combined security forces operations had been conducted in the Mullaithivu district where the war was brought to an end on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon in May 2009.

LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s body was recovered from there on the morning of May 19, 2009.

Obviously Solheim, 69, was comparing the situation in the Northern Province during the war and now. Those who believed in the LTTE’s military invincibility were shocked and surprised when the Army brought back the Tiger stronghold Kilinochchi under government control in early January 2009 following two years of sustained operations in the eastern and northern theatres. The rest is history.

So-called human rights activist Satkunanathan reacted to only a section of Solheim’s statement. In fact, it was one of the three statements made by the Norwegian during his recent visit.

Satkunanathan faulted Solheim for praising the security situation in the Northern Province. One should understand Satkunanathan, with obvious Eelam sympathies, for being critical of Solheim, who now functions as Wickremesinghe’s International Advisor on Climate Change, and no longer towing the wholesale tilted line to their cause.

It would be better if key points in that statement were mentioned: (a) He visited Jaffna after a lapse of over 20 years (b) Many of his Sinhala and Tamil friends and colleagues were killed (c) delighted to discuss political developments with Sivagnanam whom the Norwegian described as the new top Tamil leader (d) Northern Province peaceful and no one wants to return to the situation experienced during the war (e) Many Tamil aspirations haven’t been fulfilled (f) wartime disappearances remain a major cause for concern (g) Some land taken over by the government/military during the war yet to be returned (h) disputes continue over historic religious sites (i) unemployment in the Northern Province remains an issue (j) Sri Lanka will have to devolve power (emphasis mine) and finally (k) struggle for Tamil rights would continue through non-violent means.

The second Solheim statement was headlined ‘The man who didn’t run away’. The Norwegian was referring to President Ranil Wickremesinghe, the leader of the UNP.

Solheim declared: (a) President Wickremesinghe pulled off a political miracle after the people ousted Gotabaya Rajapaksa over mounting economic crisis (b) Difficulties remain though further improvements can be expected (c) Wickremesinghe accepted the daunting challenge regardless of consequences. That statement, according to Solheim, was issued after he had a delicious dinner with his old friends President Wickremesinghe and first lady Maithriee Wickremesinghe.

Solheim received the appointment as Wickremesinghe’s Advisor on Climate Change within weeks after Parliament voted to have him as the eighth Executive President to complete the remainder of ousted Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term. Soon after receiving the appointment, Solheim declared that going green and finding a solution through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution could help Sri Lanka recover from its economic and political crisis.

There had been a third statement that dealt with Solheim’s visits to Taprobane Seafoods (Pvt) Ltd. production facilities in Jaffna and Mannar. Solheim, in a May 03 message on X, noted how Tamil women, who lost their husbands and other members of their families, benefited from the Taprobane factories. Solheim should be reminded of the mindless death and destruction caused by Tamil women who fought for the LTTE, including suicide cadres. The Norwegian has also forgotten how thousands of children, both male and female, who had been forcibly recruited by the LTTE, were used as cannon fodder.

The entire world realized the despicable use of children when a brainwashed LTTE female teenage suicide cadre blew up former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, as he campaigned, in Southern India, in the run up to the Indian general election.

Let me discuss Solheim’s assertions (both commendations and concerns) in the current context, also taking into consideration the Norwegian peace mission here.

Solheim on 13 A

The Norwegian’s declaration that Sri Lanka would have to devolve power in terms of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution that has been forced on Sri Lanka, by India, underscores the continuing Norwegian stand on the contentious issue. The decision on the part of President Wickremesinhe’s Advisor on Climate Change to discuss devolution of power, political developments and other related matters, including the security situation, cannot be acceptable. Solheim’s declaration that the Tamil struggle would continue through non-violent means must receive the attention of political parties represented in Parliament.

Perhaps, Solheim has to be told to stick to the subject Climate Change assigned to him by President Wickremesinghe instead of seeking to revive a needless bloody conflict here once again and especially reminded that the ITAK recognized the bloodthirsty LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people during the time Norway facilitated the highly questionable peace process here and that tag of ‘sole representative’ remained until the military eradicated the Tiger terrorism from here. There is no doubt Solheim was one of those ill-advised diplomats or a deliberate hatchet man, who repeated their mantra that the LTTE couldn’t be militarily defeated. A section of the media, too, propagated the lie that the LTTE tactics were far superior to that of the military and whatever the territorial gains made by the military on the Vanni front could be undone.

The very basis of the Norway arranged Ceasefire Agreement was that the LTTE couldn’t be defeated. Therefore, a negotiated settlement has to be finalized even at the expense of the country’s national interest as the LTTE exercised undefeatable conventional military capability. Solheim was one of the crowd who regularly tried to drum into us that the LTTE could swiftly and decisively overwhelm the military on the Vanni east front. The eradication of the LTTE leader and his bodyguards on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon must have come as quite a shock to Solheim, who was one of the few foreign diplomats given access to Velupillai Prabhakaran.

However, at the time Solheim spearheaded the Norwegian effort, Norway openly asserted that the 13th Amendment was insufficient. With the backing of the ITAK, the LTTE demanded ISGA (Interim Self Governing Authority) pending finalization of a negotiated settlement but today interested parties quite conveniently have forgotten how the LTTE quit the CFA in late April 2003. That move was meant to sabotage peace negotiations and create an environment for the then President Kumaratunga to sack the UNP-led government. As the LTTE anticipated, the SLFP-led UPFA won the general election and in the following year the internationally proscribed group ensured Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory at the presidential poll by depriving Ranil Wickremesinghe of the northern vote. The LTTE set the stage for Eelam War IV thinking it would be a cakewalk for them against a government led by Mahinda Rajapaksa. But Rajapaksa was made of much sterner stuff as he has proved from his school days.

The civil society remained silent as the LTTE resumed mine attacks in the Northern Province in Dec 2005 and in the following month blew up the Shaldag class Fast Attack Craft (FAC) off Trincomalee. The Mavilaru dispute erupted a few months later and war was inevitable. Between destruction of the FAC and Mavilaru confrontation, the LTTE made an abortive bid to assassinate the then Lt. General Sarath Fonseka, Commander of the Army. Soon after Eelam War IV erupted, the LTTE made an attempt on the life of Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Had the LTTE succeeded in eliminating Lt. Gen. Fonseka and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, most probably, they could have had an opportunity to overwhelm the government. But, their strategy went awry in the wake of unsuccessful suicide missions. Both having miraculously survived the deadly attacks prosecuted the war with new vigour against the Tigers.

Norwegian tendency to go with the LTTE was revealed when Velupillai Prabhakaran assassinated the then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar in early Aug 2005. The then Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen declared that: “The killing puts the peace process to a serious threat. It is now of great importance that both parties to the conflict do their utmost to fully fulfil their obligations according to the CFA.” That statement was in line with the stand taken by the Western powers and India that the assassination of Kadirgamar shouldn’t in any way hinder the so-called peace process. They also demanded the implementation of Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS). The UN Security Council, under Japanese leadership, insisted on the implementation of the CFA.

If the LTTE hadn’t declared all-out war in August 2005 and ultimately succumbed to relentless military onslaught, it could have had control of the Northern and Eastern Provinces with the backing of Western powers.

The writer sought the Executive Director of National Peace Council (NPC) Jehan Perera’s response to Solheim’s latest intervention. The ever obliging Dr. Perera sent us the following statement and is reproduced verbatim without any alterations. “Mr Solheim is reflecting the fact that more needs to be done. He sees Jaffna as being a better place than it was during the war. He tried to bring that war to an end through the ceasefire agreement of 2002 in which he and the President were two key architects. The affection and admiration that Solheim feels for the President is evident in what he says. He also poses a challenge to the President when says that much remains to be done. The question is whether the President can take up this challenge in the spirit of what needs to be done — and create trust in the Tamil community, an enabling environment for what needs to be done and develop a holistic plan for the future with multi-party engagement and consultation.”

Architect of CFA

Among those who met Solheim during his recently concluded visit were SLPP MP and its National Organizer Namal Rajapaksa and Basil Rajapaksa. What has Presidential Advisor on Climate Change got to do with the Rajapaksas? What the Norwegian had to discuss is unclear as he, too, obviously believed the Rajapaksas caused the war and were responsible for the death and destruction.

During a discussion the writer had with the late Kumar Rupesinghe at his residence in Colombo, the prominent civil society activist named Solheim as the person who actually drafted the CFA. When the writer doubted Rupesinghe assertion that if not for Solheim, the 2002 CFA couldn’t have been finalized, he offered me a copy of ‘Negotiating Peace in Sri Lanka: Efforts, Failures and Lessons (Volume Two) edited by him.

There were interviews with and articles by Bradman Weerakoon, Austin Fernando, Prof. G.L. Peiris, Priyan Seneviratne and Dinidu Endaragalle, Hagrup Haukland, Dharmnaratnam Sivaram, Gayathri Wickramasinghe, Saman Kelegama, Sunil Bastian, Sumanasiri Liyanage, Bernard A.B. Goonatilleke, M.I.M. Mohideen, Erik Solheim, Keith Noyahr and N. Ram.

In response to a query posed by Rupesinghe, Solheim, in his capacity as International Development Minister, has explained the circumstances under which the CFA subsequently called a flawed document by Lakshman Kadirgamar was finalized.

Solheim disclosed how he had discussed the provisions of the proposed CFA agreement with the LTTE theoretician in London, the late Anton Balasingham, and Prof. Peiris and Milinda Moragoda (both members of the government negotiating team) in Colombo before he drafted a new proposal. Let me reproduce the relevant section verbatim. The interviewer Rupesinghe quoted Solheim as having said: “…. The two parties made a lot of changes and brought it back to us and it was discussed orally. Then again I drafted a new proposal, which took about two months. It was signed on the 22nd of February. A period of 6-8 weeks was spent on discussions and writing the agreement.”

That interview certainly explained Solheim’s thinking and how he spearheaded the Sri Lanka mission on the invitation of the LTTE. Solheim discussed their role here against the backdrop of Norwegian involvement in similar endeavours following the end of the Cold War, especially in Palestine.

Solheim briefly discussed the Norwegian mission in Sudan and the Israel-Palestine deal which he called the most famous out of various peace projects.

At the time the LTTE reached Solheim; he had been a member of the Foreign Policy Committee of Norwegian Parliament and was in touch with various parties involved in the Sri Lanka conflict, having first visited Colombo in 1999. By then, the LTTE had been in a commanding position in the North but the group sought internationally guaranteed agreement to allow evacuation of Anton Balasingham, who needed urgent medical attention overseas. Though the initiative inspired by the LTTE failed to materialize, the LTTE got Balasingham out of Sri Lanka through other means to ensure he received the required treatment in Thailand before being moved to Norway. The Balasinghams left the Vanni in late January 1999.

The CFA was meant to create a separate region under LTTE control in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The Scandinavian truce monitoring mission simply did nothing to ensure the implementation of the CFA. Taking cover of the CFA, the LTTE brought in ship loads of arms though the Navy twice intercepted and destroyed LTTE vessels. The group expanded a network of runways for its fledgling air force in the Vanni as the government foolishly further strengthened the group. It facilitated the acquisition of powerful radio equipment while transfer of brand new double cabs were also allowed much to the dismay of the military. The LTTE always had its way until President Mahinda Rajapaksa decided to put an end to the separatist terrorism.

In the wake of Solheim’s declarations, New Delhi-based Norwegian Ambassador Mrs. May Elin Stener, also accredited to Sri Lanka, was here accompanied by Johan Bjerkem, the Second Secretary of the Norwegian Embassy. The Norwegian envoy’s visit here was the first since Norway closed its Embassy in Colombo following the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government pulling out the Lankan missing in Oslo.

Ambassador Stener met Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake among others. Norway seems interested in expanding its role as Sri Lanka prepares to go for presidential polls.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Israeli-US aggression won’t go unanswered -Iranian Ambassador

Published

3 days ago

2026/05/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

Dr. Alireza Delkhosh responds to The Island queries

Iranian Ambassador in Colombo Dr. Alireza Delkhosh says the Islamic Republic of Iran remains fully prepared to face US-Israeli aggression.

In an interview with The Island at the Iranian Embassy, in Colombo, Dr. Delkhosh emphasised that in case of a fresh outbreak of hostilities, the aggressors, as well as those who provided bases for unprovoked military campaign ,should be prepared to face the consequences.

Excerpts of the interview:

The Island: Did Iran anticipate Israel-US launching unprovoked attacks in the midst of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and US in Geneva, mediated by Oman?

Ambassador: Iran’s wall of mistrust towards the US is rooted in decades of hostile policies and, specifically, Washington’s dark record of broken promises. We always welcomed diplomacy in good faith and serious intent, entering diplomatic channels accordingly; yet, we have repeatedly witnessed the US chose the path of betraying diplomacy in the midst of negotiations.

We do not build our foreign policy on optimism toward the US, as we fundamentally do not view the current US administration as a trustworthy party. The recurrence of provocative patterns and coordination with the Zionist regime’s actions during sensitive negotiations indicate a systematic approach to discredit diplomacy.

From our perspective;

“Any coercive or military action taken alongside mediation efforts serves as further evidence of Washington’s lack of sincere will for diplomacy and its attempt to exert pressure under the guise of dialogue—an approach that will not go unanswered.”

The Island: Do you think the latest war and regional developments, such as the UAE pulling out of OPEC, should be examined, taking into consideration the Oct0ber 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel.

Ambassador: Allow me to rephrase your question: Is there a link between the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran and the Zionist regime’s warmongering policies? My answer is a definitive “yes”.

Any serious analysis of the current regional dynamics must be placed within the broader historical and structural context of the Palestinian question and the continuation of occupation and blockade. Iran has consistently maintained that the developments of October 7, 2023, did not emerge in a vacuum, but are rooted in decades of unresolved injustice, the denial of legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and the absence of a credible political horizon.

From this perspective, the subsequent escalation in the region reflects a chain of reactions shaped by long-standing structural tensions, rather than isolated incidents. Iran has repeatedly emphasised that sustainable stability can only be achieved through ending occupation, addressing the root causes of the crisis, and upholding the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Thus, it is important not to reduce complex geopolitical developments to a single starting point. Energy market decisions, alliance shifts, and military escalations are influenced by a broader set of strategic, economic, and political factors.

The Island: What is the status of talks mediated by Pakistan?

Ambassador: A high-ranking Iranian delegation attended an intense day of negotiations, with American negotiators, in Pakistan, on 12th of April, to permanently end a US-Israeli aggression against the country. Iran agreed to participate in the negotiations after US authorities indicated they had accepted Iran’s general conditions as a baseline for peace deal discussions. However, during 20 hours’ intense talks, the US changed its position.

The main sticking point in the talks was the US reluctance to agree to Iran’s legitimate rights to have a peaceful nuclear programme, which Iran has insisted on for years and just before entering the talks, based on the UNSC resolution and the relevant laws.

Iran’s foreign policy is firmly grounded in the principles of dignity, mutual respect, and rejection of coercion or imposed negotiations. Within this framework, Iran has consistently stated that it remains open to indirect diplomatic engagement through mediators, including regional partners, such as Pakistan, provided that diplomacy is conducted in a balanced and credible environment. At the same time, Iran has repeatedly emphasised that the effectiveness of any negotiating track is directly undermined by the US coercive measures, unilateral sanctions, and pressure-based policies.

Sustainable diplomacy necessitates a complete decoupling from pressure tactics; it must be grounded in genuine reciprocity and respect for national rights and interests. Guided by this principled approach, Iran continues to engage in mediation efforts, in good faith, while resolutely safeguarding its sovereign rights and rejecting any framework that resembles ‘dictation under pressure’.”

The Island: The UN has pathetically failed to intervene in the current West Asia conflict. Both Israel and the US simply ignored the UN and the world body seems irrelevant. As a seasoned diplomat what is your opinion on the UN? What is wrong with the global body”

Ambassador: Iran views the UN as an important multilateral institution established to safeguard international peace and security; however, its effectiveness has increasingly been constrained by the selective application of its Charter and the politicisation of decision-making, particularly within the Security Council.

Currently, the international community is witnessing highly dangerous interpretations of ‘peace,’ ‘rights,’ and ‘aggression’ by the US and the Israeli regime. In their lexicon, if they attack a country, it is labelled a ‘peace operation’ or ‘legitimate defence’; yet, if a nation defends itself, it is branded as ‘warmongering.’

“When the innocent people of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq are stripped of their fundamental human and humanitarian rights and endure profound suffering due to attacks, genocides, and inhumane sanctions, it is as if—in the prevailing international discourse—’human rights’ are not being violated at all.”

The world witnessed, on many occasions, that when certain permanent members are directly involved, or aligned with one side of a conflict, the UN’s ability to act impartially is significantly weakened.

From this perspective, the current situation does not reflect irrelevance of the United Nations itself, but rather highlights the structural imbalance in the international order, where enforcement mechanisms are often subject to geopolitical considerations. Iran has, therefore, consistently called for fundamental reform of global governance structures, including democratisation of the Security Council and strengthening of multilateralism, based on justice, equality, and respect for sovereignty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran supports a United Nations that truly represents the rights of nations and establishes justice. The current state of global affairs reflects the failure of certain powers to adhere to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

While emphasising the necessity of effective multilateralism to guarantee international peace and security, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to an international order, based on international law and the principles of the UN Charter.

In conclusion, I must state that: “Unilateralism negates the essential and fundamental principles of the United Nations. Unilateralism is an invitation to injustice, confrontation, and war.”

The Island: In spite of sustained US pressure, its NATO allies declined to join military action against Iran or commit forces to Hormuz Strait. The British and French positions caused an unprecedented rift between them and the US. Do you think NATO countries’ split position on Iran war caused irreparable damage to the largest military organisation in the world?

Ambassador: Differences among NATO members on the use of force in external theatres are not unprecedented. Divergent approaches to specific regional conflicts can place strain on political unity and strategic messaging within this alliance. Whether such differences translate into long-term structural damage depends on how effectively members manage internal consultation and reaffirm shared principles.

Let’s not forget that NATO is fundamentally a military alliance shaped by the strategic priorities of the United States, and differences among its members often reflect not a principled divergence, but rather varying degrees of alignment with Washington’s regional policies.

What is presented as “internal consultation” within NATO is frequently constrained by asymmetric influence, where key decisions on the use of force are effectively driven by the US agenda.

In this context, disagreements among NATO members on external military actions are seen in Tehran less as an institutional safeguard and more as evidence of the alliance’s limited strategic autonomy, particularly in relation to West Asia. Therefore, these divergences do not merely represent tactical differences, but highlight a deeper structural issue: the growing questioning of interventionist policies and the sustainability of military blocs in addressing complex regional crises.

The Island: When did you first hear about the unprovoked US attack on Iran frigate off Galle? (The date and time, please). Who told you about the unfortunate incident? What was your first reaction?

Ambassador: What was particularly concerning was that the IRIS Dena was understood to be undertaking a routine passage in the region, returning from an official visit to India, and was not engaged in any combat or hostile activity. Any incident involving a naval vessel, under such circumstances, is naturally a matter of serious concern and a war crime, especially when it raises questions about maritime safety and the protection of unarmed or non-combat assets.

My immediate priority, upon receiving credible confirmation about this attack, would have been the safety of personnel and the prevention of any escalation. From the first moments of receiving this information, I have been in direct talks and consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other relevant government authorities, while ensuring that no conclusions are drawn until all facts are verified.

The Island: Did you visit the Iranian vessel and sailors now at Trincomalee?

Ambassador: At this stage, I would like to state that the primary responsibility of the mission has been to maintain continuous contact with the relevant Sri Lankan authorities and ensure the safety, welfare, and proper handling of Iranian personnel and assets involved. In this regard, we have been in close and ongoing coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other competent government institutions to follow up on all necessary arrangements.

Our focus has been on ensuring that all matters are addressed through official diplomatic channels in accordance with international maritime and humanitarian procedures. The well-being of our personnel and the proper management of the situation remain our highest priority.

The Island: Ambassador, you presented your credentials to the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe in late October, 2023. What were the previous diplomatic stations you served before taking over the Colombo mission?

Ambassador: Prior to my mission in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, I served in various diplomatic capacities in Turkey, Sweden, and Uzbekistan.”

The Island:Would you mind stating Iranian red lines about issues that Iran would never give up such as the right to use nuclear power for civilian purposes and control over Hormuz Strait?

Ambassador: Iran’s foreign policy is based on the principles of sovereignty, deterrence, and the rejection of coercion and unilateral pressure, while simultaneously affirming its commitments under international law. In this framework, we have consistently emphasised that the Islamic Republic will never relinquish its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment for civilian purposes, such as energy production, medical applications, and scientific development. As we continually maintained, this right is fully consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the same time, Iran regards the security and management of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic national responsibility, given that it lies within Iran’s sovereign waters and is one of the world’s most sensitive maritime corridors. Our officials have repeatedly stated that the security of the Persian Gulf and Hormuz must be maintained by regional states themselves, without external militarisation or domination.

However, Iran has consistently expressed concern over certain regional developments in which neighbouring territories have been utilised for the projection of external military power, including by the United States, which, in Tehran’s view, contributes to heightened tensions and undermines regional stability. From Iran’s perspective, such dynamics are among the key factors affecting and jeopardising the security environment of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Within this framework, Iran has emphasised that any threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or strategic security interests would be met with firm and proportionate resistance, while at the same time reaffirming its commitment to freedom of navigation in accordance with international law.

Taken together, from a broader perspective: “The overarching framework of Iran’s foreign policy is built upon three primary pillars: countering diplomatic pressures, maintaining autonomy in strategic decision-making while safeguarding national interests and sovereignty, and emphasising the principle of reciprocity. This approach—rooted in the three guiding principles of ‘Dignity, Wisdom, and Expediency’—reflects Tehran’s explicit opposition to unilateralism and bullying in the global arena.”

The Island: Iran proved that it had the strength and the will power to face daunting military challenges and, in spite of civilian protests, influenced by economic hardships, the public stood by the leadership during the hour of crisis. What is Iran’s message to the world?

Ambassador: Iran is the heir to a great civilisation, spanning several millennia. Iran’s message to the world is that national resilience is ultimately rooted in the bond between the state and its nation, particularly, during times of external pressure and security challenges. Despite economic hardships, the Iranian people have demonstrated that in moments of national crisis, priorities converge around the defence of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security.

From this perspective, the experience of recent years is a clear testimony that external pressure, military threats, or coercive policies do not weaken national cohesion; rather, they reinforce a shared sense of resistance and the bond between the leadership and segments of society around core national principles. It highlights that such domestic economic issues are addressed within the framework of national stability, not through external intervention.

There exists an inviolable principle: “Sustainable national cohesion is achieved only in the light of full sovereignty over internal affairs and the rejection of any intervention or the politicisation of domestic developments by foreign powers.”

The Island:Wishful Israel-US assessment for regime change, following the Supreme Leader’s assassination failed. Against the backdrop of US success in Venezuela, they seemed to have wrongly asserted the situation and Iranian military response. How do you see the next few weeks as the US and Israel maintain a fragile ceasefire, regardless of some isolated incidents?

Ambassador: The assumptions that external pressure, military action, or targeted scenarios, such as the assassination of its leadership, would lead to structural political change in Iran, have repeatedly proven to be a strategic miscalculation. “Iran’s security architecture is not modelled after classic Western patterns that could be brought down, through sanctions or threats; rather, it possesses its own unique design.

Iran’s strategic decision-making is rooted in institutional continuity, national sovereignty, and a well-established defence and command structure—one that cannot be disrupted by external pressures or short-term military developments.”

Regarding the current situation, the existing ceasefire environment looks to be fragile and highly sensitive. As repeatedly stressed by our officials and leadership, stability cannot be sustained through coercive measures, continued military pressure, or selective escalation. Therefore, any lasting calm depends on adherence to commitments, respect for sovereignty, and cessation of hostile actions.

In the coming weeks, the situation will remain volatile, yet manageable, and Iran will continue to maintain its readiness to respond to any potential adventurism.

Iran continues to emphasise that sustainable regional security cannot be built on failed assumptions of regime change or military superiority, but only through recognition of political realities and mutual respect under international law.

The Island: Finally, the senseless killing of over 150 schoolgirls and teachers at an Iranian school, at the onset of the latest conflict, horrified the world. However, the response of Western governments, and various human rights bodies, seemed inadequate. Some refrained from commenting on the incident. The situation in Lebanon, too, is deteriorating. Why do they act differently when the perpetrators happened to be the US or Israel?

Ambassador: I believe that the disparity in reactions reflects a long-standing flaw in the international system: the selective application of international law and humanitarian principles, based on political considerations rather than universal standards.

As you noted, when incidents involve the US or Israel, many international actors—including certain Western governments and institutions—tend to interpret events through the narratives of ‘security,’ ‘self-defence,’ or ‘strategic necessity.’ The brutal attack on the Minab girls’ school, which resulted in the slaughter of over 168 students and teachers, has pulled back the curtain on the double standards of those who claim to champion human rights. While the smallest incidents in other countries trigger immediate global outcries. We witness a response characterised by silence, projection, and brazen falsehoods regarding this blatant crime—as well as the horrific atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. These tactics aim at nothing but distorting reality and whitewashing the perpetrators of these tragedies. This pattern has undermined the credibility of international law and the global human rights framework, as it ignores the principle of ‘sovereign equality’ and suggests that accountability is not applied equally to all members of the international community.

This is not merely a legal issue but an expression of a structural imbalance in the international order, where political alliances and strategic interests dictate the interpretation and enforcement of norms. Therefore, I maintain that: “The only way to restore trust in the international system is through the consistent and non-selective enforcement of international law, without exceptions or double standards, regardless of the identity of the parties involved.”

As a final word: “Ibn Khaldun 1332-1406, a famous philosopher and historian, believes that ‘politics is the product of geography.’ The essence of this hypothesis is that the temporary presence of extra-regional powers in West Asia and the Persian Gulf must not lead certain small coastal states of the Persian Gulf into a strategic miscalculation.

The time will come when outsiders are expelled from this region, leaving only the neighbours who are destined to coexist. Instead of focusing on Outsourced Security and legitimacy from distant powers, they must return to geographical realities. They ought to study history to recognise which nation has been the source of security and stability in the Persian Gulf for millennia.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

JVP/NPP government and social media

Published

3 days ago

2026/05/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

‘Aragalaya’ betrayed? ‘The treason of the intellectuals’ in the age of populism – Part III

The JVP/NPP government, which relied heavily on social media to come to power, seems to be deeply afraid that it will be overthrown by a second aragalaya fuelled by social media. The government has been accused of organising and directing forces—including pro-government social media activists—from behind the scenes to prevent criticism of the government’s actions from shaping public opinion against the government through social media. Critics say that the aim is to discourage, silence, and drive away critics of the government through ridicule, insults, obscene statements, and intimidation.

Leaving aside these behind-the-scenes manoeuvers, the news that a group of YouTubers, who are identified as “dhobies” or “washers,” recently attended a private press conference at the JVP party headquarters at the invitation of the President and the Minister of Mass Media and Cabinet Media Spokesperson, is a powerful example of the weight the current government places on social media.

“Dhobies”/”washers”

The intelligentsia and intellectuals in democracies play a key role in shaping public opinion, which is traditionally vital in determining the outcome of elections or in building public protests. In the era of social media ubiquity, the primary location of the intelligentsia engaged in politics has shifted to social media. Influencing social media users is now seen as the key to political victory—hence the significance of the phenomenon identified by the term “dhobies”/”washers” (literally laundrymen).

Manifested as a voluntary social media activity—dominated by Facebook and primarily occurring in the Sinhala medium (this article does not cover Tamil social media)—the phenomenon of “washers” is an unprecedented and unique addition to the political process in Sri Lanka. This is an activity of political significance with a certain level of intellectual content that goes beyond the level of mere social media activism, and is carried out by the intelligentsia and intellectuals. These “washers”, alongside the academics who lead them, emphatically state that it is their responsibility to work vigorously to protect this government—one that they brought to power and which aligns with the ideology they believe in.

This group also includes social media journalists who identify themselves as left-wing political activists and as ‘analytical’ discussion presenters via content creation—podcasts and video interviews—as opposed to being mere social media activists.

To achieve their goal, the “washers” understand their role as “cleaning” or “whitewashing” the government in the face of criticism or controversy. They seek to prove the government right by targeting, attacking, and silencing critics through quibbling and intimidation, thereby “protecting” the government.

Although these attacks primarily come in the form of “intellectual” attacks, the range of attacks unleashed under that “intellectual leadership” includes ridicule, insults, and harassment, which are encouraged to be directed at opponents at various levels. Posts are published subtly or directly inviting the “people” who habituate social media as “friends” to post their emojis—likes, dislikes, laughter, ridicule—which may take the form of reaction images, or verbal “comments” against political opponents who publish their views on social media.

In addition to organised “washers,” there are highly credentialed academics who contribute to the “washing” process on their own Facebook pages, either directly or in tacit, subtle ways. Those who do not actively join indicate their support tacitly as “friends” of the organized “washers”—either via emojis or by participating through seemingly innocuous comments that nevertheless get the job done.

They claim this activity of ‘washing’ is the real ground on which politics is determined today. Their stated argument is that in the current era of social media, ridicule, insults, and harassment are inevitable in politics; therefore, those who cannot face them should not be involved in politics. In other words, in this view, politics dominated by social media seems to reenact Hobbes’”state of nature,” which is “nasty, poor, solitary, brutish, and short,” indicating an unprecedented level to which Sri Lanka’s intellectual culture has descended.

Isn’t it an indictment of academia that the practice of “washing” led by academics comes under serious scrutiny from their academic “friends” on social media, especially in relation to the vocation of intellectuals and their role in politics? Notably, the self-identified intellectual leaders of left populism—some of whom are themselves drawn from academia—circulate within these same social media circles.

What they are trying to protect the government from by silencing their rivals and banishing them from the public arena is a second aragalaya that they and the government seem to firmly believe will build on social media operations if criticism of the government is allowed to spread unabated. Hence, there is the need to somehow suppress criticism while giving the act a veneer of intellectual activity. They are participating in this effort, rallying as both organisations and individuals at different levels.

It needs to be added that while these “washing” activities take place mainly in the medium of Sinhala, related “higher” intellectual content is aired in the English medium as well, mainly in the form of interviews with academics.

Criticising the government from a left political perspective

What has come to be expressed as the essence of this “washing” process is the idea, presented in the form of a theoretical formulation, that when criticising the current government from a leftist political perspective, one should first consider who benefits from it. What it means is that if the current government is criticised from a leftist perspective, it could result in a second aragalaya, leading to the return of those who are currently out of power.

A related question that critics are often asked is this; whom do they see as the leaders of a government that could replace the current government? It is as if citizens should only criticise a government that affects their lives if they have a clear alternative to replace it. It is as if criticism is not something that can be done with the intention of correcting something, or a way to develop an alternative.

This argument rejects the traditional liberal political science argument about bourgeois democracy, which considers holding elections at regular intervals to bring governments to power and changing governments when necessary as positive—which requires accepting as positive the development of a critique of the government in power. Accordingly, it implies that the current government must be kept in power at all costs to prevent the power groups that the people rejected from coming back to power, and that is why the Left should stop criticizing the current government. This is a very strange idea of democracy. It is clearly not the bourgeois liberal democracy we have known so far. So, what kind of democracy is it? As some are wont to do, we can keep on tweaking the term to suit the changing conditions instead of developing a critique in the name of the ideal of democracy. So, what is the new term for what is done with democracy under the new regime? Or, do they think that we have reached an era of post-democracy?

Traditionally, the role of intellectuals and the intelligentsia has been to provide the critical thinking that society needs. But the intellectuals who are engaged in “washing” say that the Left should silence its criticism in order to save the government, and then everything will be fine. Some who support “washing” argue that what the Left should do is not criticize the current government, but push it further to the left. While this argument presumes the government to be Left notwithstanding the Left criticism of it, what it fails to take into account is that one of the reasons the government needs repressive social media forces and “washers” may be that the government is intolerant of criticism that pushes it to the left.

The NPP government came to power by rallying around the NPP organisations and individuals who called themselves liberal, progressive, leftist, radical, etc., outside of the JVP membership. The group that can be called intellectuals among them identified themselves with the NPP through a series of actions—starting from contributing to the work of building the National People’s Power and the formulation of its policies, to taking the leadership of relevant committees at various levels and appearing publicly at various public events of the NPP, even on the election platform. Some of them won the elections on the basis of their identity-based vote blocks or became members of parliament from the national list and even became ministers. Many others, as is customary after an election victory, got themselves appointed to various positions in the government bureaucracy as chairpersons, board/council members, directors, etc., either immediately or later.

Some, whether or not they were appointed, abandoned the critical role they were previously playing in society and have remained silent. Some of them have abandoned the theoretical interventions they were making in the public arena with a view to a “system transformation” until they brought the current government to power, in favour of safe literary or other topics as if the transformation that all those criticisms targeted had been achieved with the coming to power of the current government. Others entered the “washing” business while holding official positions in the current ruling regime. Although not all those involved in the “washing” process are in positions of power, there have been allegations that some of those who are involved without holding positions do so in exchange for payment. Among these groups are those who, traditionally known as independent journalists, are now mostly known as content and/or digital creators, questioning the validity of their claims to represent independent journalism.

Some leftists assume that this will be the last time a left-wing government has come to power in Sri Lanka, and therefore have joined the government believing that they should achieve the maximum good for the people, as if they think that history has ended.

Conclusion: Populism and the treason of intellectuals

In conclusion, returning to the ideology of populism that provided the backdrop for this article, it is relevant to note how some of the key characteristics of populism identified in the literature align with critics’ accounts of the policies followed by the current JVP/NPP government.

At its core, populist ideology presents a dichotomy between a “pure,” idealised conception of the people and a “corrupt” elite. It frames politics as a moral struggle against corruption, seeking to displace the traditional class basis of politics. Being deeply anti-institutional, populism dismisses expert and academic knowledge as elitist.

Driven by a Schmittian logic of friend-versus-enemy politics, populist leaders and the intelligentsia seek to displace the traditional elite, aiming to purge them from politics, academia, and culture with a view to appointing themselves as the new elite.

Populism rejects the democratic state in the name of the people. Political theorist Wendy Brown points out that populism focuses instead on aggressive law and order, statism, and a non-democratic view of liberty—where authority rules, yet individuals claim libertarian freedom.

Globally, populism tends to breed authoritarian leaders who centralise power in the executive branch, stripping judges of their independence and turning elected parliaments into mere rubber stamps. To stay in power, populist movements systematically target checks and balances, the free press, and universities, labeling them as roadblocks against the people’s mandate. Once in control, these regimes use legal gray areas to oppress opposition parties and subvert democracy to ensure they remain in power.

The Treason of the Intellectuals

For the title of my article, I have borrowed the title of a seminal work by the French philosopher and essayist Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals (1927). Almost a hundred years ago, Benda critiqued the intelligentsia’s betrayal of their vocation as intellectuals, focusing on their abandonment of the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity. In our case, I would argue that intellectuals have abandoned their vocation in the very name of the “renaissance” and “enlightenment” ideals—or the punarudaya—they claim to stand for, allowing political partisanship to dictate their understanding of the intellectual vocation itself.

In her 2023 book, Nihilistic Times, political theorist Wendy Brown argues that we are living in deeply nihilistic times. Placing this rise in nihilism at the very center of our current political crisis, she warns that it is actively undoing democracy while degrading and confounding both political and academic life. In Brown’s view, nihilism leads to the devaluation of both knowledge and political responsibility—a crisis that is especially clear in academia. She argues that intellectuals have abandoned democracy, the common good, and the pursuit of objective truth, choosing instead to align themselves with whoever holds political or cultural power to serve partisan or authoritarian goals. Ultimately, Brown argues that public intellectuals must act as honest, thoughtful analysts who hold politicians accountable rather than seeking to win their favor. Finally, she issues a direct challenge to left-wing intellectuals to make good on their foundational commitment to true critical thinking.