Opinion
US double standards displayed by Ambassador Chung:
Draconian Patriot Act exposed
By Daya Gamage
Foreign Service National Political Specialist (ret)
U.S. Department of State
Six weeks after the September 11 attacks on American soil, the U.S. Congress passed the “USA/Patriot Act,” nation’s hurried surveillance laws that expanded the government’s authority to check on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.
The Senate version of the Patriot Act was sent to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the bill before they were forced to cast a vote on it.
It should be mentioned that all the obnoxious provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT were in operation until the promulgation of the Freedom Act of 2015: long fifteen years. In fact, some provisions were preserved in the Freedom Act.
Before I present the draconian provisions of the USA/Patriot Act, it should be noted here how the U.S. Ambassador Julie Chung – when having a discourse with Justice Minister Wijayadasa Rajapakshe – had “expressed her strong desire”, of course on behalf of Washington policymakers, “to see extensive discussions, both public and parliamentary” on Sri Lanka’s proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill which is envisaged to replace the current Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
In a Twitter feed, Ms. Chung referring to what was discussed during that meeting with Minister Rajapakshe on 20 April, noted her concerns with regard to certain aspects of the proposed Bill which fall outside of international standards.
She further highlighted that it is important that “all voices – including civil society, academia, and lawmakers – are considered to ensure the legislation serves as an effective tool for combating terrorism without restricting freedom of expression or assembly.”
These disgraceful double-standards of Washington policymakers and lawmakers – and of course their overseas diplomats – in dealing with Sri Lanka’s ‘national issues’ since the advent of the separatist war in the north and the insurrection in the south in the 1980s are now very broadly dealt with by two personnel who worked within the U.S. Department of State for thirty years in the area of foreign affairs: One is this writer who is a retired Foreign Service National Political Specialist once accredited to the Political Section of the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, and the other, Dr. Robert K. Boggs, a retired Senior Foreign Service (FS) and Intelligence Officer who served as Political Counselor at the Colombo Mission with a very broad knowledge of India’s ‘role’ in Sri Lanka. Their manuscript ‘Defending Democracy: Lessons in Strategic Diplomacy from U.S.-Sri Lankan Relations” is nearing completion with alarming disclosures, provocative analyses and interpretations based on their up-close and personal knowledge and understanding how Washington used ‘double standards’ in handling its foreign relations reducing Sri Lanka to some level of a client state. Sri Lanka’s own infantile behaviour dealing with her foreign relations since the 1980s contributed too to become a client state allowing ‘national issues’ to become ‘global’ ones.
When Ambassador Chung ‘advice’ the Sri Lanka government – through its Justice Minister – to undertake a wider and broad scrutiny of the proposed anti-terrorism legislation, Washington’s ‘double-standards’ are well exposed when our memory goes back to the manner in which it steamrolled the USA PATRIOT ACT in September 2001 documented above.
This writer doesn’t see any Sri Lankan lawmaker questioning Ambassador Julie Chung, purposely ignoring the manner in which the USA/Patriot Act came into America’s statute books with draconian features, enforced for fifteen years until the Freedom Act was brought in.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had expressed that the “Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act’s provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism”.
The USA PATRIOT ACT increased the government’s surveillance powers in four areas:
Records searches. It expands the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)
Secret searches. It expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
“Trap and trace” searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
It is frustrating to remind Ambassador Julie Chung, and Washington policymakers who guide her, the undemocratic features in the US anti-terrorism act when she uses ‘double standards’ – as Washington always engage dealing with international affairs of which very broadly analysed in Robert Boggs-Daya Gamage’s forthcoming book – to advocate that there exist certain provisions in the Sri Lanka-proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill ‘outside of international standards’.
When the Bush administration brought the Patriot Act, it had scant regard for ‘international standards’.
There are three overlying undemocratic aspects of the Patriot Act: torturing suspects, indefinite holding of suspects, and spying on citizens.
How did Washington round-up Sri Lanka government during Ranil Wickremasinghe’s premiership at the turn of this century to engage in torture in “third-party countries” that were not part of the Geneva Convention? Do we have to remind Ambassador Julie Chung of this?
During the 2002-2004 peace negotiations, (between the Sri Lanka government and LTTE mediated by Norway and the U.S. directly involving in it) Washington did not scruple to use its influence to persuade the Wickremasinghe’s Government, which had foreign and defence portfolios under it, to help the U.S. avoid accountability before the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the fall of 2002 various State Department officials pressed Prime Minister Wickremesinghe repeatedly to sign a bilateral agreement under Article 98 of the Rome Statute, the treaty that in 1998 established the ICC. Under the treaty, such a bilateral agreement would immunise the citizens of each signatory state from being surrendered by the other to the jurisdiction of the (ICC) Court. The Wickremasinghe government did sign such an agreement in November 2002.
It was not coincidental that in October 2002 the U.S. and coalition partners launched a “shock and awe” bombing campaign and invasion of Iraq as part of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). At the same time, more than 9000 U.S. troops were battling Taliban militants in Afghanistan. The Bush administration clearly wanted to shield U.S. soldiers from ICC prosecution for inevitable charges of war crimes. In a report in 2016 the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor found “a reasonable basis to believe” that since May 2003 “at least 54 detained persons” in Afghanistan were subjected to grave crimes by U.S. armed forces, including “the war crimes of torture and cruel treatment.” The same report further alleged that from 2003 to 2004 members of the CIA committed grave crimes, including “rape and/or sexual violence” against “at least 24 detained persons” in Afghanistan and other states. Measures taken by Washington to protect its combatants abroad from criminal accountability are particularly questionable in light of subsequent USG pressure on Sri Lanka–a signatory of an Article 98 agreement–to submit to international investigations for war crimes. U.S. hypocrisy and double-standards well displayed.
In August 2003 Prime Minister Wickremasinghe covertly authorized the USG’s use of Sri Lankan airspace and Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) for Washington’s so-called “extraordinary rendition and detention programme.” This meant that the CIA could use the airport for the transfer of prisoners to the custody of other foreign governments or to secret CIA prisons outside the U.S. known as “black sites.” Washington engaged in this practice when in fact, extraordinary rendition and detention is clearly prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.
There were at least two flights during June and August 2003 that used BIA to transport terrorist suspects. One flight operated by Richmor Aviation (a company that operated flights for the CIA for extraordinary rendition) is known to have landed in Sri Lanka during June 19-20, 2003 shortly after the apprehension in central Thailand of Mohammed Farik Bin Amin, alias Zubair Zaid, a Malaysian who is alleged to have been a senior member of Jemaah Islamiyah and al Qaeda. Documents inspected by this writer and his co-author Robert Boggs for their manuscript show that another Richmor aircraft flew from Washington, DC to Bangkok, and then transited BIA on August 13-14 before flying on to Afghanistan, Dubai and Europe. That flight coincided with the capture in Thailand of alleged Indonesian terrorist leader Riduan Isamuddin (a.k.a. Hambali) and Malaysian Mohammed Nazir Bin Lep, (a.k.a. Lillie). All three of these men reportedly were later detained and interrogated at CIA black sites and were later transferred to U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay. Also in August 2002, the Sri Lanka government arrested a person wanted by the U.S. who was hiding in Sri Lanka and handed him over to the CIA.
The above is to remind Ambassador Chung of the manner in which Washington executed the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) when she and her Washington-guided policymakers engage in ‘double-standards’ in ‘advising’ Sri Lanka how to draft ‘terrorism legislation’ to ‘keep with international standards’.
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT ACT made domestic terrorists subject to the same punishments (torture) as international terrorists and defined domestic terrorism as: “An act dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”
The Patriot Act allowed for spying by the United States government on everyday people without warrant, by means of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Courts and direct legislation.
The American Civil Liberties Union points out how judicial review or oversight lacked under the Patriot Act: “Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge – with no need for evidence or proof – that such a search meets the statute’s broad criteria”.
Both domestically and internationally, the Patriot Act set a precedent of undemocratic legislation to prevent terrorism through violations of civil liberties. Through direct amendments and in conjunction with “brother bills,” the Patriot Act allowed for, pushed, and resulted in more undemocratic legislation, ultimately resulting in the US Congress-ratified Freedom Act of 2015.
The first major direct modification was the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which made 14 provisions permanent and extended several controversial sections until 2009, such sections as: 206, which allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to access FISA Courts and to wiretap any communication of a suspect; the other is Section 215, which allowed the NSA to collect every phone call made to and from the United States; and provisions from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which “permitted the FISA Court to authorize surveillance and physical searches aimed at foreign nationals who are ‘engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation for international terrorism”‘.
The biggest specific precedent created by the Patriot Act was the direct transition to the USA Freedom Act of 2015, which corrected some of the abuses allowed by the Patriot Act, but left others unchecked. Many of the major provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire that year and instead of renewing them, the government introduced a new bill with less controversy. Drafters of the bill claimed that the government could only access certain data after submitting public requests to the FISA Court, marking a big difference from the Patriot Act. In 2015, a few major sections of the Patriot Act were set to expire, including Sections 206 and 215 mentioned above. Even without the Freedom Act, the legality of Section 215 was headed to the Courts regardless, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Patriot Act was not enough justification to allow bulk metadata collection (Patriot Act 2017). Luckily, it never had to go farther because Congress scrapped the Patriot Act and got partially rid of that section, but the Freedom Act is by no means innocent of civil liberties violations.
Does Ambassador Julie Chung get it? And does Justice Minister Rajapaksha comprehend?
This clearly shows how the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 was in operation for a full fifteen years until certain changes were made in the Freedom Act of 2015.
As described recently by CNN International socio-political news presenter Fareed Zakaria:
“America’s unipolar status has corrupted the country’s foreign policy elite. Our foreign policy is all too often an exercise in making demands and issuing threats and condemnations. There is very little effort made to understand the other side’s views or actually negotiate. . . . All this evokes the inertia of an aging empire. Today, our foreign policy is run by insular elite that operates by mouthing rhetoric to please domestic constituencies—and seems unable to sense that the world out there is changing, and fast.” (xA)
The study undertaken by this writer and his co-author Dr. Robert Boggs should help readers to decide to what extent Zakaria’s troubling diagnosis is accurate and, if so, whether the U.S.-Sri Lanka experience offers relevant lessons for remedial action.
This writer’s intention is to underscore Washington’s double standards – well reflected by its ambassador recently when in conversation with Justice Minister Wijayadasa Rajapakshe – to bring some sense to authorities in Colombo.
At the time that the United States was pressuring Colombo to accept “national, international, and hybrid mechanisms to clarify the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared,” the USG had not itself ratified the UN convention of 2006 requiring state party to criminalize enforced disappearances and take steps to hold those responsible to account. Despite a resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on November 19, 2020 calling on the USG to ratify the international convention, this still has not happened. The U.S.’ long history of rejecting accountability is strongly rooted in legislation.
The American Service-Members Protection Act (ASPA) was an amendment to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4775) passed in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the launch of the so-called Global War on Terror. The ASPA aims to “protect U.S. military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the Government against prosecution by an international criminal court to which the U.S. is not a party.” Among other defensive provisions the Act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court in The Hague. It even prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are parties to the Court. As mentioned above, In 2002, during the administration of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, the GSL signed with the U.S. an “Article 98 Agreement,” agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the Court.
Washington and its ambassador in Colombo continue to engage in hypocrisy and double-standards when all this evidence is available in the public domain.
(The writer is a retired Foreign Service National Political Specialist of the U.S. Department of State once accredited to the Political Section of the U.S. Embassy, Sri Lanka)
By Chula Goonasekera,
on behalf of the LEADS Forum
Based on discussions with Ajith Wijemanna, Director General of the Department of Meteorology, and Kithsiri Abayasinghe, former Director of the Department of Meteorology
Sri Lanka may be facing another major natural challenge. Unlike many disasters, however, the warning signs are already visible, giving the country an opportunity to prepare before the situation becomes critical.
A recent discussion with two of Sri Lanka’s most experienced meteorologists highlighted concerns about the developing El Niño phenomenon and its potential consequences for the country. While no scientist can predict with certainty exactly how El Niño will evolve, current indications suggest the possibility of above-normal rainfall later this year, followed by reduced rainfall and potentially severe drought conditions in early 2027.
This is a warning Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore.
Most Sri Lankans still remember the devastation caused by the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004. El Niño is fundamentally different. It does not arrive as a single catastrophic event. Instead, its effects can develop over many months, potentially bringing drought, water shortages, crop failures, extreme heat, wildfires, flooding and food insecurity.
The critical difference is that, unlike a tsunami, El Niño gives us time to prepare.
Sri Lanka therefore has a choice: act on the warnings now or pay a far greater price later.
We Must Not Wait for Disaster
The 2004 tsunami exposed Sri Lanka’s vulnerability to large-scale disasters and demonstrated the immense human and economic costs of inadequate preparedness.
El Niño cannot be prevented. However, many of its potentially damaging consequences can be reduced through early planning, effective coordination, public awareness and practical risk-reduction measures.
The purpose of this article is not to predict exactly what will happen. Rather, it is to ask a more important question:
Are we prepared for what could happen?
Depending on the intensity and evolution of El Niño, Sri Lanka could face:
· severe drought and prolonged dry spells;
· water shortages affecting households, agriculture and industry;
· reduced agricultural production and increased food insecurity;
· increased risks of forest and grassland fires;
· heatwaves and heat-related illness; and
· localised flooding caused by unusually heavy rainfall.
One threat deserves particular attention: wildfires.
During prolonged dry periods, fires can spread rapidly through forests and grasslands, destroying ecosystems, wildlife habitats, agricultural land, livelihoods and critical infrastructure, while placing enormous pressure on emergency services.
The lesson is straightforward: understanding potential worst-case scenarios before they occur greatly improves our ability to prevent them from becoming national catastrophes.
A Crucial Role for Disaster Management
We understand that Sri Lanka’s Disaster Management Centre (DMC) is already engaged in preparing the country for the potential impacts of a stronger El Niño event. Its focus must remain on helping communities prepare before emergencies arise, while ensuring that essential services continue to function during periods of crisis.
Disaster response and recovery come at a high cost to the public through government expenditure and taxpayer-funded resources. Investing in preparedness is therefore not only a humanitarian responsibility but also a sound economic strategy—particularly at a time when Sri Lanka continues to face considerable fiscal constraints and limited capacity to absorb another major shock.
The principle is clear:
Prevention is invariably less costly than recovery.
Every rupee invested in preparedness today can help prevent far greater social and economic losses tomorrow.
Listen to the Scientists
The public should pay close attention to forecasts and guidance issued by the Department of Meteorology.
At the same time, it is important to recognise that long-range forecasting is inherently complex. Climate systems involve countless interacting variables, many of which cannot be measured or predicted with complete accuracy months in advance.
When a forecast subsequently changes, this should not automatically be regarded as a failure of science. Forecasting is, by its nature, an assessment of probabilities and risks based on the best available evidence at a particular point in time.
The appropriate response is not to dismiss forecasts because they contain uncertainty, but to use them as tools for informed preparation.
What Should the Government Do?
The Government and relevant public institutions should urgently review Sri Lanka’s preparedness for drought, flooding, wildfires and extreme heat.
Key priorities should include:
· strengthening climate monitoring and early-warning systems;
· improving weather forecasting and public communication;
· developing comprehensive drought, flood and wildfire preparedness plans;
· enhancing reservoir, catchment and water-resource management;
· maintaining drainage infrastructure to reduce urban flooding;
· strengthening wildfire prevention, detection and response capabilities;
· investing in climate-resilient infrastructure; and
· establishing clear lines of responsibility and coordination among government agencies.
Coordination is particularly important. During a national emergency, citizens should never be left wondering which institution is responsible for taking action.
Water Security Must Be a National Priority
If prolonged dry conditions materialise, water security could become one of Sri Lanka’s most pressing challenges.
The country should strengthen groundwater protection, support the rehabilitation and maintenance of wells, and implement long-term water-security strategies in drought-prone regions. Such measures are important not only for human communities but also for agriculture, livestock and the natural ecosystems that sustain the country’s biodiversity.
Reservoirs and catchments must be managed carefully, while water conservation should be actively promoted among households, businesses, industries and farmers.
The key question is simple:
How much water will Sri Lanka require if the dry season lasts significantly longer than expected?
That question is far easier to answer before reservoirs begin to run dry.
Protecting Agriculture and Food Security
Agriculture remains highly vulnerable to drought and irregular rainfall. Significant disruption could result in rising food prices, reduced farm incomes and increased pressure on vulnerable households.
Sri Lanka should accelerate the adoption of drought-resistant crops, climate-smart farming techniques and efficient irrigation systems, including drip irrigation. Measures should also be taken to secure water and feed supplies for livestock, maintain strategic food reserves and strengthen weather-based advisory services for farmers.
Food security must be regarded not merely as an agricultural concern but as a matter of national resilience.
Preparing for Wildfires
Prolonged dry conditions can significantly increase wildfire risks. Sri Lanka must strengthen its capacity to prevent, detect and respond to fires before they escalate.
An effective strategy should rest on four pillars:
Prevention. Preparedness. Early detection. Rapid response.
Seasonal climate forecasts should be used to identify periods of heightened risk. Vegetation dryness, weather conditions and fire-prone regions should be monitored systematically, with modern technologies used wherever feasible.
Firebreaks should be established and maintained around vulnerable communities, forests and critical infrastructure. Dry vegetation and other combustible materials should be appropriately managed. Where environmentally and scientifically justified, carefully regulated controlled burning could also form part of an integrated fire-management strategy.
Human activity is responsible for many wildfires. During high-risk periods, open burning should therefore be restricted and unsafe land-clearing practices rigorously controlled. Public education campaigns should reinforce these measures.
Firefighting resources should be pre-positioned in high-risk areas before peak fire seasons begin. Adequate equipment and water supplies should be secured, and coordination strengthened among local authorities, fire services, forestry officials, disaster-management agencies and, where necessary, the armed forces.
Where practical and affordable, aerial firefighting capabilities should also be considered.
The guiding principle is straightforward:
Fight fires when they are small, rather than after they become uncontrollable.
Protecting Sri Lanka’s Natural Ecosystems
Healthy ecosystems are among the country’s most effective natural defences against climate stress.
Sri Lanka should protect wetlands and other water-retaining ecosystems, conserve forests, prevent unnecessary land clearing and fragmentation, and safeguard wildlife habitats from fire and degradation.
Forest conservation is not simply an environmental issue. It is central to water security, food security, biodiversity protection, public health and long-term national resilience.
Citizens Also Have a Responsibility
Preparedness cannot be the responsibility of government alone.
During dry periods, households should conserve water and avoid unnecessary waste. Communities should ensure that wells are cleaned, maintained and restored where necessary, particularly if prolonged disruptions to piped water supplies occur.
During periods of extreme heat, people should remain hydrated, avoid unnecessary outdoor activity and follow public health advice.
Families should maintain basic emergency plans and supplies. Communities in fire-prone areas should know evacuation routes and designated safe assembly points. Citizens should also avoid activities that could inadvertently start fires and remain alert to official warnings.
Particular attention should be given to vulnerable groups, including older people, people with disabilities and those with limited mobility. Communities should also be prepared for the health effects of wildfire smoke and deteriorating air quality.
From Response to Preparedness
Sri Lanka’s greatest challenge is not responding when disaster strikes. It is ensuring that natural hazards do not develop into national catastrophes.
This requires a fundamental shift from a culture of reaction to a culture of preparedness.
Government agencies, scientists, farmers, businesses, schools, community organisations and individual citizens all have important roles to play. A coordinated approach combining climate forecasting, land management, public education, community preparedness, early-warning systems and rapid emergency response can significantly reduce the risks posed by El Niño and other climate-related threats.
Even if severe drought conditions do not materialise, investments in preparedness will strengthen Sri Lanka’s resilience against future disasters. If severe conditions do occur, early preparation could save lives, protect livelihoods, reduce economic losses and prevent a difficult situation from escalating into a national crisis.
Sri Lanka has already learned, at enormous cost, the consequences of being unprepared. We should not wait for another disaster to teach us the same lesson.
The warning signs are present. The scientists are speaking. The risks are increasingly clear.
What remains is the political will and public commitment to act.
Preparation today will always cost less than recovery tomorrow.
After nearly 77 years of wildlife conservation, Sri Lanka must strengthen the institutions, professional leadership and political will needed to safeguard its natural heritage for generations to come.
By Dilum Alagiyawanna
Sri Lanka has a long and proud history of protecting its natural heritage. Generations of wildlife officers, forest officers, scientists, researchers, field staff and conservationists have worked, often under difficult circumstances, to protect our forests, wildlife and ecosystems. Their contribution deserves recognition and respect.
One important milestone in this journey came in October 1949, when the Wildlife department was established as a separate institution, following the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance of 1937 and the expansion of the country’s wildlife reserves. The creation of a dedicated department reflected an important recognition of the time: wildlife conservation required specialised institutional attention.
Today, nearly 77 years after its establishment, Sri Lanka has an opportunity not simply to reflect on that institutional journey, but to consider what kind of institutions and leadership we need for the next 75 years.
This is not an argument about the individuals currently holding positions in our conservation institutions. Nor is it intended to question the commitment, professionalism or sacrifices of the many public servants who have served these institutions over the years.
It is a broader institutional question.
What kind of leadership does Sri Lanka need to protect its natural heritage in the 21st century?
The issue is not who occupies a particular position today. It is whether our system of identifying, developing and appointing leaders is designed to meet the conservation challenges of tomorrow
A Changing conservation landscape
When many of our major conservation institutions were established, the principal challenges were relatively straightforward: establish protected areas, prevent poaching, enforce wildlife legislation and protect forests and wildlife from direct exploitation.
Those responsibilities remain fundamental.
But conservation today is considerably more complex.
Habitat fragmentation, expanding infrastructure, human-elephant conflict, climate change, invasive species, pollution, wildlife disease, road mortality, unplanned tourism and competing demands for land and water are placing increasing pressures on ecosystems.
Conservation can no longer be treated as an isolated environmental concern.
A highway can fragment a wildlife habitat. An irrigation project can alter an ecosystem. Poorly planned tourism can degrade a protected landscape. Agricultural expansion can affect wildlife movement. Climate change can alter species distributions, water availability and ecosystem resilience.
Conservation therefore intersects with agriculture, irrigation, energy, transport, tourism, disaster management, climate policy, land-use planning and national economic development.
It has become a multidisciplinary national policy challenge.
Beyond administration: What conservation leadership requires
There is nothing inherently wrong with a career public service.
Sri Lanka needs a professional, impartial and experienced public administration. Administrative knowledge, institutional memory and an understanding of government procedures are indispensable to the functioning of the State.
The question is whether administrative experience and seniority alone should be the principal criteria for leading institutions entrusted with complex living ecosystems and irreplaceable natural capital.
I believe they should not.
Leadership of major natural-resource institutions should combine administrative competence with scientific and technical understanding, field experience, strategic thinking, integrity, sound judgement and a demonstrated commitment to conservation outcomes.
This is not an argument for automatically replacing administrators with scientists. Nor is personal passion for nature, by itself, sufficient.
What Sri Lanka needs is mission-driven professional leadership.
A person leading a conservation institution should understand not only how to administer a government department, but also why that institution exists, what ecological outcomes it is expected to achieve and what may happen if those outcomes are not achieved.
Dr P. E. P. Deraniyagala: A legacy of scientific leadership
Sri Lanka’s own history provides a remarkable example of what can happen when scientific expertise, intellectual curiosity and institutional leadership come together.
Dr P. E. P. Deraniyagala was a zoologist, palaeontologist and naturalist whose contribution to Sri Lanka’s natural heritage extended far beyond the formal responsibilities of a government position.
He was appointed Director of the Colombo Museum in 1939 and, following the reorganisation of the museums, became the first Director of the Department of National Museums, a position he held until his retirement in 1963. His scientific work ranged from Sri Lanka’s living fauna to fossil elephants and other extinct prehistoric mammals.
It lies in what he brought to that position.
He brought scientific curiosity, intellectual independence, research capability and a lifelong commitment to understanding Sri Lanka’s natural heritage.
He did not simply administer an institution concerned with heritage. He contributed to the body of knowledge upon which our understanding of that heritage depended.
That is an important lesson for today.
Our conservation institutions must not merely administer conservation programmes. They must increasingly become knowledge-driven institutions capable of generating, interpreting and applying scientific evidence to management decisions.
From institutional continuity to institutional renewal
After nearly 77 years of experience, the appropriate response is not to criticise or dismantle the institutions that have served the country.
It is to ask how we can make them stronger, more scientifically capable, technologically advanced and better equipped for the next 75 years.
The challenges of 2026 are vastly different from those of 1949.
Satellite remote sensing, GIS, GPS telemetry, camera trapping, drones, genetic analysis, artificial intelligence and ecological modelling can transform how wildlife and ecosystems are understood and managed.
But technology alone cannot transform conservation.
Institutions need the scientific capacity to interpret information, the field capacity to collect reliable data and, above all, leadership capable of turning evidence into timely decisions.
A capable leader, however, also needs an institution with adequate resources, professional autonomy, scientific capacity and the authority to act. Leadership reform therefore cannot be reduced simply to changing individuals. It must also strengthen the institutional environment in which those individuals operate.
From species management to ecosystem stewardship
Sri Lanka must also move beyond a narrow concept of wildlife management.
An elephant is not simply an animal to be managed when it enters a village.
A leopard is not simply a species to be protected when a conflict occurs.
A forest is not simply a designated area on a map.
Each exists within a larger ecological system.
Effective conservation therefore requires landscape-level thinking: protecting habitats, maintaining ecological connectivity, securing watersheds, managing human activity and ensuring that development decisions properly account for ecological consequences.
Conservation expertise must therefore be incorporated into national development planning before decisions are made, rather than being brought into the process after environmental conflicts have already emerged.
Preventing conservation conflicts before they reach the courts
There is another reality that cannot be ignored.
For decades, conservationists, environmental organisations, researchers, professionals and concerned citizens have repeatedly found themselves having to seek administrative, political and sometimes judicial intervention when environmental concerns have not been adequately resolved through normal institutional processes.
The courts have consequently become an important safeguard for environmental protection.
But this should make us ask a deeper question.
Why should citizens repeatedly have to go to court to protect a forest, wildlife habitat, wetland or other environmentally sensitive area when the State already has institutions, laws, scientists and regulatory mechanisms designed to address these matters?
Judicial intervention is an essential component of a democratic system and an important safeguard for the public interest. But courts should not have to become the primary mechanism through which conservation policy is resolved, case by case.
A judicial determination necessarily operates within the legal and evidentiary framework before the court. It cannot substitute for a scientifically informed conservation policy or a strong institutional mechanism capable of identifying and resolving environmental risks at an early stage.
The objective should therefore be to build institutions strong enough to prevent many of these disputes from reaching the courtroom in the first place.
Conservationists and environmental organisations should ideally be able to engage with government institutions early in the decision-making process, supported by credible scientific evidence and transparent procedures, rather than being forced into the role of permanent opponents of the State.
Leadership that gets decisions right
This is precisely why Sri Lanka needs conservation leadership with the knowledge, independence, judgement and courage to make the right decisions at the right time.
Good conservation leadership is not simply about enforcing the law after a conflict has emerged.
It is about anticipating problems, understanding ecological consequences, identifying risks early and taking scientifically sound decisions before an issue becomes a political, social or legal dispute.
Sometimes the right decision may require saying no.
Sometimes it may require proposing a better alternative.
And sometimes it may require bringing scientists, communities, development agencies and political decision-makers together early enough to find a solution that protects both the public interest and the environment.
This is not about confrontation with governments or development.
It is about preventing unnecessary confrontation by getting the decision right in the first place.
The right leader can prevent a conservation problem from becoming an administrative problem, an administrative problem from becoming a political problem, and a political problem from ultimately becoming a legal dispute.
The best conservation decision is often the one that prevents the conflict from arising in the first place.
Conservation requires political will
Strong professional leadership, however, is not enough.
Conservation also requires political leadership with the vision, commitment and political will to support the right decisions, particularly when they may be difficult or politically inconvenient.
India’s Project Tiger, launched in 1973, provides a compelling example. The Government of India established the programme in response to the serious decline of tiger populations, creating a national conservation initiative that combined scientific management, protected areas and strong political commitment.
Indira Gandhi’s interest in environmental protection and her government’s support helped create the political conditions for major conservation initiatives during that period.
The lesson is not that political leaders should run conservation institutions.
It is the opposite.
Political leadership must create the space, authority and support for professional conservation institutions to do their job properly.
A scientifically sound decision made by a conservation institution can achieve little if political leadership is unwilling to stand behind it. Conversely, political will, working together with scientific and professional leadership, can turn a good conservation idea into a transformative national programme.
Sri Lanka needs both sides of this equation:
professional conservation leadership capable of making the right decisions, and political leadership with the will to support those decisions in the national interest.
The ideal relationship is not political interference in conservation.
It is political commitment to evidence-based conservation.
Natural Heritage Is National Capital
Sri Lanka’s natural resources should also be recognised as national capital.
Forests support water security.
Wetlands provide natural flood protection.
Healthy watersheds support agriculture and hydropower.
Biodiversity supports tourism.
Marine ecosystems support fisheries.
Intact landscapes provide resilience against climate-related disasters.
When these systems are degraded, the country incurs an economic cost.
The question should therefore not simply be:
How much will conservation cost?
It should also be:
How much will it cost Sri Lanka if we fail to conserve its natural capital?
This is why conservation expertise must be integrated into national development decision-making from the beginning.
Choosing the leaders for tomorrow
Sri Lanka does not lack people with knowledge, experience and commitment.
Our universities, research institutions, wildlife and forest services, professional organisations and civil society contain scientists, researchers, field practitioners and conservationists with considerable expertise.
What is needed is a system that allows this expertise to contribute more effectively to institutional leadership.
Future appointments to senior positions in natural-resource institutions should therefore consider more than administrative seniority.
They should consider:
Scientific and technical competence
Conservation and field experience
Strategic leadership
Institutional management capability
Integrity and independence
Understanding of communities and stakeholders
A demonstrated record of achieving meaningful outcomes
Such a system would not weaken the public service.
It would strengthen it by bringing administrative excellence and conservation excellence together.
The Wildlife Department is a useful lens through which to examine this broader question, but the issue extends far beyond wildlife. It concerns every institution entrusted with Sri Lanka’s forests, biodiversity, wetlands, coastal ecosystems, marine resources and other forms of natural capital.
What should Sri Lanka’s conservation institutions look like for the next 75 years?
Sri Lanka should be proud of the conservation institutions it has built since the middle of the last century.
But institutional pride should never become institutional complacency.
The establishment of the Wildlife Department in 1949 was itself an example of institutional adaptation. The country recognised that wildlife conservation had become sufficiently important and specialised to require a dedicated institution.
The same principle applies today.
The conservation challenges of 2026 are vastly different from those of 1949.
The answer is not to abandon what was built.
It is to evolve it.
We need conservation institutions that are stronger, more scientific, more innovative and better equipped to influence national development decisions.
We need leadership selection systems that recognise conservation as a specialised professional responsibility.
We need a public service in which administrative excellence is complemented by scientific expertise, field experience and a genuine commitment to conservation outcomes.
And we need political leadership with the vision and will to recognise that protecting natural capital is not an obstacle to national development, but an essential condition for sustainable national prosperity.
This is not about replacing individuals.
It is about building a better system for the future.
It is not about weakening existing institutions.
It is about strengthening them for the challenges ahead.
And it is not about choosing between development and conservation.
It is about ensuring that development does not destroy the natural capital upon which Sri Lanka’s long-term prosperity depends.
After nearly 77 years of dedicated wildlife conservation, perhaps this is the right moment to ask a fundamental question:
What should Sri Lanka’s conservation institutions look like for the next 75 years?
The answer should not reject the past.
It should be an ambitious evolution of it.
Because when the next generation looks back at our time, they will not judge us simply by how well we administered the institutions we inherited.
They will judge us by what forests remained standing, what species survived, what ecosystems remained intact, and whether we had the wisdom and courage to pass on Sri Lanka’s extraordinary natural heritage in better condition than we received it.
Author: Dilum Alagiyawanna is a telecommunications engineer turned environmental and wildlife conservationist, citizen scientist and wildlife documentary filmmaker. His work bridges science, public policy and sustainable development, with particular emphasis on the long-term conservation of Sri Lanka’s elephants and other threatened species.
On Monday 27 December 2021, according to a Flight Safety Foundation narrative, “Cessna 172L 4R-GAF (ex 4R-HDC) of Sakurai Aviation crash landed in a paddy field in Paththayam Watta, Kimbulapitiya, Negombo in the Gampaha district close to Bandaranaike International Airport (VCBI) after the aircraft suffered an engine RPM fluctuation and subsequent engine failure. Three of the four occupants were injured. The charter flight was on its way to Koggala Airport (VCCK) from Sigiriya Airport (VCCS) when the problems started to occur. It had initially taken off from Ratmalana Airport (VCCC) and was supposed to land there after departing Koggala Airport (VCCK). The flight was going to make an emergency landing at Bandaranaike International Airport (VCBI) but while the aircraft was descending the pilot in command informed the controller that he had no control over the engine power. During the final approach to runway 22 the pilot in command then declared a “MAYDAY” call and the aircraft crash landed soon after.”
The touchdown itself at the paddy field was safe but due to a concrete road, which was not visible from to air at low level and running across the field, the nose wheel hit it and broke off creating the destruction and injury.
With the economic recovery, the present government has started reconstructing the highways and expressways that were suspended in the recent past. In countries like the United States of America (USA) there are straight stretches of expressways and highways, at regular intervals, where light to medium size aircraft could safely land in an emergency unlike the accident described above. Not only that, that particular stretch of road is maintained by the local Regulating Authority like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the case of the USA.
A Safe Landing on an Expressway in India.
The Sri Lanka National Aviation Policy of 2017 also recommends that there should be helipads at regular intervals along the expressways/ highways to facilitate medical evacuation in case of motor accidents. It should be noted that the Minister in Charge of Aviation and Highways is one and the same
Will the Government spare a thought for safer multimodal transport especially when there is a push to make Domestic Aviation available for tourism? Or will it be just another pipe dream?
Capt. G A Fernando
Former member of the Accident Investigation Team, Civil Aviation Authority, Sri Lanka.(CAASL)
Immediate past President of Aircraft Owners and Operators Association, Sri Lanka. (AOAOA)
Cabinet aporives recruitment of Nursing Instructors for Nursing Schools under the Ministry of Health and Mass Media on Contract Basis
Signing agreement for the establishment of BIMSTEC Technology Transfer Facility in Sri Lanka
The cabinet approves agreement on mutual legal cooperation in criminal matters between the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of Korea
Misbah-ul-Haq resigns as Pakistan selector after Test squad upheaval
Amendment of the Quarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinance No. 3 of 1897
Cabinet approves donation of USD One Million to the Government of Nepal
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#SundayIsland 17th December – Headlines
Sunday Island – 28th March
Sunday Island Headlines – 21 March
Sunday Island – 21st February – Headlines
-
News5 days agoEight politicians in drug kingpin probe
-
Features3 days ago“Wrap Me Up in My Blazer”— A Gentlemanly Bradby Reminiscence
-
Business5 days agoSri Lanka opens up: A new season of direct connectivity
-
Features7 days agoInsights from Chieftains of Uva: Genealogy of two Kandyan Families – Part II
-
Features5 days agoRedefining ageing in Sri Lanka
-
Latest News6 days agoNepal-Tibet floods: What happened, what caused them and who is missing?
-
Editorial7 days agoWarning of power cuts: El Niño and corruption
-
Features7 days agoExport diversification: Missing the wood for the trees – Part I