Midweek Review

War in Ukraine: US Indo-Pacific strategy suffers as India skips several votes

Published

4 years ago

2022/03/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

…bid to isolate China fails

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Washington’s emerging Indo-Pacific strategy suffered a destructive setback in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one of the constituent republics of the former Soviet Union.

India’s decision not to back the US-led efforts, inside the UN and outside against Russia must have surprised the Western powers.

Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin ordered the offensive on February 24, just four days before the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council was to meet. The Russian offensive dominated the 49th sessions of the UNHRC, where, among the issues that had been taken up, was Sri Lanka’s alleged accountability issue.

Ironically UNHRC Chief Michelle Bachelet has turned a Nelsonian eye to all those horrific crimes that were committed by the West in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.. Then what about continuing unimaginable terror tactics, employed against civilians, in places like Yemen and Palestine? What are all these bleeding heart ‘independent’ Western media, liberals, I/NGOs, saying about such horrendous crimes? Next to nothing! But see how they feel for Ukrainians-always in a virtual frenzy!

War is a terrible thing anywhere as only fools and cold blooded Nazi types would wish for such suffering on any living being.

One-time top intelligence officer having been the head of the KGB in the former East Germany when the so-called Iron Curtain of the ex-Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, Putin, President of Russia since 2012, and previously from 2000 until 2008, in addition to being the Premier from 1999 to 2000 opened up a new front at a time the West was trying to finish off China by cornering and luring it into a quagmire over Taiwan the way they are trying to do to Russia over Ukraine. Sri Lanka has been caught up with the conflict between the West and China.

The much disputed yet understandable looking at it from her security perspective, the Russian move in Eastern Europe invariably compelled nuclear powers China, a permanent member of the five-nation UN Security Council and India, to take a common stand on Ukraine. Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Friday (March 4) that would have technically forced Putin to cease the offensive immediately and withdraw his forces. India and China skipped the vote whereas the Council’s 15 members voted in favour of the text. United Arab Emirates, too, abstained.

In spite of heavy and relentless Western pressure, India didn’t bow to any of it and threw its weight behind the Western move against Russia. The Indian position on Russian offensive, the biggest ever ground action since the end of WW II undermined the four nation Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) in the Asia-Pacific, aka the Quad, comprising the US, India, Japan and Australia. Meant to counter the growing Chinese political, military and economic power, the Russian invasion is the first real test for Quad. The failure on the part of Quad members to swiftly reach a consensus to oppose the Russian action in Ukraine would demoralise the grouping. That is the undeniable truth.

The Indian stand on Russian offensive should be examined taking into consideration its refusal to deploy ground troops in Iraq in support of the US-UK led 2003 invasion.

India reawakens as to her true friends

Western media coverage of the Indian response highlighted their disbelief and sort of ire as the Russia sustained the offensive. Perhaps the US really believed India would blindly back international sanctions against Russia. Had that happened, the Quad as well as the overall US-UK strategy in the Indo-Pacific region would have been greatly strengthened. It would be pertinent to mention that the US renamed United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command on 30 May 2018. The move underscored the pivotal importance of the US-India alliance in the wake of defence relationship emerging as a major pillar of India-US strategic partnership. The signing of the ‘New Framework for India-U.S. Defence Relations’ in 2005 and the resulting intensification in defence trade, joint exercises, personnel exchanges, collaboration and cooperation in maritime security and counter piracy, and exchanges between each of the three services. The Defence Framework Agreement has been updated and extended for another 10 years in June 2015.

India abstained from three votes at the UN Security Council, two at the UN General Assembly in New York, two at the UNHRC in Geneva, and one at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

Modi follows Indira’s stand

India has no option but to walk a diplomatic tightrope over war in Ukraine as it tried to balance its ties with Russia and the West. The US humiliated Narendra Modi before the whole world with a much publicised denial of visa in 2005, over his alleged role in anti-Muslim violence three years earlier in Gujarat state, where he was the Chief Minister.

More than 1,000 people were killed, mostly Muslims in that riot. The US swiftly changed its stance soon after the Modi-led BJP romped to victory at the 2014 General Election and Washington quickly forgot the Gujarat victims, with the obvious backing of the powerful Israel lobby in America and elsewhere. Israel, surrounded by a sea of enemies, barring the corrupt regimes there beholden to the West sees India as a natural counterbalance because of the almost unbridgeable Hindu-Muslim divide emanating from the time of the Moghul invasion of Bharat. So no wonder Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was the first world leader to fly to Moscow to appease the situation and it showed how worried ‘the never say die attitude’ state is.

The State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki declared that Modi would get a visa to the US once he took office and forms a government. Modi would be eligible for an A1 visa, said Psaki. She said: “We congratulate Narendra Modi and the BJP on its victory in winning a majority of seats in India’s historic national election, which saw more voters cast their ballots freely and fairly than in any election in human history. Secretary Kerry has also offered his congratulations, and looks forward to working with the BJP on expanding our shared prosperity and security.”

Over the years, the US-India relations reached new heights with India and the US extending nuclear cooperation partnership in late Oct 2020. New Delhi and Washington, in a joint statement issued on Nov 24, 2020, declared that the original agreement that had been signed on Nov 07, 2010 was extended in recognition and appreciation of ‘the strength of the enduring partnership between the two countries on matters of security and reaffirming the important contributions of the US-India nuclear and radiological security cooperation for the benefit of their citizens and the world.’

There is no doubt China is relieved by India’s position. China must have quite rightly ascertained India wouldn’t upset its relationship with Russia by siding with the West. Modi’s stand on the war in Ukraine is very much similar to that of Indira Gandhi as regards the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late Dec 1979. That war lasted 10 years. Having failed to achieve its objectives, the Soviet Union ended the disastrous mission in Feb 1989, a year before India terminated its military mission in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern Provinces. India brought its military project to a successful end in March 1990, having compelled the then Sri Lankan government to introduce 13th Amendment to the Constitution in Nov 1987. That objective was achieved at gunpoint.

India’s statement at the interactive session on the OHCHR’s written report on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka reminded how New Delhi pursued the 80s strategy. India’s Permanent Representative in Geneva Ambassador Indra Mani Pande declared: “We will continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government for the early conduct of elections to the Provincial Councils in keeping with its commitment to devolution of power.”

The late J.N. Dixit, in his memoirs ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy’ discussed India’s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and their military intervention in Sri Lanka. Having referred to its their disastrous 1962 war with China, the triumph over Pakistan nine years later and achieving much desired nuclear capability in 1998, Dixit, one-time Indian High Commissioner in Colombo (1985-1989) commented on policy decisions on Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. It would be better to read verbatim what Dixit, who also served as National Security Advisor said about Indira Gandhi. The comment should be examined against the backdrop of India’s refusal to join the anti-Russia camp. Had that happened, China, would have found itself in much more complicated and difficult situation over the Russian adventure in Ukraine.

Dixit stated: “She (Indira Gandhi) redefined the ideology of nonalignment more preciously in terms of the interests of the developing countries. The two foreign policy decisions on which she could be faulted are: her ambiguous response to the Russian intrusion into Afghanistan and her giving active support to Sri Lankan Tamil militants. Whatever the criticisms about these decisions, it cannot be denied that she took them on the basis of her assessments about India’s national interests. Her logic was that she could not openly alienate the former Soviet Union when India was so dependent on that country for defence supplies and technologies. Similarly, she could not afford the emergence of Tamil separatism in India by refusing to support the aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils. These aspirations were legitimate in the context of nearly 50 years of Sinhalese discrimination against Sri Lankan Tamils.

In both cases, her decisions were relevant at the point of time they were taken. History will judge her as a political leader who safeguarded Indian national interests with determination and farsightedness.”

Obviously, Modi felt the same way as the late Indira Gandhi did when he came under tremendous pressure to abandon Russia. New Delhi must have weighed how their stand on the Ukraine war affected common front against China.

Some have questioned India’s strategy. Commentators and analysts have raised questions, particularly in the West, over whether the world’s largest democracy should have backed the West. But, India, as a mature democracy has taken a principled stand. Some interpreted New Delhi’s first statement at the UN Security Council that regretted repeated calls from the international community to give diplomacy and dialogue a chance had not been heeded. But, at the end India skipped votes on Ukraine much to the dismay of the US.

Among those who abstained along with India and China were Pakistan, Vietnam, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and Bangladesh. Altogether 35 countries abstained not because they endorsed the Russian aggression but didn’t want to back a coalition that was responsible for millions of deaths in various regions of the world. The 2003 US-UK led invasion of Iraq on the false pretext of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) exposed the duplicity of those countries preaching to other nations about accountability.

It would be pertinent to ask whether those countries which staged a walk out last week as the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was addressing the UN in Geneva felt the same way when Western powers invaded Iraq. Some sections of the media quoted Ukrainian Ambassador in Geneva, Yevheniia Filipenko, who led the walkout at UNHRC as having thanked those who took part in the stunt. The Ambassador is right. It is nothing but a stunt as the then US Ambassador Nikki Haley in June 2018 called it a cesspool of political bias.

Lanka takes another beating at Geneva sessions

The Geneva agenda made further progress at the ongoing sessions overshadowed by the war in Ukraine. The Sri Lankan delegation to Geneva comprised Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, Justice Minister Ali Sabry, PC, Foreign Secretary Admiral (retd) Jayanath Colombage. The delegation joined Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative there, one-time The Island political correspondent C.A. Chandraprema.

Prof. Peiris, bitterly complained about the way the UNHRC has treated Sri Lanka and pursued a strategy severely inimical to the country. The Foreign Ministry quoted Prof. Peiris as having said: “In March 2021, the Council voted on Resolution 46/1 which was tabled without the consent of Sri Lanka as the country concerned. The consideration of this matter polarised and politicised this forum. In a startling departure from the mandate which the UN General Assembly originally conferred on this Council, operative paragraph 6 of this resolution refers to a so-called evidence-gathering mechanism, a measure that was strongly opposed by a number of countries. Such initiatives create disharmony both in the domestic and international arenas. It creates obstacles to reconciliation efforts, breeds hatred by reopening past wounds, and polarises society.”

However, Geneva repeated the same old accusations against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure at least to set the record straight.

Daya Gamage, one-time US State Department employee and the author of ‘Tamil Tigers’ Debt to America: US Foreign Policy Adventurism and Sri Lanka’s Dilemma’ strongly condemned Sri Lanka’s response to the Geneva threat. In comments posted online, Gamage questioned the failure on the part of the Sri Lankan government, at least to remind Geneva how now vanquished Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) expelled the entire Muslim community from Sri Lanka’s Northern Province in Oct/Nov 1990, just a few months after India pulled out its troops from Sri Lanka. Gamage stressed that the expulsion of Muslims should have been dealt with as Sri Lanka was being accused of perpetrating genocide. The former US Embassy employee in Colombo said: “Anyone who reads the interpretation of ‘genocide’ in the UN Charter and other scholarly works can know what genocide means.”

The UK-led Sri Lanka Core Group comprising Canada, Germany, North Macedonia, Malawi and Montenegro continued its despicable strategy of persecution of this country for defeating the world’s “most ruthless terrorist organisation” against their sinister advice. That lot voted against Russia over the continuing war in Ukraine but didn’t find fault with the invasion of Iraq or military action against several other countries in the past. Canada recently unearthed hard evidence of genocide and other calculated human rights violations against its indigenous population plays a major role in the project to undermine Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s failure to challenge the very basis of unsubstantiated war crimes allegations in spite of Lord Naseby providing the required ammunition in Oct 2017 along with a significant US military statement (Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith, US Defence Advisor, Colombo) in June 2011, over two years after the successful conclusion of the war is a point to ponder. Can there be an excuse for continuously failing to set the record straight in Geneva and New York. What prevents Sri Lanka from making a reference to Indian intervention at least on the basis of what Dixit stated in his widely read memoirs? Why can’t we remind the world Geneva proceeded with a contentious process based on unverified accusations that cannot be examined till 2031? Or point out the vast discrepancy in the number of dead (both civilians and combatants) as reported by the UN Colombo and the disputed Darusman report?

The current dispensation has caused countrywide chaos by extremely poor management of the national economy. There is no doubt the vast majority of people struggling to make ends meet have been deprived of the basic needs. Disruption of both fuel and gas supplies as well as daily countrywide power cuts have jolted the public. Having repeatedly promised a system change, the current government has caused gross human rights violation by depriving all communities of the basic needs. It would be a grave mistake on the part of the government to believe the crisis can be conveniently blamed on the Covid-19 global epidemic.

The Geneva didn’t receive the attention it required in the local media due to the war in Ukraine and unprecedented political crisis caused by sharp differences emerging within the SLPP-led ruling coalition. The rebel group made explosive accusations pertaining to Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, who holds Sri Lanka and US dual citizenship, of pursuing a strategy to facilitate Western intervention. The rebel group compared the current situation with that of Indonesia in the 1960s that brought military dictator Suharto to power and resulted in butchering of possibly several hundred thousand innocents suspected of being Communist sympathisers.

Regardless of pompous declarations made, Sri Lanka has been encircled on the Geneva front with so-called evidence-gathering mechanism free to proceed. Perhaps, Sri Lanka should explore the possibility of presenting its case with all available evidence, including now unclassified wartime dispatches from the British High Commission in Colombo with fresh request to the UK as well as other key diplomatic missions to submit their wartime dispatches to the UN evidence gathering mechanism. Sri Lanka never used Wiki leaks revelations for its advantage.

Let me end this piece by reproducing a section of Wikileaks managed to secrete out of US diplomatic cables from Geneva. A cable dated July 15, 2009 signed by the then Geneva-based US Ambassador Clint Williamson cleared the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) of crimes against humanity during the Vanni offensive. The cable addressed to the US State Department was based on a confidential conversation Ambassador Williamson had with the then ICRC head of operations for South Asia, Jacque de Maio on July 9, 2009. Ambassador Williamson wrote: “The army was determined not to let the LTTE escape from its shrinking territory, even though this meant the civilians being kept hostage by the LTTE were at an increasing risk. So, de Maio said, while one could safely say that there were ‘serious, widespread violations of international humanitarian law,’ by the Sri Lankan forces, it didn’t amount to genocide. He could cite examples of where the army had stopped shelling when the ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. In fact, the army actually could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet it chose a slower approach which led to a greater number of Sri Lankan military deaths. He concluded however, by asserting that the GoSL failed to recognise its obligation to protect civilians, despite the approach leading to higher military casualties.”

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

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

Published

5 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

With Sri Lanka’s 17th annual war victory over separatist Tamil terrorism just months away, warwinning Army Chief, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka (Dec. 06, 2005, to July 15, 2009) has significantly changed his war narrative pertaining to the final phase of the offensive that was brought to an end on May 18, 2009.

The armed forces declared the conclusion of ground operations on that day after the entire northern region was brought back under their control. LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, hiding within the secured area, was killed on the following day. His body was recovered from the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon.

With the war a foregone conclusion, with nothing to save the increasingly hedged in Tigers taking refuge among hapless Tamil civilians, Fonseka left for Beijing on May 11, and returned to Colombo, around midnight, on May 17, 2009. The LTTE, in its last desperate bid to facilitate Prabhakatan’s escape, breached one flank of the 53 Division, around 2.30 am, on May 18. But they failed to bring the assault to a successful conclusion and by noon the following day those fanatical followers of Tiger Supremo, who had been trapped within the territory, under military control, died in confrontations.

During Fonseka’s absence, the celebrated 58 Division (formerly Task Force 1), commanded by the then Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva, advanced 31/2 to 4 kms and was appropriately positioned with Maj. Gen. Kamal Gunaratne’s 53 Division. The LTTE never had an opportunity to save its leader by breaching several lines held by frontline troops on the Vanni east front. There couldn’t have been any other option than surrendering to the Army.

The Sinha Regiment veteran, who had repeatedly accused the Rajapaksas of war crimes, and betraying the war effort by providing USD 2 mn, ahead of the 2005 presidential election, to the LTTE, in return for ordering the polls boycott that enabled Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory, last week made noteworthy changes to his much disputed narrative.

GR’s call to Shavendra What did the former Army Commander say?

* The Rajapaksas wanted to sabotage the war effort, beginning January 2008.

* In January 2008, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Navy Commander VA Wasantha Karannagoda, proposed to the National Security Council that the Army should advance from Vavuniya to Mullithivu, on a straight line, to rapidly bring the war to a successful conclusion. They asserted that Fonseka’s strategy (fighting the enemy on multiple fronts) caused a lot of casualties.

* They tried to discourage the then Lt. Gen. Fonseka

* Fonseka produced purported video evidence to prove decisive intervention made by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa on the afternoon of May 17. The ex-Army Chief’s assertion was based on a telephone call received by Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva from Gotabaya Rajapaksa. That conversation had been captured on video by Swarnavahini’s Shanaka de Silva who now resides in the US. He had been one of the few persons, from the media, authorised by the Army Headquarters and the Defence Ministry to be with the Army leadership on the battlefield. Fonseka claimed that the videographer fled the country to escape death in the hands of the Rajapaksas. It was somewhat reminiscent of Maithripala Sirisena’s claim that if Rajapaksas win the 2015 Presidential election against him he would be killed by them.

* Shanaka captured Shavendra Silva disclosing three conditions laid down by the LTTE to surrender namely (a) Their casualties should be evacuated to Colombo by road (b) They were ready to exchange six captured Army personnel with those in military custody and (c) and the rest were ready to surrender.

* Then Fonseka received a call from Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on a CDMA phone. The Defence Secretary issued specific instructions to the effect that if the LTTE was to surrender that should be to the military and definitely not to the ICRC or any other third party. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, one-time Commanding Officer of the 1st battalion of the Gajaba Regiment, ordered that irrespective of any new developments and talks with the international community, offensive action shouldn’t be halted. That declaration directly contradicted Fonseka’s claim that the Rajapaksas conspired to throw a lifeline to the LTTE.

Fonseka declared that the Rajapaksa brothers, in consultation with the ICRC, and Amnesty International, offered an opportunity for the LTTE leadership to surrender, whereas his order was to annihilate the LTTE. The overall plan was to eliminate all, Fonseka declared, alleging that the Rajapaksa initiated talks with the LTTE and other parties to save those who had been trapped by ground forces in a 400 m x 400 m area by the night of May 16, among a Tamil civilian human shield held by force.

If the LTTE had agreed to surrender to the Army, Mahinda Rajapaksa would have saved their lives. If that happened Velupillai Prabhakaran would have ended up as the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, he said. Fonseka shocked everyone when he declared that he never accused the 58 Division of executing prisoners of war (white flag killings) but the issue was created by those media people embedded with the military leadership. Fonseka declared that accusations regarding white flag killings never happened. That story, according to Fonseka, had been developed on the basis of the Rajapaksas’ failed bid to save the lives of the LTTE leaders.

Before we discuss the issues at hand, and various assertions, claims and allegations made by Fonseka, it would be pertinent to remind readers of wartime US Defence Advisor in Colombo Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s June 2011 denial of white flag killings. The US State Department promptly declared that the officer hadn’t spoken at the inaugural Colombo seminar on behalf of the US. Smith’s declaration, made two years after the end of the war, and within months after the release of the Darusman report, dealt a massive blow to false war crimes allegations.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in 2010, appointed a three-member Panel of Experts, more like a kangaroo court, consisting of Marzuki Darusman, Yasmin Sooka, and Steven Ratner, to investigate war crimes accusations.

Now Fonseka has confirmed what Smith revealed at the defence seminar in response to a query posed by Maj. General (retd.) Ashok Metha of the IPKF to Shavendra Silva, who had been No 02 in our UN mission, in New York, at that time.

White flag allegations

‘White flag’ allegations cannot be discussed in isolation. Fonseka made that claim as the common presidential candidate backed by the UNP-JVP-TNA combine. The shocking declaration was made in an interview with The Sunday Leader Editor Frederica Jansz published on Dec. 13, 2009 under ‘Gota ordered them to be shot – General Sarath Fonseka.’

The ‘white flag’ story had been sensationally figured in a leaked confidential US Embassy cable, during Patricia Butenis tenure as the US Ambassador here. Butenis had authored that cable at 1.50 pm on Dec. 13, 2009, the day after the now defunct The Sunday Leader exclusive. Butenis had lunch with Fonseka in the company of the then UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya, according to the cable. But for the writer the most interesting part had been Butenis declaration that Fonseka’s advisors, namely the late Mangala Samaraweera, Anura Kumara Dissanayake (incumbent President) and Vijitha Herath (current Foreign Minister) wanted him to retract part of the story attributed to him.

Frederica Jansz fiercely stood by her explosive story. She reiterated the accuracy of the story, published on Dec. 13, 2009, during the ‘white flag’ hearing when the writer spoke to her. There is absolutely no reason to suspect Frederica Jansz misinterpreted Fonseka’s response to her queries.

Subsequently, Fonseka repeated the ‘white flag’ allegation at a public rally held in support of his candidature. Many an eyebrow was raised at The Sunday Leader’s almost blind support for Fonseka, against the backdrop of persistent allegations directed at the Army over Lasantha Wickrematunga’s killing. Wickrematunga, an Attorney-at-Law by profession and one-time Private Secretary to Opposition Leader Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was killed on the Attidiya Road, Ratmalana in early January 2009.

The Darusman report, too, dealt withthe ‘white flag’ killings and were central to unsubstantiated Western accusations directed at the Sri Lankan military. Regardless of the political environment in which the ‘white flag’ accusations were made, the issue received global attention for obvious reasons. The accuser had been the war-winning Army Commander who defeated the LTTE at its own game. But, Fonseka insisted, during his meeting with Butenis, as well as the recent public statement that the Rajapaksas had worked behind his back with some members of the international community.

Fresh inquiry needed

Fonseka’s latest declaration that the Rajapaksas wanted to save the LTTE leadership came close on the heels of Deputy British Prime Minister David Lammy’s whistle-stop visit here. The UK, as the leader of the Core Group on Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council, spearheads the campaign targeting Sri Lanka.

Lammy was on his way to New Delhi for the AI Impact Summit. The Labour campaigner pushed for action against Sri Lanka during the last UK general election. In fact, taking punitive action against the Sri Lankan military had been a key campaign slogan meant to attract Tamil voters of Sri Lankan origin. His campaign contributed to the declaration of sanctions in March 2025 against Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, General (retd) Shavendra Silva, General (retd) Jagath Jayasuriya and ex-LTTE commander Karuna, who rebelled against Prabhakaran. Defending Shavendra Silva, Fonseka, about a week after the imposition of the UK sanctions, declared that the British action was unfair.

But Fonseka’s declaration last week had cleared the Rajapaksas of war crimes. Instead, they had been portrayed as traitors. That declaration may undermine the continuous post-war propaganda campaign meant to demonise the Rajapaksas and top ground commanders.

Canada, then a part of the Western clique that blindly towed the US line, declared Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide and also sanctioned ex-Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Other countries resorted to action, though such measures weren’t formally announced. General (retd) Jagath Dias and Maj. Gen (retd) Chagie Gallage were two of those targeted.

Against the backdrop of Fonseka’s latest claims, in respect of accountability issues, the urgent need to review action taken against Sri Lanka cannot be delayed. Although the US denied visa when Fonseka was to accompany President Maithripala Sirisena to the UN, in Sept. 2016, he hadn’t been formally accused of war crimes by the western powers, obviously because he served their interests.

On the basis of unsubstantiated allegations that hadn’t been subjected to judicial proceedings, Geneva initiated actions. The US, Canada and UK acted on those accusations. The US sanctioned General Shavendra Silva in Feb. 2020 and Admiral Karannagoda in April 2023.

What compelled Fonseka to change his narrative, 18 years after his Army ended the war? Did Fonseka base his latest version solely on Shanaka de Silva video? Fonseka is on record as claiming that he got that video, via a third party, thereby Shanaka de Silva had nothing to do with his actions.

DNA and formation of DP

Having realised that he couldn’t, under any circumstances, reach a consensus with the UNP to pursue a political career with that party, Fonseka teamed up with the JVP, one of the parties in the coalition that backed his presidential bid in 2010. Fonseka’s current efforts to reach an understanding with the JVP/NPP (President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is the leader of both registered political parties) should be examined against the backdrop of their 2010 alliance.

Under Fonseka’s leadership, the JVP, and a couple of other parties/groups, contested, under the symbol of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) that had been formed on 22 Nov. 2009. but the grouping pathetically failed to live up to their own expectations. The results of the parliamentary polls, conducted in April 2010, had been devastating and utterly demoralising. Fonseka, who polled about 40% of the national vote at the January 2010 presidential election, ended up with just over 5% of the vote, and the DNA only managed to secure seven seats, including two on the National List. The DNA group consisted of Fonseka, ex-national cricket captain Arjuna Ranatunga, businessman Tiran Alles and four JVPers. Anura Kumara Dissanayake was among the four.

Having been arrested on February 8, 2010, soon after the presidential election, Fonseka was in prison. He was court-martialed for committing “military offences”. He was convicted of corrupt military supply deals and sentenced to three years in prison. Fonseka vacated his seat on 7 Oct .2010. Following a failed legal battle to protect his MP status, Fonseka was replaced by DNA member Jayantha Ketagoda on 8 March 2011. But President Mahinda Rajapaksa released Fonseka in May 2012 following heavy US pressure. The US went to the extent of issuing a warning to the then SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena that unless President Rajapaksa freed Fonseka he would have to face the consequences (The then Health Minister Sirisena disclosed the US intervention when the writer met him at the Jealth Ministry, as advised by President Rajapaksa)

By then, Fonseka and the JVP had drifted apart and both parties were irrelevant. Somawansa Amarasinghe had been the leader at the time the party decided to join the UNP-led alliance that included the TNA, and the SLMC. The controversial 2010 project had the backing of the US as disclosed by leaked secret diplomatic cables during Patricia Butenis tenure as the US Ambassador here.

In spite of arranging the JVP-led coalition to bring an end to the Rajapaksa rule, Butenis, in a cable dated 15 January 2010, explained the crisis situation here. Butenis said: “There are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power. In Sri Lanka this is further complicated by the fact that responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President Rajapaksa and his brothers and opposition candidate General Fonseka.”

Then Fonseka scored a major victory when Election Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya on 1 April, 2013, recognised his Democratic Party (DNA was registered as DP) with ‘burning flame’ as its symbol. There hadn’t been a previous instance of any service commander registering a political party. While Fonseka received the leadership, ex-Army officer Senaka de Silva, husband of Diana Gamage ((later SJB MP who lost her National List seat over citizenship issue) functioned as the Deputy Leader.

Having covered Fonseka’s political journey, beginning with the day he handed over command to Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya, in July, 2009, at the old Army Headquarters that was later demolished to pave the way for the Shangri-La hotel complex, the writer covered the hastily arranged media briefing at the Solis reception hall, Pitakotte, on 2 April, 2023. Claiming that his DP was the only alternative to what he called corrupt Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government and bankrupt Ranil Wickremesinghe-led Opposition, a jubilant Fonseka declared himself as the only alternative (‘I am the only alternative,’ with strapline ‘SF alleges Opposition is as bad as govt’. The Island, April 3, 2013).

Fonseka had been overconfident to such an extent, he appealed to members of the government parliamentary group, as well as the Opposition (UNP), to switch allegiance to him. As usual Fonseka was cocky and never realised that 40% of the national vote he received, at the presidential election, belonged to the UNP, TNA and the JVP. Fonseka also disregarded the fact that he no longer had the JVP’s support. He was on his own. The DP never bothered to examine the devastating impact his 2010 relationship with the TNA had on the party. The 2015 general election results devastated Fonseka and underscored that there was absolutely no opportunity for a new party. The result also proved that his role in Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE hadn’t been a decisive factor.

RW comes to SF’s rescue

Fonseka’s DP suffered a humiliating defeat at the August 2015 parliamentary polls. The outcome had been so bad that the DP was left without at least a National List slot. Fonseka was back to square one. If not for UNP leader and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Fonseka could have been left in the cold. Wickremesinghe accommodated Fonseka on their National List, in place of SLFPer M.K.D.S. Gunawardene, who played a critical role in an influential section of the party and the electorate shifting support to Maithripala Sirisena. Gunawardena passed away on 19 January, 2016. Wickremesinghe and Fonseka signed an agreement at Temple Trees on 3 February, 2016. Fonseka received appointment as National List MP on 9 February, 2016, and served as Minister of Regional Development and, thereafter, as Minister of Wildlife and Sustainable Development, till Oct. 2018. Fonseka lost his Ministry when President Sirisena treacherously sacked Wickremesinghe’s government to pave the way for a new partnership with the Rajapaksas. The Supreme Court discarded that arrangement and brought back the Yahapalana administration but Sirisena, who appointed Fonseka to the lifetime rank of Field Marshal, in recognition of his contribution to the defeat of terrorism, refused to accommodate him in Wickremesinghe’s Cabinet. The President also left out Wasantha Karannagoda and Roshan Goonetilleke. Sirisena appointed them Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of Air Force, respectively, on 19, Sept. 2019, in the wake of him failing to secure the required backing to contest the Nov. 2019 presidential election.

Wickremesinghe’s UNP repeatedly appealed on behalf of Fonseka in vain to Sirisena. At the 2020 general election, Fonseka switched his allegiance to Sajith Premadasa and contested under the SJB’s ‘telephone’ symbol and was elected from the Gampaha district. Later, following a damaging row with Sajith Premadasa, he quit the SJB as its Chairman and, at the last presidential election, joined the fray as an independent candidate. Having secured just 22,407 votes, Fonseka was placed in distant 9th position. Obviously, Fonseka never received any benefits from support extended to the 2022 Aragalaya and his defeat at the last presidential election seems to have placed him in an extremely difficult position, politically.

Let’s end this piece by reminding that Fonseka gave up the party leadership in early 2024 ahead of the presidential election. Senaka de Silva succeeded Fonseka as DP leader, whereas Dr. Asosha Fernando received appointment as its Chairman. The DP has aligned itself with the NPP. The rest is history.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

Strengths and weaknesses of BRICS+: Implications for Global South

Published

5 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

The 16th BRICS Summit, from 22 to 24 October 2024 in Kazan, was attended by 24 heads of state, including the five countries that officially became part of the group on 1 January: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia. Argentina finally withdrew from the forum after Javier Milei’s government took office in 2023.

In the end, it changed its strategy and instead of granting full membership made them associated countries adding a large group of 13 countries: two from Latin America (Bolivia and Cuba), three from Africa (Algeria, Nigeria, Uganda) and eight from Asia (Belarus, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Vietnam). This confirms the expansionary intent of the BRICS, initiated last year and driven above all by China, which seeks to turn the group into a relevant multilateral forum, with focus on political than economic interaction, designed to serve its interests in the geopolitical dispute with the United States. This dispute however is not the making of China but has arisen mainly due to the callous bungling of Donald Trump in his second term in office.

China has emerged as the power that could influence the membership within the larger group more than its rival in the region, India. Obviously, the latter is concerned about these developments but seems powerless to stop the trend as more countries realize the need for the development of capacity to resist Western dominance. India in this regard seems to be reluctant possibly due to its defence obligations to the US with Trump declaring war against countries that try to forge partnerships aiming to de-dollarize the global economic system.

The real weakness in BRICS therefore, is the seemingly intractable rivalry between China and India and the impact of this relationship on the other members who are keen to see the organisation grow its capacity to meet its stated goals. China is committed to developing an alternative to the Western dominated world order, particularly the weaponization of the dollar by the US. India does not want to be seen as anti-west and as a result India is often viewed as a reluctant or cautious member of BRICS. This problem seems to be perpetuated due to the ongoing border tensions with China. India therefore has a desire to maintain a level playing field within the group, rather than allowing it to be dominated by Beijing.

Though India seems to be committed to a multipolar world, it prefers focusing on economic cooperation over geopolitical alignment. India thinks the expansion of BRICS initiated by China may dilute its influence within the bloc to the advantage of China. India fears the bloc is shifting toward an anti-Western tilt driven by China and Russia, complicating its own strong ties with the West. India is wary of the new members who are also beneficiaries of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. While China aims to use BRICS for anti-Western geopolitical agendas, India favors focusing on South-South financial cooperation and reforming international institutions. Yet India seems to be not in favour of creating a new currency to replace the dollar which could obviously strengthen the South-South financial transactions bypassing the dollar.

Moreover, India has explicitly opposed the expansion of the bloc to include certain nations, such as Pakistan, indicating a desire to control the group’s agenda, especially during its presidency.

In this equation an important factor is the role that Russia could play. The opinion expressed by the Russian foreign minister in this regard may be significant. Referring to the new admissions the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said: “The weight, prominence and importance of the candidates and their international standing were the primary factors for us [BRICS members]. It is our shared view that we must recruit like-minded countries into our ranks that believe in a multipolar world order and the need for more democracy and justice in international relations. We need those who champion a bigger role for the Global South in global governance. The six countries whose accession was announced today fully meet these criteria.”

The admission of three major oil producing countries, Saudi Arabia, Iran and UAE is bound to have a significant impact on the future global economic system and consequently may have positive implications for the Global South. These countries would have the ability to decisively help in creating a new international trading system to replace the 5 centuries old system that the West created to transfer wealth from the South to the North. This is so because the petro-dollar is the pillar of the western banking system and is at the very core of the de-dollarizing process that the BRICS is aiming at. This cannot be done without taking on board Saudi Arabia, a staunch ally of the west. BRICS’ expansion, therefore, is its transformation into the most representative community in the world, whose members interact with each other bypassing Western pressure. Saudi Arabia and Iran are actively mending fences, driven by a 2023 China-brokered deal to restore diplomatic ties, reopen embassies, and de-escalate regional tensions. While this detente has brought high-level meetings and a decrease in direct hostility rapprochement is not complete yet and there is hope which also has implications, positive for the South and may not be so for the North.

Though the US may not like what is going on, Europe, which may not endorse all that the former does if one is to go by the speech delivered by the Canadian PM in Brazil recently, may not be displeased about the rapid growth of BRICS. The Guardian UK highlighted expert opinion that BRICS expansion is rather “a symbol of broad support from the global South for the recalibration of the world order.” A top official at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Caroline Kanter has told the daily, “It is obvious that we [Western countries] are no longer able to set our own conditions and standards. Proposals will be expected from us so that in the future we will be perceived as an attractive partner.” At the same time, the bottom line is that BRICS expansion is perceived in the West as a political victory for Russia and China which augurs well for the future of BRICS and the Global South.

Poor countries, relentlessly battered by the neo-liberal global economy, will greatly benefit if BRICS succeeds in forging a new world order and usher in an era of self-sufficiency and economic independence. There is no hope for them in the present system designed to exploit their natural resources and keep them in a perpetual state of dependency and increasing poverty. BRICS is bound to be further strengthened if more countries from the South join it. Poor countries must come together and with the help of BRICS work towards this goal.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga