Midweek Review

Govt. erupts over US energy deal, crisis threatens SLPP’s near 2/3 majority

Published

4 years ago

2021/11/3

Sahan Weerasooriya

Rebel SLPP lawmakers and Ven. Athureliye Rathana, MP of 'Ape Jana Bala Pakshaya' at last Friday's meet at Solis hall

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The top government leadership last Thursday night (28) made a last ditch attempt to thwart an influential section of ruling party lawmakers from going ahead with the planned public meeting at the Solis Hall, Pitakotte, against the controversial energy deal with the US-based New Fortress Energy.

The meeting, held at the main hall of Temple Trees, with the participation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa and Chief Government Whip Dinesh Gunawardena, failed to convince the dissident members. In spite of the Prime Minister’s Office declaring that a consensus had been reached on how to address the issue at hand, the rebel group went ahead with their meeting.

Of the 145-member Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) parliamentary group, the following members, Industries Minister Wimal Weerawansa (leader, National Freedom Front/Colombo district), Energy Minister Udaya Gammanpila (leader, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya/Colombo district), Water Supply Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara (leader, Democratic Left Front/Ratnapura district), SLFP General Secretary and State Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera (Kurunegala district), LSSP General Secretary Prof. Tissa Vitharana (National List), National Congress leader A.L.M. Athaulla (Digamadulla district), United People’s Party leader Tiran Alles (National List) and Yuthukama civil society group leader Gevindu Cumaratunga (National List) participated at the launch of a public protest campaign. All of them had been present at last Thursday’s Temple Trees over three-hour long inconclusive discussion that actually appeared to have aggravated the situation.

In addition to them, Ven. Athureliye Rathana thera, MP, represented the Ape Jana Bala Pakshaya at Friday’s meet at Pitakotte. National List lawmaker Ven. Rathana, facing possible expulsion from parliament, over a dispute with his party, in spite of frequent participation at SLPP events, is not a member of the government parliamentary group. Interestingly, Ven. Galagodatte Gnanasara, recently named as the head of the Presidential Task Force (PTF), assigned to make recommendations in respect of the ‘One Country, One Law’ project, is widely believed to be a frontrunner for the Ape Jana Bala Pakshaya National List slot. The Ven thera’s new status has deeply disappointed the Muslim community, with Justice Minister Ali Sabry, PC, declaring his intention to quit the justice portfolio.

In the absence of the sole Communist Party member in Parliament, Weerasumana Weerasinghe, their General Secretary Geeganage Weerasinghe joined the head table. When the writer sought a clarification from lawmaker Weerasinghe as regards his absence at the vital meeting, he assured his commitment to the protest campaign. “I had to attend a previously organised event,” the Matara District lawmaker said, adding that he represented the party at Thursday’s meeting at Temple Trees.

At Friday’s meeting, the rebel group declared that it wouldn’t accept the US energy deal, under any circumstances. The group, in no uncertain terms, alleged the brazen manipulation of Cabinet procedures, in respect of the energy deal with the US Company. One-time JVP firebrand Weerawansa, on behalf of the group, emphasised that their effort was to save the government and not in any way promote the bankrupt Opposition. The dissident group alleged that the agreement would create, what Minister Gammanpila called, a permanent US monopoly in the supply of gas to Sri Lanka. The MPs vowed that they wouldn’t give up their opposition to the deal for perks and privileges.

While former President Maithripala Sirisena, who attended the meeting at Temple Trees, was represented by Dayasiri Jayasekera, Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) leader and Chief Government Whip Dinesh Gunawardena, and Ceylon Workers representative Jeevan Thondaman, MP, weren’t present, though they attended the Temple Trees meet.

SLPP remains in control

In spite of the latest crisis, triggered by the rebel group that included the SLFP, the second largest party in the ruling coalition (14 members), the dominant power SLPP retains the most powerful group in Parliament. The SLPP group, in the government parliamentary grouping, comprises 117 members and strongly remains committed to the incumbent government at least for now.

The only exception is Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakha, PC, who broke ranks with the SLPP over the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill, in May, 2021. However, the one-time Justice Minister refrained from voting against the Bill, though he appeared for the Chief Incumbent of the Narahenpita Abhayaramaya, the Ven. Muruththettuwe Ananda, in the fundamental rights case against the Bill. Minister Weerawansa’s NFF consists of six members and is the third largest group therein. Although Dr. Rajapaksha didn’t join Friday’s meet, he is very likely to support the cause. Ven. Muruththettuwe Ananda delivered anusasana at the commencement of the event.

Did the top SLPP leadership anticipate the SLFP, NFF, PHU, and several other political parties taking a common stand on the US energy deal? The crisis couldn’t have erupted at a worse time for the government, struggling on several fronts, ahead of the presentation of Budget 2022, on Nov 12. The government shouldn’t take the developing situation lightly. Over two dozen lawmakers, many of whom zealously rallied the nation behind Rajapaksas after they suffered the shock defeat at the January 2015 Presidential election, taking a contrary view to that of the SLPP, as regards the US energy deal, should be a matter of serious concern. In other words, the government’s near two-thirds majority is at risk. Unless the SLPP reaches some sort of consensus with its constituents as soon as possible, the overall government strategy can be undermined. It would be a grave blunder, on the government’s part, to go ahead with its plans, regardless of the growing opposition, within the parliamentary group.

Many an eyebrow was also raised over the presence of SLPP lawmaker Attorney-at-Law Premanath Dolawatte with the rebels, as he once called himself a lawyer for the Rajapaksas.

The public is quite likely to be concerned about the rebel group’s declaration that the US energy deal would betray the country’s future. Would this crisis undermine the much-touted government promise to enact a brand new Constitution? The SLPP’s predicament, due to a section taking a public stand on a contentious foreign and economic policy matter, should be examined against the backdrop of the Jathika Sanvidhana Ekamuthuwa (JSE) seeking Court of Appeal intervention as regards the US energy deal. Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera, who threw his weight behind Gotabaya Rajapaksa, during a high profile campaign for the one-time Defence Secretary to secure the SLPP candidature, for the 2019 presidential election, spearheaded the JSE petition against the highly questionable energy deal.

Another one time major SLPP backer Ven. Elle Gunawansa, joining hands with Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, to move the Supreme Court against the US deal, should be a matter for concern to the government.

Minister Weerawansa questions brazen manipulation of cabinet procedure in controversial New Fortress deal.

SLPP constituent taking neutral stand

However, the MEP refrained from taking a public stand either way on the New Fortress deal. The rebels gathered at the Solis Hall, whereas the Chief Government Whip Dinesh Gunawardena and his son, Yadamini, of the SLPP National List, took that time to pay courtesy calls on the Chief Prelates of the Asgiriya and Malwatte Chapters. MEP leader Gunawardena, who served as the first Foreign Minister under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in August this year, was made to switch portfolios with Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, who is also the Chairman of the SLPP.

The MEP parliamentary group consists of Dinesh Gunawardena and Yadamini. The MEP has largely refrained from being part of the group that initially took up a public stand against the move to go ahead with the previous government’s plan to involve India and Japan in the East Container Terminal (ECT). Subsequently, the group defended member Gammanpila when the SLPP demanded his immediate resignation over the increase in fuel prices in the second week of June this year. As anticipated, political eruption over the US energy deal is likely to be far worse than previous disputes.

The SLPP onslaught, directed at Minister Weerawansa, over his call for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to play an active role in the party, cannot be ignored. Weerawansa recently reiterated his call for President Rajapaksa’s direct involvement in the political decision-making process. Weerawansa’s stand has caused quite a serious issue in the SLPP and the latest developments are likely to cause further deterioration.

Obviously, whatever the consequences, both sides are not in a position to take a step backward. Outgoing US Ambassador Alaina B. Teplitz, who intervened on behalf of New Fortress Energy, and swiftly brought about the agreement, paid a courtesy call on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, at the Presidential Secretariat, the day before the rebel onslaught. Can the agreement be rescinded? Is there a remedy for the political crisis, caused by the Cabinet decision that had been quite interestingly titled ‘Investments into the West Coast Power (Private) Limited (WCPL) to reduce the Cost of Electricity Generation?’ Who actually prepared that Cabinet memorandum, dated Sept.06, 2021, that had been adopted through fraudulent means? And, most importantly, what can the rebels do in case the government went ahead with the Project irrespective of consequences? Would Sri Lanka be compelled to honour the agreement, whatever the fallout? The answer might be in the hands of the highest courts in the land as several petitions challenging the deals are already pending before them.

The rebels’ claim that the Cabinet approval hadn’t been secured properly should be examined, taking into consideration the Cabinet memorandum that revealed Secretary to the Treasury S.R. Attygalle entered into the agreement on July 07, 2021, in line with Cabinet approval, granted on July 05, 2021. In terms of the framework agreement with New Fortress Energy, listed in the NASDAQ: (i), the US company will receive 40 percent of WCPL shares held by the Treasury for USD 250 mn (ii) execution of the terminal project (floating storage regasification unit, mooring system and the pipelines) and (iii) supply of liquefied natural gas.

At the centre of this developing drama no doubt is the Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, a dual Sri Lankan/US citizen being the its prime mover. The SLPP that made quite a uproar over Singaporean Arjuna Mahendran helping to stage broad daylight robberies of the central Bank twice during the previous yahapalana regime as the Governor of the Central Bank, has nothing to shield it if the courts uphold the challenges to the more or less secret deals.

Political, financial imbroglio

A catastrophic political dispute, over the energy deal, with the US, has placed the government in an extremely difficult position, at a time a spate of other issues continue to undermine the ruling coalition. The whole gamut of issues should be examined against the backdrop of the much-deteriorated financial situation. The government seems satisfied with the Central Bank’s response to Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s) further downgrading Sri Lanka. Expressing ‘strong displeasure’ on the recent assessment, the Central Bank declared: “Once again, Moody’s irrational rating action with regard to Sri Lanka comes a few days before a key event, namely the announcement of the Government Budget for 2022, and this apparent hastiness and the view expressed during discussions with Moody’s analysts that the nature of the Budget is irrelevant to the financing plans of the Government clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding of such analysts.”

The US deal has dealt a severe blow at a time the government is struggling to cope up with growing farmers’ protests against the shortage of fertiliser and agro-chemicals, unprecedented dispute with China over the refusal to accept a consignment of alleged contaminated carbonic fertiliser and remit payment that led to the blacklisting of the People’s Bank, controversy over the mode of payment for liquid nano-nitrogen fertiliser, ordered from India, continuing protests against the inordinate delay in implementing the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) recommendations, in respect of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, failure to reverse accountability process, initiated by the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council, Indian push for the full implementation of the 13th Amendment, enacted in Nov 1987, in line with the Indo- Lanka Accord, of July 29,1987, Pandora Papers revelations pertaining to former PA and UPFA lawmaker Nirupala Rajapaksa and her husband Thirukumar Nadesan, shocking corruption charges in respect of the payment of over Rs 4 bn to a Chinese company given the Gin-Nilwala project during the previous Rajapaksa administration, dismissal of several high profile cases filed by the Attorney General and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), shortage of essential food items, including rice etc.

There is no point in denying the fact that the public stand taken by the SLPP rebel group, as regards the US energy deal, has severely undermined the government. In fact, the allegations, pertaining to the manipulation of the Cabinet process, should attract the attention of Parliament. Parliamentary watchdog committees, COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises), COPF (Committee on Public Finance) and COPA (Committee on Public Accounts) should pay attention to the rebel accusations.

Now that three Cabinet ministers have publicly challenged the Cabinet process, they owe the country an explanation as to how the group would proceed, whatever the outcome of the judicial response be to cases filed in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The cash-strapped government is experiencing a very fluid political situation.

Strategic political miscalculation

Perhaps, it would be pertinent to recall the political developments, in July 2014, that set the stage for the 2015 political change. The crisis began after lawmaker Wimal Weerawansa invited the convener of the Movement for Just Society, the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha thera, to discuss far reaching constitutional reforms, including the abolition of the executive presidency.

At the conclusion of the talks, Ven. Sobitha, spearheading a high profile campaign against the executive presidency and Weerawansa, agreed to continue their discussion. The media gave wide coverage to the unexpected. Weerawansa flexed his muscles, ahead of the Uva Provincial Council poll. Weerawansa, the then Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities Minister, warned the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government to meet his demands or face the consequences. Weerawansa threatened to throw his weight behind Ven. Sobitha’s campaign, unless the SLFP accepted his demands, meant to bring in far reaching constitutional reforms. Among Weerawansa’s other demands had been an immediate halt to, what was called, the South African initiative meant to help the post-war national reconciliation process and the cancellation of the foreign investigative mechanism to inquire into accountability issues. The SLFP simply ignored Weerawansa’s demands.

Having caused a debilitating setback, Weerawansa threatened to go it alone, at the last Uva Provincial Council poll, in September, 2014. At the eleventh hour, Weerawansa’s NFF contested Badulla district, on its own, while contesting the Moneragala district on the UPFA ticket.

Subsequently, Weerawansa distanced himself from Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha, while the like-minded Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) teamed up with Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha. Their alliance quickly gained ground, in spite of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s efforts to reach an understanding with the influential monk, in the run-up to the January 8, 2015, presidential poll. Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha and Ven. Athureliye Rathana thera, on behalf of the JHU, spearheaded a campaign that undermined the SLFP-led administration.

The Maithripala Sirisena seeing a chance to be king exploited Weerawansa’s attacks on the SLFP, and the Rajapaksa family, in the run-up to the 2015 presidential poll. Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha played a critical role in the formation of an alliance that brought an end to President Rajapaksa’s rule. Weerawansa, as well as JHU stalwart Udaya Gammanpila, who switched his allegiance to the former President, accused those Buddhist monks, backing Maithripala Sirisena, of being involved in a foreign-led conspiracy to divide the country, on ethnic lines. Obviously, the Sinhala electorate didn’t take them seriously. The country overwhelmingly voted Maithripala Sirisena into power.

The then General Secretary of the Communist Party and senior minister, D.E.W. Gunasekera strongly opposed an early presidential poll. Having realised the President was hell-bent on securing a third term, two years before the scheduled date, Gunasekera, along with his colleagues, senior Minister Prof. Tissa Vitharana, and Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara, urged Rajapaksa not to call an early poll.

Unfortunately, the former President had been convinced of a comfortable victory, regardless of poor showing at the Uva Provincial Council poll. The President’s astrologer, Sumanadasa Abeygunawardena, predicted an easy win for the twice President , while several other astrologers echoed Abeygunawardena, who held two lucrative posts as Director of Independent Television Network (ITN) and the National Savings Bank (NSB). The astrologers cheated the SLFP leadership in style. Both state-run and private television stations, as well as the print media, gave them time and space to hoodwink the masses. They did it in style.

DEW Gunasekera, Nanayakkara and Vitharana almost in unison briefed the former President regarding the danger in having an early election. Regrettably, their plea, made in early October, 2014, was ignored.

Constituents of the SLPP should initiate a genuine discussion among them without further delay or be prepared to face the consequences as in 2015.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

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

Published

6 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White flag allegations

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

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

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

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

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

Fresh inquiry needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNA and formation of DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RW comes to SF’s rescue

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

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

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

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

Strengths and weaknesses of BRICS+: Implications for Global South

Published

6 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga