Midweek Review

Lanka warned of Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Published

3 years ago

2023/06/28

Actually LKI owed public an explanation as to why it never addressed the accountability issue and related matters in spite of it being the toughest foreign affairs challenge faced in post-independence era. There is no harm in addressing a variety of issues of interest but the failure on the part of the LKI to examine this issue by initiating a wider discussion is inexcusable. This criticism also applies to the Kotelawela Defence University (KDU) as it continues to ignore this vital issue.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Three years after Sri Lanka formally withdrew from an accountability resolution moved against our own country, instigated by the West and the US in particular, the UN body has reiterated that Sri Lanka’s political and military leaderships are under investigation in ‘third states,’ therefore subjected to extraterritorial jurisdiction.

A treacherous Yahapalana government co-sponosred the US-led resolution at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council.

UNHRC is certainly a club for the rich and powerful, who can kill millions of innocents and render millions more homeless in places like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc., by staging turmoil by way of rebellions, regime changes and invasions on false excuses and even commit outright war crimes, but getaway scot-free if you are a member of the self-appointed international community. But a country like little Sri Lanka has no such luck simply because we simply defied the above criminal international community and managed to defeat the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization, despite their underhand nourishment given to it by repeatedly claiming that our security forces were incapable of militarily defeating the LTTE.

UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif issued the unmistakable warning on 21 June at the 5th session of the HRC. The Jordanian (and her country is a well-known servile follower of the West) dealt with the 2015 US-Sri Lanka joint resolution on reconciliation, accountability and human rights.

Nashif declared that a special team assigned for Sri Lanka that had been established in their Geneva Office to continue to make progress pursuant to resolution 51/1. She stressed: “The team is in the process of providing concrete support to several jurisdictions that have ongoing criminal justice investigations. It is conducting proactive investigative work on key cases and collecting, consolidating and analyzing information and evidence from a variety of UN and other sources, which is preserved in a repository so as to be used for future accountability initiatives. Victims continue to be placed at the heart of this work, including through our active engagement with victim organizations and civil society more broadly.”

Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) leader Dinesh Gunawardena, who announced Sri Lanka’s withdrawal in March 2020 from the treacherous 2015 accountability resolution, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, is the Prime Minister today. Perhaps Premier Gunawardena should explain the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government’s response to the latest UN declaration.

The then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who gave the go ahead for the signing of the 2015 Geneva resolution, is the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces today. President Wickremesinghe, accompanied by First Lady Maithree, was in Europe when Geneva issued the warning. The delegation included National Security Advisor Sagala Ratnayake.

Maithripala Sirisena, under whose watch the co-sponsorship of Geneva resolution took place, is a lawmaker representing the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) while war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, too, represents the same party in Parliament. The war-winning Army commander Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka represents the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya. Unfortunately, none of them at least bothered to exercise their privileges as members of Parliament to counter unsubstantiated allegations.

Obviously with the full blessings of Washington, the Canadian Parliament, in May last year, passed a resolution claiming Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka, unchallenged. A year after the Canadian declaration, retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, MP, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security, has suggested that Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, should move a resolution in Parliament to counter the Canadian move. In response to the writer’s query, the Foreign Ministry assured that the suggestion would be dealt with, in consultation with President Wickremesinghe.

In the absence of a cohesive mechanism to counter the Geneva project, the UN has exercised maximum pressure on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, successive inane governments have simply kicked the can down the road by quite conveniently failing to address war crimes accusations head on by simply exposing to the whole world the double standards of the UN body. By remaining silent those unfairly targeting us have only been given further opportunity to pursue high profile political project meant to introduce a new Constitution at the expense of Sri Lanka’s unitary status.

We as a country should get someone competent to take our case to the world full time, putting aside whatever our political differences.

Except for forthright lawmaker Gevindu Cumatatunga, no one in Parliament has ever declared that the proposed new Constitution should reflect Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism. The leader of civil society organization ‘Yuthukama’ strongly pushed the Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s administration to take the eradication of terrorism into consideration in post-war reconciliation process. Unfortunately, forced by circumstances, and Western intelligence services, and some of their key diplomats working in not so mysterious ways against it, day and night, the erratic GR administration didn’t heed such advice.

The latest Geneva declaration should be examined along with the Canadian declaration of genocide, though for a few days some tended to believe Ottawa was divided over its Sri Lanka stand. But, in response to a specific query as regards the genocide charge, the Canadian High Commission in Colombo reiterated their commitment to 18 May Tamil genocide remembrance day.

Role of LKI

One-time Foreign Secretary Ravinatha Aryasinha, on 19 June, 2023, received appointment as Executive Director, Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies. The appointment was made by Foreign Minister Ali Sabry in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Management of the institute. Other members of the board are Suganthie Kadirgamar, widow of the slain much-loved Minister, Rajan Asirwatham, a member of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s delegation for talks with the LTTE, Thusantha Wijemanna, one-time legal advisor to External Affairs Ministry, and Malinda Seneviratne, former CEO/Director, Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute.

Aryasinha retired in September 2021 having last served the country as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Washington. Before taking up that appointment in December 2020, Aryasinha served as Foreign Secretary for nearly two years during a turbulent period.

The appointment of Aryasinha took place at a time Geneva has taken an unmistakably dangerous course against us, with Nashif declaring relentless pursuit of Sri Lanka, now at the mercy of Western powers due to an unprecedented financial crisis, leading to IMF loan facility in March this year, entirely on its terms.

It would be pertinent to mention that it was Aryasinha who endorsed the Geneva resolution, in 2015, after some behind-the-scene arm twisting by the then shameless Yahapalana government. In spite of his strong opposition to the resolution, Aryasinha, in his capacity as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, had no option but to accept the resolution following instructions issued by the then Foreign Minister, the late Mangala Samaraweera. The then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe gave the go ahead for the US-led resolution. President Maithripala Sirisena, too, gave his tacit support in terms of the Yahapalana agreement.

Perhaps Aryasinha, now at the LKI’s helm, can pave the way for an in-depth examination of the entire gamut of issues – ranging from UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts’ investigation into the circumstances Sri Lanka brought the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to a successful conclusion in May 2009, to the most recent declaration that universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction would be applied against Sri Lanka.

The incumbent government shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the UN backing for investigation and prosecution of the alleged perpetrators and support to the relevant accountability processes in third States, as well, as what it called fair application of targeted sanctions against credibly alleged perpetrators. The reference is very clear. Nada Al-Nashif obviously referred to sanctions imposed by the US and Canada, as well as other countries, including Australia, on the war-winning military. Among those who had been sanctioned were former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, Chief of Defence Staff General Shavendra Silva and Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage.

In fact, LKI owed the public an explanation as to why it never addressed the accountability issue and related matters in spite of it being the toughest foreign affairs challenge faced in post-independence era. There is no harm in addressing a variety of issues of interest but the failure on the part of the LKI to examine this issue by initiating a wider discussion is inexcusable. This criticism also applies to the Kotelawela Defence University (KDU) as it continues to ignore this vital issue.

Mannar mass graves

Sri Lanka never really exploited the exposure of the blatant UNHRC lie over Mannar mass graves to counter unsubstantiated lies propagated by interested parties. The Western propaganda project regarding Mannar mass graves at one point threatened to overwhelm Sri Lanka but the then Yahapalana government was determined to keep quiet about it.

The Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights obviously threw its weight behind those propagating lies. The UN became part of the lie. The Mannar mass graves was accommodated in the annual report of the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.

The Commissioner went to the extent of referring to the Mannar mass grave site in her latest annual report (section 23) submitted to the UNHRC. The following is the relevant section: “On May 29, 2018, human skeletal remains were discovered at a construction site in Mannar (Northern Province), Excavations conducted in support of the Office on Missing Persons, revealed a mass grave from which more than 300 skeletons were discovered. It was the second mass grave found in Mannar following the discovery of a site in 2014. Given that other mass graves might be expected to be found in the future, systematic access to grave sites by the Office as an observer is crucial for it to fully discharge its mandate, particularly with regard to the investigation and identification of remains, it is imperative that the proposed reforms on the law relating to inquests, and relevant protocols to operationalize the law be adopted. The capacity of the forensic sector must also be strengthened, including in areas of forensic anthropology, forensic archaeology and genetics, and its coordination with the Office of Missing Persons must be ensured.”

What Bachelet never expected was the US report on Mannar mass graves to go against its strategy. A report by a reputed Miami-based laboratory on the Mannar mass grave samples cleared the Army of the responsibility for extra-judicial killings.

The remains of over 300 men, women and children were found, beginning early 2018, and resulted in high profile accusations of battlefield killings and extra-judicial execution of civilians. Although in terms of the Indo-Lanka Accord that was forced on then President JR Jayewardene by New Delhi, the Indian Army, too, had been deployed there during July 1987 to January 1990, but the know-all UNHRC bluntly pointed the finger at the Sri Lanka Army. During the Indian deployment, the Sri Lankan military was confined to barracks, not only in Mannar, but also the entire northern and eastern administrative districts.

The carbon testing report from the internationally recognized US laboratory concluded that the victims likely died up to 615 years ago — predating even the first European colonization of the country by the Portuguese. That was the end of the sensational Mannar mass grave accusation. But as expected the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that once served as the LTTE’s representative in Parliament, rejected the US report.

A TNA lawmaker, representing the Vanni region, called for a fresh testing in another lab in some other country. Our Vavuniya correspondent Dinasena Ratugamage quoted Mullaitivu District MP Nirmalanathan Sivamohan as having said:” This is not to say that we do not accept the reports sent by a lab in Florida, US, but given the importance of the Mannar grave site we need to get a second opinion.”

The MP insisted that the lab in Florida had not attempted to identify the victims and further tests were necessary to determine the identity of those in the graves.

A section of the local and foreign media spearheaded a high profile campaign on the basis of Mannar mass graves. Some Colombo-based diplomats, too, supported the project. The then German Ambassador in Colombo, Joern Rohde, visited the site on 27 November, 2018. The German envoy’s visit was followed by a British delegation on 11 December, 2018. The British visit took place close on the heels of the discovery of two pieces of human bones, bound by a cable, on 07 December, 2018. The recovery prompted some ‘experts’, as well as those engaged in excavating the mass grave, to speculate whether some of the people buried there had been tortured before being killed. Interests shown in the Mannar mass grave site by those countries, pushing for full implementation of the Geneva Resolution, unfortunately co-sponsored by the then servile government in Sri Lanka, in October, 2015, strengthened the campaign directed at the Army. A section of the Catholic clergy, too, facilitated the project meant to blame the Army over the Mannar mass grave.

During the propaganda campaign over the Mannar mass graves, the Foreign Ministry and Army Headquarters did absolutely nothing because the then government cooperated fully with the Geneva project. The Yahapalana government response to Mannar was in line with its handling of Lord Naseby’s revelations in October 2017. Even to date, Sri Lanka never made a genuine attempt to use the House of Lords member’s disclosure to our advantage.

On the basis of Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) records obtained with the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, Lord Naseby challenged the very basis of the October 2015 Resolution. Sri Lanka refused to take advantage of the revelation that countered two major allegations (1) killing of 40,000 civilians on the Vanni east front and (2) Sri Lanka political and military leaderships deliberately targeted the civilian community.

The British disclosure coupled with wartime US Defence Advisor Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith’s declaration in support of Sri Lanka, in June 2011, two years after the conclusion of the war, would help Sri Lanka to build a strong case.

The latest UN warning again highlights Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to set the record straight. Sri Lanka should place all available information before the international community even if they won’t accept our version.

How govt. ignored JD’s assertion

One of Sri Lanka’s celebrated career diplomats, the late Jayantha Dhanapala, discussed the issue of accountability when he addressed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), headed by one-time Attorney General, the late C. R. de Silva, on 25 August, 2010.

Dhanapala, in his submissions, said: “Now I think it is important for us to expand that concept to bring in the culpability of those members of the international community who have subscribed to the situation that has caused injury to the civilians of a nation. I talk about the way in which terrorist groups are given sanctuary; harboured; and supplied with arms and training by some countries with regard to their neighbours or with regard to other countries. We know that in our case this has happened, and I don’t want to name countries, but even countries which have allowed their financial procedures and systems to be abused in such a way that money can flow from their countries in order to buy arms and ammunition that cause deaths, maiming and destruction of property in Sri Lanka are to blame and there is therefore a responsibility to protect our civilians and the civilians of other nations from that kind of behaviour on the part of members of the international community. And I think this is something that will echo within many countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, where Sri Lanka has a much respected position and where I hope we will be able to raise this issue.”

Dhanapala also stressed on the accountability on the part of Western governments, which conveniently turned a blind eye to massive fundraising operations in their countries, in support of the LTTE operations. It is no secret that the LTTE would never have been able to emerge as a conventional fighting force without having the wherewithal abroad, mainly in the Western countries, to procure arms, ammunition and equipment. But, the government never acted on Dhanapala’s advice.

Instead the Mahinda Rajapaksa government squandered over USD 6 mn on a foolish US project in 2014 that didn’t help Sri Lanka at all. That project was meant to thwart the 2015 US resolution in Geneva. The rest is history.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Extraterritorial jurisdiction Jayantha Dhanapala Nada Al-Nashif PM Dinesh Gunawardena Ravinatha Aryasinha

Up Next

Alienness within walking distance

Don't Miss

The Jailor’s Loneliness

Click to comment

Midweek Review

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

Published

2 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

2 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