Midweek Review
New BRICS development bank and economic multipolarity
By Sanja de Silva Jayatilleka
“There is a risk when we use financial sanctions that are linked to the role of the dollar, that over time it could undermine the hegemony
of the dollar.”
– Janet Yellen, US Treasury Secretary (on CNN)
It was widely reported on the 17th of April that the US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had observed on Fareed Zakaria’s show that US sanctions on Russia and China could undermine the hegemony of the US dollar. The Economic Times reported from Washington that she had further said: “Of course, it does create a desire on the part of China, of Russia, of Iran to find an alternative…But the dollar is used as a global currency for reasons that are not easy for other countries to find an alternative with the same properties.”
This desire of the non-western economies to find an alternative was evident on Thursday 13th April this year at the New Development Bank (better known as ‘the BRICS bank’) in Shanghai, China, where Brazil’s President Luis Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva added his voice to the call for an alternative to the US dollar, the dominant reserve currency.
‘Shackles of Conditionality’
In remarks widely reported around the world, Lula said: “Every night I ask myself why should every country have to be tied to the dollar for trade? Why can’t we trade in our own currency? Why can’t a bank like the BRICS bank have a currency to finance trade between Brazil and China and between Brazil and other BRICS countries?” (Hindustan Times)
President Lula was attending the inauguration ceremony of the newly appointed President of the New Development Bank (NDB), economist and Brazil’s former President Dilma Rousseff (Lula’s protégé and successor). A possible future alternative to the World Bank and the IMF for the Global South, the New Development Bank was created by the BRICS countries Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa in 2014 with the purpose of mobilizing resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in emerging markets and developing countries. It is reported that in 2022, intra-BRICS trade reached US$162 billion. (Silk Road Briefings)
President Lula suggested in his speech at the NDB that a new BRICS currency potentially “frees emerging countries from submission to traditional financial institutions.” (France 24)
Explaining the utility of such a currency for countries struggling with debt, Lula criticized the IMF’s imposition of austerity measures: “No bank should be asphyxiating countries’ economies the way the IMF is doing now with Argentina, or the way they did with Brazil for a long time, and every third-world country…No leader can work with a knife to their throat because [their country] owes money…”
President Lula da Silva, re-elected for the third time (non-consecutively) as President of Brazil making his first overseas visit to China this month after being elected, had tweeted in Portuguese that “The decision to create the NDB was a milestone in the joint action of emerging countries…The creation of this bank showed that the union of emerging countries is capable of generating relevant social and economic changes for the world… For the first time, a development bank with global reach was established without the participation of developed countries in its initial phase. It was free, therefore, from the shackles of conditionality imposed by traditional institutions on emerging economies.” (https://en.mercopress.com)
While a BRICS currency may take some time to evolve given the diversity of the 5 countries involved, President Lula’s impassioned intervention may indicate a strengthened resolve to work speedily towards its birth.
The R5 Project
When the original grouping consisting of Brazil, Russia, India and China was formed (its acronym BRIC coined by the chief economist of the multinational investment bank, Goldman Sachs in 2001) its opponents had said that the countries were “too diverse to be grouped together like this and that it was really just a Goldman Sachs marketing ploy.” (‘A new world order? BRICS nations offer alternative to West’, Astrid Prange)
Since then, the grouping has expanded, including South Africa in 2010, adding the “S” in BRICS. Several other countries have reportedly expressed a desire to join BRICS, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Algeria and Argentina.
Today, BRICS countries account for 25% of the global economy, 18 % of global trade, and over 50 % of global growth. ( http://za.china-embassy.gov.cn). With BRICS open to other countries joining the group, the group’s share of the global economy is set to expand.
It was reported recently that this year (2023) would be a significant one for the BRICS grouping: “One of the clearest trends the world witnessed in 2022 was the accelerating eastward shift in global economic power… With significant progress being made by the BRICS …in terms of joint policy coordination and with several other economies showing clear signs of interest in joining the increasingly influential bloc, 2023 looks set to be the BRICS bloc’s most impactful year within the global economic and geopolitical landscape.” (Alexander Jones, International Banker).
There is already a working group within BRICS tasked with proposing a new reserve currency for the five BRICS countries that could be based on gold and other commodities. Since the local currencies of all five countries of the BRICS starts with the letter R (renminbi, rubles, reais, rupees, and rands) the project is called R5. This project is to enable these countries to trade with each other without dependence on the US dollar. (http://infobrics.org)
Yaroslav Lissovolik writes that the idea of a BRICS currency was mooted at the Valdai Club, Russia, in 2018. Since it wasn’t conceived to replace any national currencies, he says that in the short term the currency doesn’t have to be used in all trade transactions. “Initially, the new BRICS currency could perform the role of an accounting unit to facilitate transactions in national currencies. In the longer run, the R5 BRICS currency could start to perform the role of settlements / payments as well as the store of value / reserves for the central banks of emerging market economies.” He believes that the R5+ project could become “one of the most important contributions of emerging markets to building a more secure international financial system”. (Yaroslav Lissovolik, RIAC April 2023)
Non-Dollar Alternatives
Most of the BRICS countries are now trading in their national currencies. The yuan has overtaken the dollar in Russia and by the first quarter of 2020, the dollar’s share of bilateral trade between the two countries had fallen below 50 percent for the first time on record, from almost 90 percent just five years ago. (International Banker). Brazil has also agreed to trade with China in yuan.
India has agreed with 18 countries to trade in Indian Rupees. Indian Defense Review (IDR) reported that “In 60 cases, RBI approved the opening of Special Rupee Vostro Accounts (SRVAs) of correspondent banks from 18 countries, which are Botswana, Fiji, Germany, Guyana, Israel, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar, New Zealand, Oman, Russia, Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, and the United Kingdom.” (http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/brics-and-dollar/)
The findings of a recent scholarly study on the BRICS efforts to de-dollarize global trade, published online by Cambridge University Press on 24 February 2022 are significant with regard to the group’s commitment:
“We find that BRICS members have demonstrated an unambiguous consensus and a strong commitment to promoting the use of local currencies…and building a nondollar alternative global financial infrastructure…The group has also been planning the launch of a common payment framework that can be integrated with a BRICS digital currency to de-dollarize global financial infrastructure.
BRICS has…also created a nascent de-dollarization infrastructure that supports global de-dollarization in the long term. BRICS’ collective efforts to establish an alternative nondollar financial system have the potential to completely immunize participants from both exchange and sanction risks stemming from the dollar’s dominance and US hegemonic position. In the long run, the BRICS de-dollarization infrastructure may even serve as the basis for a broader de-dollarization coalition that includes regional organizations.
BRICS countries are in the process of developing a BRICS digital currency called BRICS Coin, which sets the stage for digital de-dollarization.” (‘Can BRICS De-dollarize the Global Financial System?’ Zongyuan Zoe Liu and Mihaela Papa)
The study found that even US allies are seeking greater financial autonomy to trade with countries under US sanctions and quotes the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, (2019) at a symposium for Central bankers, describing the dollar’s dominance as the “destabilizing asymmetry…at the heart of international monetary and financial system.”
The study reports that the renminbi is the 8th most actively traded currency globally and the1st within emerging markets:
“According to the latest Bank for International Settlements Triennial Survey (2019), the Chinese renminbi was the 8th most actively traded currency, ranking just after the Swiss franc. This is a significant increase from its ranking of 35th in 2001. Additionally, the renminbi is now the most actively traded emerging market currency. The Indian rupee was the second most traded BRICS currency, in 16th position worldwide and accounting for 1.7 percent of global trade. The Russian ruble, Brazilian real, and South African rand were in 17th, 20th and 33rd position…” (Ibid)
‘Financial Multipolarity’
This new tendency to move away from a single dominant reserve currency to increasing trade in national currencies is being called ‘financial multipolarity’. This is but a signpost on the path towards the multipolar world that the non-western countries have long been urging. This trend is not to everyone’s liking but the post-Ukraine US sanctions on Russia and earlier sanctions on China may have accelerated the very thing they wanted to avoid.
The 2023 Foreign Policy Concept Paper of the Russian Federation makes clear its determination to vigorously pursue an alternative world order. It believes that the changes already underway cannot be overturned and are moving inexorably towards its logical conclusion of a more equitable, multipolar world order, regardless of attempts to delay it.
“The formation of a more equitable multipolar world order is underway… The changes which are now taking place … are nonetheless not welcomed by a number of states being used to the logic of global dominance and neocolonialism. These countries refuse to recognize the realities of a multipolar world.”
It welcomes the circumvention of the dominance of the US dollar: “New national and trans-border payment systems are becoming widespread, there is a growing interest in new international reserve currencies, and prerequisites for diversifying international economic cooperation mechanisms are being created.”
It seeks to strengthen its relationships with China and India as leading countries of the Eurasian continent of which it is a part, in an effort to transform Eurasia into a “common space of…development and prosperity”. While it says that “Russia aims at further strengthening the comprehensive partnership and the strategic cooperation with the People’s Republic of China”, it is interesting to note that its relations with India is described as “particularly privileged strategic partnership”.
Sri Lanka’s Professor Mohan Munasinghe, a Nobel Laureate, interviewed by CNN International’s anchor Zain Asher in Miami said that “a multipolar world is more attractive to the Global South … The current world order is not doing too well, but the emergence of the BRICS countries gives the world more hope. They want a more balanced world order where their dignity and self-respect are restored”.
Professor Munasinghe said, and CNN’s Zain Asher concurred, that BRICS countries had overtaken the G7 countries in terms of their contribution to the global GDP. He said the new priorities for the Global South are “sustainability, economic development and raising the poor out of poverty” and they are less interested in military interventions and economic sanctions.
Provoking Multipolarity
An Observer Research Foundation (ORI) paper published in 2022 (Antara Ghosal Singh) explains the circumstances which prompted the expansion of the BRICS. “It was in 2017, in the first year of Trump’s presidency, that China, for the first time, proposed an expanded BRICS. Later, despite Joe Biden coming to power after defeating Trump, Chinese observers believe that US policy towards China has hardly changed, and that the ‘new Cold War’—initiated during the Trump era—has instead been taken to a higher level.” The paper points out how the ‘G2’ (USA-China) quickly collapsed as “cooperation” turned into “confrontation”, thus deciding China’s priorities towards a broader coalition of developing states.
The Russia-Ukraine war and the consequent consolidation of the Western bloc together with the sanctions on Russia have contributed to renewed interest in the calls for multipolarity. It is significant that none of the members of the BRICS countries took part in the US sanctions against Russia. In fact, both India and China have increased their trade with Russia.
Dimitri Trenin, head of Carnegie-Moscow, sees the current moment as fundamentally significant: “What is at stake here is not just the fate of Ukraine or the future of Taiwan. The issue is the existing world order itself and its current organizing principle – America’s global hegemony.” (RIAC March 2023)
Feelings have soured considerably in the Russian intelligentsia against what they see as attempts to “eliminate Russia as a major power”. Trenin sees multipolarity as the most effective response: “…a greater joint effort to help the world move faster toward multipolarity”. He recommends “reducing role of the US dollar in international transactions” and strengthening institutions such as BRICS and the SCO as steps towards achieving it.
BEAMS of Light
While the very diversity of the BRICS countries leaves much to be overcome including for the BRICS+ initiatives, recent geopolitical events have inspired unprecedented discussion, proposals and analysis of the different formats the project could take. While there is suspicion displayed by some Indian analysts of China’s motivation in promoting BRICS expansion which they speculate might be to “undercut the role and agency” of India, (Antara Ghosal Singh ORI) some Russian analysts see important and groundbreaking potential in it including possible trade liberalization within the platforms across the Global South:
“The BRICS+ regional format presents an opportunity to …encompasses the majority of the Global South…One proposal in this regard has been the BEAMS platform, which brings together the primary regional integration blocks of the BRICS countries, namely BIMSTEC (India), Eurasian Economic Union (Russia), African Union (South Africa), MERCOSUR (Brazil), and SCO (China)…. this format enables BRICS to progress with trade liberalization across the Global South and establish inclusive cooperation platforms in both the financial and real sectors.” (Yaroslav Lissovolik, RIAC April 2023)
With the recent high-profile appointment of Dilma Rousseff, a former head of state to lead the BRICS bank, the incentive to explore its potentialities and to accelerate implementation may have increased exponentially, with all its implications for the evolving world order. Dilma may soon begin to push TINA (‘There Is No Alternative’) off the stage. Such a development is not without momentous positive implications and potential for Sri Lanka.
Midweek Review
At the edge of a world war
In September 1939, as Europe descended once more into catastrophe, E. H. Carr published The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Twenty years had separated the two great wars—twenty years to reflect, to reconstruct, to restrain. Yet reflection proved fragile. Carr wrote with unsentimental clarity: once the enemy is crushed, the “thereafter” rarely arrives. The illusion that power can come first and morality will follow is as dangerous as the belief that morality alone can command power. Between those illusions, nations lose themselves.
His warning hovers over the present war in Iran.
The “thereafter” has long haunted American interventions—after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya. The enemy can be dismantled with precision; the aftermath resists precision. Iran is not a small theater. It is a civilization-state with a geography three times larger than Iraq. At its southern edge lies the Strait of Hormuz, narrow in width yet immense in consequence. Geography does not argue; it compels.
Long before Carr, in the quiet anxiety of the eighteenth century, James Madison, principal architect of the Constitution, warned that war was the “true nurse of executive aggrandizement.” War concentrates authority in the name of urgency. Madison insisted that the power to declare war must rest with Congress, not the president—so that deliberation might restrain impulse. Republics persuade themselves that emergency powers are temporary. History rarely agrees.
Then, at 2:30 a.m., the abstraction becomes decision.
Donald Trump declares war on Iran. The announcement crosses continents before markets open in Asia. Within twenty-four hours, Ali Khamenei, who ruled for thirty-seven years, is killed. The President calls him one of history’s most evil figures and presents his death as an opening for the Iranian people.
In exile, Reza Pahlavi hails the moment as liberation. In less than forty-eight hours, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps collapses under overwhelming air power. A regime that endured decades falls swiftly. Military efficiency appears absolute. Yet efficiency does not resolve legitimacy.
The joint strike with Israel is framed as necessary and pre-emptive. Retaliation follows across the Gulf. The architecture of energy trade becomes fragile. Shipping routes are recalculated. Markets respond before diplomacy finds its language.
It is measured in the price of petrol in Colombo. In the bus fare in Karachi. In the rising cost of cooking gas in Dhaka. It is heard in the anxious voice of a migrant worker in Doha calling home to Kandy, asking whether contracts will be renewed, whether flights will continue, whether wages will be delayed. It is calculated in foreign reserves already strained, in currencies that tremble at rumor, in budgets forced to choose between subsidy and solvency.
Zaara was the breadwinner of her house in Sri Lanka. Her husband had been unemployed for years. At last, he secured an opportunity to travel to Israel as a foreign worker—like many Sri Lankans who depend on employment in the Middle East. It was to be their turning point: a small house repaired, debts reduced, dignity restored.
Now she lowers her eyes when she speaks. For Zaara, geopolitics is not theory. It is fear measured in distance—between a construction site abroad and a village waiting at home.
The war in Iran has shattered calculations that once felt practical. Nations like Sri Lanka now require strategic foresight to navigate unfolding realities. Reactive responses—whether to natural disasters or external shocks like this conflict—can cripple economies far faster than gradual pressures. Disruptions to energy imports, migrant remittances, and foreign reserves show how distant wars ripple into daily lives.
War among great powers is debated in think tanks. Its consequences are lived in markets—and in quiet kitchens where uncertainty sits heavier than hunger.
The conflict does not unfold in isolation. It enters the strategic calculus of China and Russia, both attentive to precedent. Power projected beyond the Western hemisphere reshapes perceptions in the Eastern theater. Iran’s transformation intersects directly with broader alignments. In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a twenty-five-year strategic agreement. By 2025, China was purchasing the majority of Iran’s exported oil at discounted rates. Energy underwrote strategy. That continuity has been disrupted. Yet strategic relationships do not vanish; they adjust.
In Winds of Change, my new book, I reproduce Nicholas Spykman’s 1944 two-theater confrontation map—Europe and the Pacific during the Second World War. Spykman distinguished maritime power from amphibian projection. Control of the Rimland determined balance. Then, the United States fought across two vast theaters. Today, Europe remains unsettled through Ukraine, the Pacific simmers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, Latin America remains sensitive, and the Middle East has been abruptly transformed. The architecture of multi-theater tension reappears.
At this juncture, the reflections of Marwan Bishara acquire weight. America’s ultimate power, he argues, resides in deterrence, not in the habitual use of force. Power, especially when shared, stabilizes. Force, when used with disregard for international law, breeds instability and humiliation. Arrogance creates enemies and narrows judgment. It is no surprise that many Americans themselves believe the United States should not act alone.
America’s strength does not rest solely in its military reach. Its economy constitutes roughly one-third of global output and generates close to 40 percent of the world’s research and development. Structural power—economic, technological, institutional—has historically underwritten deterrence. When force becomes the primary instrument, influence risks becoming coercion.
The United States now confronts simultaneous pressures across continents. The Second World War demonstrated the capacity to sustain multi-theater engagement; the post-9/11 wars revealed the exhaustion that follows prolonged intervention. Iran, larger and geopolitically deeper, presents a scale that cannot be resolved by air power alone.
Carr’s “thereafter” waits patiently. Military victory may be swift; political reconstruction is slow. Bishara reminds us that deterrence sustains stability, while force risks unraveling it.
At the edge of a potential world war, the decisive question is not who strikes first, but who restrains longest.
History watches. And in places far from the battlefield, mothers wait for phone calls that may not come.
Asanga Abeyagoonasekera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Millennium Project, Washington, D.C., and the author of Winds of Change: Geopolitics at the Crossroads of South and Southeast Asia, published by World Scientific
Midweek Review
Live Coals Burst Aflame
Live coals of decades-long hate,
Are bursting into all-consuming flames,
In lands where ‘Black Gold’ is abundant,
And it’s a matter to be thought about,
If humans anywhere would be safe now,
Unless these enmities dying hard,
With roots in imperialist exploits,
And identity-based, tribal violence,
Are set aside and laid finally to rest,
By an enthronement of the principle,
Of the Equal Dignity of Humans.
By Lynn Ockersz
Midweek Review
Saga of the arrest of retired intelligence chief
Retired Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay’s recent arrest attracted internatiattention. His long-expected arrest took place ahead of the seventh anniversary of the bombings. Multiple blasts claimed the lives of nearly 280 people, including 45 foreigners. State-owned international news television network, based in Paris, France 24, declared that arrest was made on the basis of information provided by a whistleblower. The French channel was referring to Hanzeer Azad Moulana, who earlier sought political asylum in the West and one-time close associate of State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan aka Pilleyan. May be the fiction he wove against Pilleyan and others may have been to strengthen his asylum claim there. Moulana is on record as having told the British Channel 4 that Sallay allowed the attack to proceed with the intention of influencing the 2019 presidential election. The French news agency quoted an investigating officer as having said: “He was arrested for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the Easter Sunday attacks. He has been in touch with people involved in the attacks, even recently.”
****
Suresh Sallay of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) received the wrath of Yahapalana Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, in 2016, over the reportage of what the media called the Chavakachcheri explosives detection made on March 30, 2016. Premier Wickremesinghe found fault with Sallay for the coverage, particularly in The Island. Police arrested ex-LTTE child combatant Edward Julian, alias Ramesh, after the detection of one suicide jacket, four claymore mines, three parcels containing about 12 kilos of explosives, to battery packs and several rounds of 9mm ammunition, from his house, situated at Vallakulam Pillaiyar Kovil Street. Chavakachcheri police made the detection, thanks to information provided by the second wife of Ramesh. Investigations revealed that the deadly cache had been brought by Ramesh from Mannar (Detection of LTTE suicide jacket, mines jolts government: Fleeing Tiger apprehended at checkpoint, The Island, March 31, 2016).
The then Jaffna Security Forces Commander, Maj. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, told the writer that a thorough inquiry was required to ascertain the apprehended LTTE cadre’s intention. The Chavakachcheri detection received the DMI’s attention. The country’s premier intelligence organisation meticulously dealt with the issue against the backdrop of an alleged aborted bid to revive the LTTE in April 2014. Of those who had been involved in the fresh terror project, three were killed in the Nedunkerny jungles. There hadn’t been any other incidents since the Nedunkerny skirmish, until the Chavakachcheri detection.
Piqued by the media coverage of the Chavakachcheri detection, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration tried to silence the genuine Opposition. As the SLFP had, contrary to the expectations of those who voted for the party at the August 2015 parliamentary elections, formed a treacherous coalition with the UNP, the Joint Opposition (JO) spearheaded the parliamentary opposition.
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) questioned former External Affairs Minister and top JO spokesman, Prof. G.L. Peiris, over a statement made by him regarding the Chavakachcheri detection. The former law professor questioned the legality of the CID’s move against the backdrop of police declining to furnish him a certified copy of the then acting IGP S.M. Wickremesinghe’s directive that he be summoned to record a statement as regards the Chavakachcheri lethal detection.
One-time LTTE propagandist Velayutham Dayanidhi, a.k.a. Daya Master, raised with President Maithripala Sirisena the spate of arrests made by law enforcement authorities, in the wake of the Chavakachcheri detection. Daya Master took advantage of a meeting called by Sirisena, on 28 April, 2016, at the President’s House, with the proprietors of media organisations and journalists, to raise the issue. The writer having been among the journalists present on that occasion, inquired from the ex-LETTer whom he represented there. Daya Master had been there on behalf of DAN TV, Tamil language satellite TV, based in Jaffna. Among those who had been detained was Subramaniam Sivakaran, at that time Youth Wing leader of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), the main constituent of the now defunct Tamil National Alliance. In addition to Sivakaran, the police apprehended several hardcore ex-LTTE cadres (LTTE revival bid confirmed: TNA youth leader arrested, The Island April 20, 2016).
Ranil hits out at media
Subsequent inquiries revealed the role played by Sivakaran in some of those wanted in connection with the Chavakachcheri detection taking refuge in India. When the writer sought an explanation from the then TNA lawmaker, M.A. Sumanthiran, regarding Sivakaran’s arrest, the lawyer disowned the Youth Wing leader. Sumanthiran emphasised that the party suspended Sivakumaran and Northern Provincial Council member Ananthi Sasitharan for publicly condemning the TNA’s decision to endorse Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election (Chava explosives: Key suspects flee to India, The Island, May 2, 2016).
Premier Wickremesinghe went ballistic on May 30, 2016. Addressing the 20th anniversary event of the Sri Lanka Muslim Media Forum, at the Sports Ministry auditorium, the UNP leader castigated the DMI. Alleging that the DMI had been pursuing an agenda meant to undermine the Yahapalana administration, Wickremesinghe, in order to make his bogus claim look genuine, repeatedly named the writer as part of that plot. Only Wickremesinghe knows the identity of the idiot who influenced him to make such unsubstantiated allegations. The top UNPer went on to allege that The Island, and its sister paper Divaina, were working overtime to bring back Dutugemunu, a reference to war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa. A few days later, sleuths from the Colombo Crime Detection Bureau (CCD) visited The Island editorial to question the writer where lengthy statements were recorded. The police were acting on the instructions of the then Premier, who earlier publicly threatened to send police to question the writer.
In response to police queries about Sallay passing information to the media regarding the Chavakachcheri detection and subsequent related articles, the writer pointed out that the reportage was based on response of the then ASP Ruwan Gunasekera, AAL and Sumanthiran, as had been reported.
Wickremesinghe alleged, at the Muslim media event, that a section of the media manipulated coverage of certain incidents, ahead of the May Day celebrations.
In early May 2016 Wickremesinghe disclosed that he received assurances from the police, and the DMI, that as the LTTE had been wiped out the group couldn’t stage a comeback. The declaration was made at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute for International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKIIRIS) on 3 May 2016. Wickremesinghe said that he sought clarifications from the police and the DMI in the wake of the reportage of the Chavakachcheri detection and related developments (PM: LTTE threat no longer exists, The Island, May 5, 2016).
The LTTE couldn’t stage a comeback as a result of measures taken by the then government. It would be a grave mistake, on our part, to believe that the eradication of the LTTE’s conventional military capacity automatically influenced them to give up arms. The successful rehabilitation project, that had been undertaken by the Rajapaksa government and continued by successive governments, ensured that those who once took up arms weren’t interested in returning to the same deadly path.
In spite of the TNA and others shedding crocodile tears for the defeated Tigers, while making a desperate effort to mobilise public opinion against the government, the public never wanted the violence to return. Some interested parties propagated the lie that regardless of the crushing defeat suffered in the hands of the military, the LTTE could resume guerilla-type operations, paving the way for a new conflict. But by the end of 2014, and in the run-up to the presidential election in January following year, the situation seemed under control, especially with Western countries not wanting to upset things here with a pliant administration in the immediate horizon. Soon after the presidential election, the government targeted the armed forces. Remember Sumanthiran’s declaration that the ITAK Youth Wing leader Sivakaran had been opposed to the TNA backing Sirisena at the presidential poll.
The US-led accountability resolution had been co-sponsored by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo to appease the TNA and Tamil Diaspora. The Oct. 01, 2016, resolution delivered a knockout blow to the war-winning armed forces. The UNP pursued an agenda severely inimical to national interests. It would be pertinent to mention that those who now represent the main Opposition, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), were part of the treacherous UNP.
Suresh moved to Malaysia
The Yahapalana leadership resented Sallay’s work. They wanted him out of the country at a time a new threat was emerging. The government attacked the then Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, who warned of the emerging threat from foreign-manipulated local Islamic fanatics on 11 Nov. 2016, in Parliament. Rajapakshe didn’t mince his words when he underscored the threat posed by some Sri Lanka Muslim families taking refuge in Syria where ISIS was running the show. The then government, of which he was part o,f ridiculed their own Justice Minister. Both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe feared action against extremism may cause erosion of Muslim support. By then Sallay, who had been investigating the deadly plot, was out of the country. The Yahapalana government believed that the best way to deal with Sallay was to grant him a diplomatic posting. Sally ended up in Malaysia, a country where the DMI played a significant role in the repatriation of Kumaran Pathmanathan, alias KP, after his arrest there.
Having served the military for over three cadres, Sallay retired in 2024 in the rank of Major General. Against the backdrop of his recent arrest, in connection with the ongoing investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, The Island felt the need to examine the circumstances Sallay ended up in Malaysia at the time. Now, remanded in terms of the Prevention of terrorism Act (PTA), he is being accused of directing the Easter Sunday operation from Malaysia.
Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader and former Minister Udaya Gammanpila has alleged that Sallay was apprehended in a bid to divert attention away from the deepening coal scam. Having campaigned on an anti-corruption platformm in the run up to the previous presidential election, in September 2024, the Parliament election, in November of the same year, and local government polls last year, the incumbent dispensation is struggling to cope up with massive corruption issues, particularly the coal scam, which has not only implicated the Energy Minister but the entire Cabinet of Ministers as well.
The crux of the matter is whether Sallay actually met would-be suicide bombers, in February 2018, in an estate, in the Puttalam district, as alleged by the UK’s Channel 4 television, like the BBC is, quite famous for doing hatchet jobs for the West. This is the primary issue at hand. Did Sallay clandestinely leave Malaysia to meet suicide bombers in the presence of Hanzeer Azad Moulana, one-time close associate of State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, aka Pilleyan, former LTTE member?
The British channel raised this issue with Sallay, in 2023, at the time he served as Director, State Intelligence (SIS). Sallay is on record as having told Channel 4 Television that he was not in Sri Lanka the whole of 2018 as he was in Malaysia serving in the Sri Lankan Embassy there as Minister Counsellor.
Therefore, the accusation that he met several members of the National Thowheeth Jamaath (NTJ), including Mohamed Hashim Mohamed Zahran, in Karadipuval, Puttalam, in Feb. 2018, was baseless, he has said.
The intelligence officer has asked the British television station to verify his claim with the Malaysian authorities.
Responding to another query, Sallay had told Channel 4 that on April 21, 2019, the day of the Easter Sunday blasts, he was in India, where he was accommodated at the National Defence College (NDC). That could be verified with the Indian authorities, Sallay has said, strongly denying Channel 4’s claim that he contacted one of Pilleyan’s cadres, over, the phone and directed him to pick a person outside Hotel Taj Samudra.
According to Sallay, during his entire assignment in Malaysia, from Dec. 2016 to Dec. 2018, he had been to Colombo only once, for one week, in Dec. 2017, to assist in an official inquiry.
Having returned to Colombo, Sallay had left for NDC, in late Dec. 2018, and returned only after the conclusion of the course, in November 2019.
Sallay has said so in response to questions posed by Ben de Pear, founder, Basement Films, tasked with producing a film for Channel 4 on the Easter Sunday bombings.
The producer has offered Sallay an opportunity to address the issues in terms of Broadcasting Code while inquiring into fresh evidence regarding the officer’s alleged involvement in the Easter Sunday conspiracy.
The producer sought Sallay’s response, in August 2023, in the wake of political upheaval following the ouster of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, elected at the November 2019 presidential election.
At the time, the Yahapalana government granted a diplomatic appointment to Sallay, he had been head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI). After the 2019 presidential election, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa named him the Head of SIS.
The Basement Films has posed several questions to Sallay on the basis of accusations made by Hanzeer Azad Moulana.
In response to the film producer’s query regarding Sallay’s alleged secret meeting with six NTJ cadres who blasted themselves a year later, Sallay has questioned the very basis of the so called new evidence as he was not even in the country during the period the clandestine meeting is alleged to have taken place.
Contradictory stands
Following Sajith Premadasa’s anticipated defeat at the 2019 presidential election, Harin Fernando accused the Catholic Church of facilitating Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory. Fernando, who is also on record as having disclosed that his father knew of the impending Easter Sunday attacks, pointed finger at the Archbishop of Colombo, Rt. Rev Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, for ensuring Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory.
Former President Maithripala Sirisena, as well as JVP frontliner Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, accused India of masterminding the Easter Sunday bombings. Then there were claims of Sara Jasmin, wife of Katuwapitiya suicide bomber Mohammed Hastun, being an Indian agent who was secretly removed after the Army assaulted extremists’ hideout at Sainthamaruthu in the East. What really had happened to Sara Jasmin who, some believe, is key to the Easter Sunday puzzle.
Then there was huge controversy over the arrest of Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah over his alleged links with the Easter Sunday bombers. Hizbullah, who had been arrested in April 2020, served as lawyer to the extremely wealthy spice trader Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim’s family that had been deeply involved in the Easter Sunday plot. Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim had been on the JVP’s National List at the 2015 parliamentary elections. The lawyer received bail after two years. Two of the spice trader’s sons launched suicide attacks, whereas his daughter-in-law triggered a suicide blast when police raided their Dematagoda mansion, several hours after the Easter Sunday blasts.
Investigations also revealed that the suicide vests had been assembled at a factory owned by the family and the project was funded by them. It would be pertinent to mention that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government never really bothered to conduct a comprehensive investigation to identify the Easter Sunday terror project. Perhaps, their biggest failure had been to act on the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) recommendations. Instead, President Rajapaksa appointed a six-member committee, headed by his elder brother, Chamal Rajapaksa, to examine the recommendations, probably in a foolish attempt to improve estranged relations with the influential Muslim community. That move caused irreparable damage and influenced the Church to initiate a campaign against the government. The Catholic Church played quite a significant role in the India- and US-backed 2022 Aragalaya that forced President Rajapaksa to flee the country.
Interested parties exploited the deterioration of the national economy, leading to unprecedented declaration of the bankruptcy of the country in April 2022, to mobilie public anger that was used to achieve political change.
-
News4 days agoUniversity of Wolverhampton confirms Ranil was officially invited
-
News5 days agoLegal experts decry move to demolish STC dining hall
-
News4 days agoFemale lawyer given 12 years RI for preparing forged deeds for Borella land
-
News3 days agoPeradeniya Uni issues alert over leopards in its premises
-
Business6 days agoCabinet nod for the removal of Cess tax imposed on imported good
-
News4 days agoLibrary crisis hits Pera university
-
News1 day agoRepatriation of Iranian naval personnel Sri Lanka’s call: Washington
-
Business6 days agoWar in Middle East sends shockwaves through Sri Lanka’s export sector
