Features

Ramifications of Kissinger’s Back Channels

Published

2 years ago

2023/12/3

Henry Kissinger

A Balance Sheet for a Holocaust-Surviving Jewish Refugee Who Shaped the New World Order to ensure American Supremacy

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

Henry Kissinger (1923-2023), architect of clandestine diplomacy, epitomized a life rich with profound lessons for humanity. As custodian of the United States’ archives, his influence extended beyond political realms, playing a pivotal role in orchestrating China’s rise in the Western economic landscape. Kissinger’s legacy is characterized by realist politics and an unwavering pursuit of a delicate balance of power. Unyielding in the face of criticism, Kissinger fearlessly wielded authority, leaving an indelible mark on global geopolitics. His passing creates a tapestry woven with both commendable and questionable actions, from reshaping the international order to navigating the complexities of realpolitik.

Born Heinz Kissinger in 1923 in Fürth, Bavaria, his family’s escape from the looming threat of Kristallnacht led them to New York. Rechristened Henry, his early aptitude for strategic thinking clashed with his initial leanings towards accountancy. Drafted into the U.S. Army in 1942, Kissinger’s formative years were shaped by German-American Fritz Kramer, whose mentorship warned against detached intellectualism.

In a 1958 interview, Kissinger unabashedly proclaimed, “A capitalist society, or, to me more interestingly, a free society, is a more revolutionary phenomenon than nineteenth-century socialism. I think we should go on the spiritual offensive.” This conviction, rooted in the unwavering belief in the American global mission, defines Kissinger’s controversial legacy. Among the immigrant influences shaping him, Hans Morgenthau, luminary of modern foreign policy realism, stood closest. Their professional rapport endured, but Morgenthau’s unwillingness to compromise realist principles for political gain became evident when dismissed from advising the Johnson administration over his opposition to the Vietnam War. Kissinger’s impact on global affairs, however, is marred by egregious actions—from the downfall of Chilean democracy to complicity in consolidating the Pinochet dictatorship, involvement in the Argentine military junta’s brutalities, betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds, and the extension of the Vietnam War to Laos and Cambodia—a portrait of a man entangled in a web of global suffering.

The epitaph of “war criminal” has been hurled at Kissinger, a label that gains credence in light of his involvement in heinous acts. Chef Anthony Bourdain’s visceral condemnation encapsulates the sentiment: “Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger barehanded… you’ll never understand why he’s not sitting in The Hague docks next to Milošević.” However, the distinction between political, moral, and historical responsibility for human suffering and strict legal culpability is a complex web. While it’s indisputable that Kissinger’s policies resulted in countless deaths, establishing legal responsibility is a nuanced challenge.

Consider the haunting case of East Timor, a canvas stained with the brushstrokes of Kissinger’s complicity. Post-Portuguese independence in 1975, Kissinger and President Ford granted Indonesian President Suharto a green light for invasion, a decision seemingly sealed during a Jakarta meeting. In this grim theatre of geopolitical maneuvering, Kissinger’s role as an architect of practical assistance becomes evident. The U.S., a ‘donor-client’ to Indonesia, supplied 90% of its military arsenal, reinforcing the umbilical tie between the two nations.

As the death toll in East Timor surged into the tens of thousands, Kissinger navigated legal loopholes with calculated finesse. Congressional constraints on weapons use against human rights violations became mere hurdles to sidestep. Kissinger’s actus reus was the practical assistance that fueled Indonesian crimes—a support system with a significant effect. The final report of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor labeled U.S. “political and military support” as fundamental to the invasion.

Unlike the case in Pakistan, concrete evidence of Kissinger’s real-time knowledge of ongoing atrocities remains elusive, a requirement to meet the mens rea standard. The isolation of East Timor, predicted by the CIA, facilitated Indonesia’s information blackout, shielding Kissinger from immediate knowledge. Yet, reports of looting, killing, and staggering death tolls reached the ears of diplomats, with testimonies from Indonesians. Whether Kissinger turned a blind eye or was deliberately kept in the dark remains an open question.

In dissecting Kissinger’s role, we confront a moral abyss where political expediency collided with human suffering. The legal intricacies may entangle us, but the undeniable reality persists—Kissinger’s hands bear the stain of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. The echoes of East Timor resonate as a damning testament to the geopolitical calculus that prioritized strategic interests over the sanctity of human life. The secret bombings of Laos, the controversial Operation Speedy Express in Vietnam, and the sinister orchestration of Operation Condor in South America all stand as potential cases that cry out for scrutiny. Yet, astonishingly, Kissinger has never faced the piercing questions of a court regarding these egregious actions. The question lingers: Was Kissinger a statesman or a silent accomplice to unspeakable atrocities? What similarities exist in the legal nature of Henry Kissinger’s actions and those of Adolf Eichmann from Nazi Germany, who was later prosecuted in Israel after being captured in Argentina?

In 2004, however, a U.S. federal court dismissed a civil suit against Kissinger, filed by the family of Chilean Army Chief General René Schneider, killed in an alleged failed kidnapping attempt involving Kissinger. Subsequent attempts to hold him accountable were thwarted by political machinations and evasive maneuvers. Judges in Argentina, Chile, France, and Spain sought his testimony on crimes committed by U.S. client regimes in South America, but Kissinger, till his death, was able remains an elusive figure, evading the specter of justice. Even in London, his temporary refuge in 2002, British activist Peter Tatchell’s attempt to arrest him for charges related to the Vietnam War proved unsuccessful.

The most damning chapter unfolds in 1971 during the massacres in what is now Bangladesh, then the eastern part of Pakistan. Kissinger staunchly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship, turning a blind eye to one of the Cold War’s worst atrocities. In the face of a “reign of terror,” Kissinger failed to intervene, neglecting to pressure Pakistani generals against shooting their own citizens or to advocate for power-sharing agreements. As Bengali nationalists won democratic elections and faced brutal repression, Kissinger chose not to employ U.S. influence to prevent the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe.

Ambassador Kenneth Keating’s warning of “almost entirely genocide” against Hindus fell on deaf ears, as Kissinger callously referred to the dying Bengalis with dismissive apathy in White House tapes. The genocide, a term he conveniently sidestepped, became an inconsequential detail in the grand theater of geopolitical maneuvering. His allegiance to Pakistani General Yahya Khan, manifested in jest about Hindu pogroms, laid bare the moral vacuum at the heart of Kissinger’s political calculus.

The scars of his decisions lingered as at least 200,000 lives were lost, and millions of Bengali refugees sought shelter in India, where disease ran rampant in overcrowded camps. As Pakistan attacked India in December 1971, the short but fierce war resulted in a humiliating defeat for Pakistan and the birth of an independent Bangladesh. The colossal failure of U.S. policy in the region during the Cold War was unmistakable.

Throughout the crisis, Kissinger’s disdain for the Indian people reached egregious heights. Condemning them as “trashy people” and blaming them for the refugee crisis, he wove a narrative of contempt that tainted his perception of an entire nation. His derogatory remarks on Indians, dripping with scorn, painted a picture of racial bias that contradicted the principles of diplomacy and international statesmanship.

Even as Kissinger berated Indians, his condescension extended to Pakistanis, branding them as “primitive” in their mental makeup. This sweeping judgment betrayed a deep-seated prejudice that transcended national boundaries, exposing a toxic mindset that permeated his decision-making.

In a disquieting psychological scrutiny, the looming specter of Hitler’s influence on Kissinger’s psyche surfaces. Without reducing his perspectives to mere trauma, stark parallels materialize in the Machiavellian stratagems employed by both titans, wielding power to subdue adversaries and sculpt political landscapes. Kissinger’s brazen proclamation, “the illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a bit longer,” stands as a chilling witness to the modus operandi that echoes the unrelenting ruthlessness of history’s darkest epochs.

In the twilight of his existence, however, Kissinger extensively delved into leadership strategies, compelling us to grapple with his “undeclared confessions” regarding his role in the missteps of his century. Reverberating the wisdom of the ancient Stoic philosopher Epictetus in his 2022 treatise on leadership, Kissinger reaffirmed, “We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them.” The mantle of leadership is to steer that choice, to kindle a collective response resonating with the indomitable spirit of a society poised to confront its challenges and carve its destiny.

Henry Kissinger, a figure both praised and critiqued, emerges from the annals of history as a complex architect of U.S. foreign policy. His legacy, sculpted in the crucible of geopolitical expediency, bears witness to a leader adept at navigating the intricate landscapes of power. The stark duality of Kissinger’s character is laid bare in his Machiavellian approach, where realpolitik trumped moral considerations. From his instrumental role in shaping China’s rise to his controversial stance during the South Asian crisis, Kissinger’s decisions, often veiled in secrecy, carried profound consequences.

In grappling with allegations of war crimes and ethical lapses, Kissinger’s legacy invites scrutiny, a cautionary tale of leadership that challenges the balance between strategic pragmatism and ethical responsibility. The echoes of his decisions reverberate as a nuanced portrait, forcing us to confront the moral complexities of a statesman whose actions unfolded in the shadows of history’s defining moments.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Henry Kissinger Jewish Refugee Post-Portuguese independenc

Up Next

Gamperaliya: The Greatest Masterpiece of Sinhala Cinema

Don't Miss

Israeli War: Temporary truce on hostage exchange ends, fighting resumes

Click to comment

Features

Misinterpreting President Dissanayake on National Reconciliation

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Dissanayake

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has been investing his political capital in going to the public to explain some of the most politically sensitive and controversial issues. At a time when easier political choices are available, the president is choosing the harder path of confronting ethnic suspicion and communal fears. There are three issues in particular on which the president’s words have generated strong reactions. These are first with regard to Buddhist pilgrims going to the north of the country with nationalist motivations. Second is the controversy relating to the expansion of the Tissa Raja Maha Viharaya, a recently constructed Buddhist temple in Kankesanturai which has become a flashpoint between local Tamil residents and Sinhala nationalist groups. Third is the decision not to give the war victory a central place in the Independence Day celebrations.

Even in the opposition, when his party held only three seats in parliament, Anura Kumara Dissanayake took his role as a public educator seriously. He used to deliver lengthy, well researched and easily digestible speeches in parliament. He continues this practice as president. It can be seen that his statements are primarily meant to elevate the thinking of the people and not to win votes the easy way. The easy way to win votes whether in Sri Lanka or elsewhere in the world is to rouse nationalist and racist sentiments and ride that wave. Sri Lanka’s post independence political history shows that narrow ethnic mobilisation has often produced short term electoral gains but long term national damage.

Sections of the opposition and segments of the general public have been critical of the president for taking these positions. They have claimed that the president is taking these positions in order to obtain more Tamil votes or to appease minority communities. The same may be said in reverse of those others who take contrary positions that they seek the Sinhala votes. These political actors who thrive on nationalist mobilisation have attempted to portray the president’s statements as an abandonment of the majority community. The president’s actions need to be understood within the larger framework of national reconciliation and long term national stability.

Reconciler’s Duty

When the president referred to Buddhist pilgrims from the south going to the north, he was not speaking about pilgrims visiting long established Buddhist heritage sites such as Nagadeepa or Kandarodai. His remarks were directed at a specific and highly contentious development, the recently built Buddhist temple in Kankesanturai and those built elsewhere in the recent past in the north and east. The temple in Kankesanturai did not emerge from the religious needs of a local Buddhist community as there is none in that area. It has been constructed on land that was formerly owned and used by Tamil civilians and which came under military occupation as a high security zone. What has made the issue of the temple particularly controversial is that it was established with the support of the security forces.

The controversy has deepened because the temple authorities have sought to expand the site from approximately one acre to nearly fourteen acres on the basis that there was a historic Buddhist temple in that area up to the colonial period. However, the Tamil residents of the area fear that expansion would further displace surrounding residents and consolidate a permanent Buddhist religious presence in the present period in an area where the local population is overwhelmingly Hindu. For many Tamils in Kankesanturai, the issue is not Buddhism as a religion but the use of religion as a vehicle for territorial assertion and demographic changes in a region that bore the brunt of the war. Likewise, there are other parts of the north and east where other temples or places of worship have been established by the military personnel in their camps during their war-time occupation and questions arise regarding the future when these camps are finally closed.

There are those who have actively organised large scale pilgrimages from the south to make the Tissa temple another important religious site. These pilgrimages are framed publicly as acts of devotion but are widely perceived locally as demonstrations of dominance. Each such visit heightens tension, provokes protest by Tamil residents, and risks confrontation. For communities that experienced mass displacement, military occupation and land loss, the symbolism of a state backed religious structure on contested land with the backing of the security forces is impossible to separate from memories of war and destruction. A president committed to reconciliation cannot remain silent in the face of such provocations, however uncomfortable it may be to challenge sections of the majority community.

High-minded leadership

The controversy regarding the president’s Independence Day speech has also generated strong debate. In that speech the president did not refer to the military victory over the LTTE and also did not use the term “war heroes” to describe soldiers. For many Sinhala nationalist groups, the absence of these references was seen as an attempt to diminish the sacrifices of the armed forces. The reality is that Independence Day means very different things to different communities. In the north and east the same day is marked by protest events and mourning and as a “Black Day”, symbolising the consolidation of a state they continue to experience as excluding them and not empathizing with the full extent of their losses.

By way of contrast, the president’s objective was to ensure that Independence Day could be observed as a day that belonged to all communities in the country. It is not correct to assume that the president takes these positions in order to appease minorities or secure electoral advantage. The president is only one year into his term and does not need to take politically risky positions for short term electoral gains. Indeed, the positions he has taken involve confronting powerful nationalist political forces that can mobilise significant opposition. He risks losing majority support for his statements. This itself indicates that the motivation is not electoral calculation.

President Dissanayake has recognized that Sri Lanka’s long term political stability and economic recovery depend on building trust among communities that once peacefully coexisted and then lived through decades of war. Political leadership is ultimately tested by the willingness to say what is necessary rather than what is politically expedient. The president’s recent interventions demonstrate rare national leadership and constitute an attempt to shift public discourse away from ethnic triumphalism and toward a more inclusive conception of nationhood. Reconciliation cannot take root if national ceremonies reinforce the perception of victory for one community and defeat for another especially in an internal conflict.

BY Jehan Perera

Features

Recovery of LTTE weapons

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sri Lanka Navy in action

I have read a newspaper report that the Special Task Force of Sri Lanka Police, with help of Military Intelligence, recovered three buried yet well-preserved 84mm Carl Gustaf recoilless rocket launchers used by the LTTE, in the Kudumbimalai area, Batticaloa.

These deadly weapons were used by the LTTE SEA TIGER WING to attack the Sri Lanka Navy ships and craft in 1990s. The first incident was in February 1997, off Iranativu island, in the Gulf of Mannar.

Admiral Cecil Tissera took over as Commander of the Navy on 27 January, 1997, from Admiral Mohan Samarasekara.

The fight against the LTTE was intensified from 1996 and the SLN was using her Vanguard of the Navy, Fast Attack Craft Squadron, to destroy the LTTE’s littoral fighting capabilities. Frequent confrontations against the LTTE Sea Tiger boats were reported off Mullaitivu, Point Pedro and Velvetiturai areas, where SLN units became victorious in most of these sea battles, except in a few incidents where the SLN lost Fast Attack Craft.

Carl Gustaf recoilless rocket launchers

The intelligence reports confirmed that the LTTE Sea Tigers was using new recoilless rocket launchers against aluminium-hull FACs, and they were deadly at close quarter sea battles, but the exact type of this weapon was not disclosed.

The following incident, which occurred in February 1997, helped confirm the weapon was Carl Gustaf 84 mm Recoilless gun!

DATE: 09TH FEBRUARY, 1997, morning 0600 hrs.

LOCATION: OFF IRANATHIVE.

FACs: P 460 ISRAEL BUILT, COMMANDED BY CDR MANOJ JAYESOORIYA

P 452 CDL BUILT, COMMANDED BY LCDR PM WICKRAMASINGHE (ON TEMPORARY COMMAND. PROPER OIC LCDR N HEENATIGALA)

OPERATED FROM KKS.

CONFRONTED WITH LTTE ATTACK CRAFT POWERED WITH FOUR 250 HP OUT BOARD MOTORS.

TARGET WAS DESTROYED AND ONE LTTE MEMBER WAS CAPTURED.

LEADING MARINE ENGINEERING MECHANIC OF THE FAC CAME UP TO THE BRIDGE CARRYING A PROJECTILE WHICH WAS FIRED BY THE LTTE BOAT, DURING CONFRONTATION, WHICH PENETRATED THROUGH THE FAC’s HULL, AND ENTERED THE OICs CABIN (BETWEEN THE TWO BUNKS) AND HIT THE AUXILIARY ENGINE ROOM DOOR AND HAD FALLEN DOWN WITHOUT EXPLODING. THE ENGINE ROOM DOOR WAS HEAVILY DAMAGED LOOSING THE WATER TIGHT INTEGRITY OF THE FAC.

THE PROJECTILE WAS LATER HANDED OVER TO THE NAVAL WEAPONS EXPERTS WHEN THE FACs RETURNED TO KKS. INVESTIGATIONS REVEALED THE WEAPON USED BY THE ENEMY WAS 84 mm CARL GUSTAF SHOULDER-FIRED RECOILLESS GUN AND THIS PROJECTILE WAS AN ILLUMINATER BOMB OF ONE MILLION CANDLE POWER. BUT THE ATTACKERS HAS FAILED TO REMOVE THE SAFETY PIN, THEREFORE THE BOMB WAS NOT ACTIVATED.

Sea Tigers

Carl Gustaf 84 mm recoilless gun was named after Carl Gustaf Stads Gevärsfaktori, which, initially, produced it. Sweden later developed the 84mm shoulder-fired recoilless gun by the Royal Swedish Army Materiel Administration during the second half of 1940s as a crew served man- portable infantry support gun for close range multi-role anti-armour, anti-personnel, battle field illumination, smoke screening and marking fire.

It is confirmed in Wikipedia that Carl Gustaf Recoilless shoulder-fired guns were used by the only non-state actor in the world – the LTTE – during the final Eelam War.

It is extremely important to check the batch numbers of the recently recovered three launchers to find out where they were produced and other details like how they ended up in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka?

By Admiral Ravindra C. Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc (Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

Features

Yellow Beatz … a style similar to K-pop!

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

Yes, get ready to vibe with Yellow Beatz, Sri Lanka’s awesome girl group, keen to take Sri Lankan music to the world with a style similar to K-pop!

With high-energy beats and infectious hooks, these talented ladies are here to shake up the music scene.

Think bold moves, catchy hooks, and, of course, spicy versions of old Sinhala hits, and Yellow Beatz is the package you won’t want to miss!

According to a spokesman for the group, Yellow Beatz became a reality during the Covid period … when everyone was stuck at home, in lockdown.

“First we interviewed girls, online, and selected a team that blended well, as four voices, and then started rehearsals. One of the cover songs we recorded, during those early rehearsals, unexpectedly went viral on Facebook. From that moment onward, we continued doing cover songs, and we received a huge response. Through that, we were able to bring back some beautiful Sri Lankan musical creations that were being forgotten, and introduce them to the new generation.”

The team members, I am told, have strong musical skills and with proper training their goal is to become a vocal group recognised around the world.

Believe me, their goal, they say, is not only to take Sri Lanka’s name forward, in the music scene, but to bring home a Grammy Award, as well.

“We truly believe we can achieve this with the love and support of everyone in Sri Lanka.”

The year 2026 is very special for Yellow Beatz as they have received an exceptional opportunity to represent Sri Lanka at the World Championships of Performing Arts in the USA.

Under the guidance of Chris Raththara, the Director for Sri Lanka, and with the blessings of all Sri Lankans, the girls have a great hope that they can win this milestone.

“We believe this will be a moment of great value for us as Yellow Beatz, and also for all Sri Lankans, and it will be an important inspiration for the future of our country.”

Along with all the preparation for the event in the USA, they went on to say they also need to manage their performances, original song recordings, and everything related.

The year 2026 is very special for Yellow Beatz

“We have strong confidence in ourselves and in our sincere intentions, because we are a team that studies music deeply, researches within the field, and works to take the uniqueness of Sri Lankan identity to the world.”

At present, they gather at the Voices Lab Academy, twice a week, for new creations and concert rehearsals.

This project was created by Buddhika Dayarathne who is currently working as a Pop Vocal lecturer at SLTC Campus. Voice Lab Academy is also his own private music academy and Yellow Beatz was formed through that platform.

Buddhika is keen to take Sri Lankan music to the world with a style similar to K-Pop and Yellow Beatz began as a result of that vision. With that same aim, we all work together as one team.

“Although it was a little challenging for the four of us girls to work together at first, we have united for our goal and continue to work very flexibly and with dedication. Our parents and families also give their continuous blessings and support for this project,” Rameesha, Dinushi, Newansa and Risuri said.

Last year, Yellow Beatz released their first original song, ‘Ihirila’ , and with everything happening this year, they are also preparing for their first album.