By Rohana R. Wasala
Continued from Friday, March 7, 2025
Leaders should lead us as far as they can and then vanish. Their ashes should not choke the fire they have lit.
Part I of this article ended with the following two sentences:
When countries are unequal partners, the weaker nations become subject to various forms of subversion (political, economic, cultural, etc.,) exerted by the stronger nations. Willing submission to international subversion seems to be Jayasuriya’s creed”.
The last sentence might be offensive to those who admire the veteran politician, though I am one among them, too. Let me be clear. The operative or the key word in the last sentence is ‘seems’, which prevents it from being a charge levelled against Jayasuriya. He is definitely not guilty of such betrayal of the national interest. His apparent giving in to unwelcome camouflaged foreign interventions and interferences, attempted through aid programmes, is not the reality. It is only an impression. It is not certainly a systematic mode of managing development assistance (received from foreign agencies for the benefit of all the citizens) that he is religiously committed to. We have to appreciate the fact that giving such an impression as a pragmatic accommodation of donor wishes is a necessary evil, for the funds and other forms of help received are welcome, and cannot, and should not, be refused as long as they are available.
As Shamindra Ferdinando pointed out, under the subheading ‘KJ’s USAID project’, in an earlier feature article in The Island, entitled Costly UNDP ‘lessons’ for Sri Lanka Parliament”/June 22, 2023, the USAID launched in November 2016 a three year partnership with Parliament estimated at SLR 1.92 billion (US $ 13 million at the exchange rate of the time) to ‘strengthen accountability and democratic government’ in the country. According to the same article, a US Embassy statement quoted USAID Mission Director Andrew Sisson at the time as having said ‘This project broadens our support to the independent commissions, ministries, and provincial and local levels of government’. This was based on an unprecedented agreement between the USAID and Parliament finalized in 2016. Ferdinando correctly observed in this piece written almost two years ago that the USAID projects in Sri Lanka correspond to their much touted free Indo-Pacific concept, which means, in other words, countering growing Chinese influence in the region.
It is unlikely that Karu Jayasuriya is unaware of these facts.
We, senior Sri Lankans wherever we live in the world at present, know that American aid agencies have been active in our country even from before the USAID was established in America in 1961. I well remember how, as schoolchildren in our pre-teens in the late 1950s, we were given milk to drink as part of our free mid-day meal. The milk was made from milk powder provided under the American CARE organization (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere). The crying need at the moment is for those projects to be looked into and suitably managed free from corruption for the good of the general public, without compromising our national sovereignty and self-respect (the only two treasures that, as the late great patriot Lakshman Kadirgamar said, we still possess and should never abandon).
A young independent investigative journalist (obviously with national interest at heart), writing on her website (March 1, 2025), gives the link to access the ChatGPT list of US agencies funding government and civil society entities operating in Sri Lanka 2015-to date (It is freely available on the web for anyone interested to check out, so naturally she won’t like or expect to be identified as making a special revelation). The list categorises the recipient entities, names the relevant USAID agencies, records the funding amounts, and states the program focuses and the dates. She demands that the government launch an immediate investigation and disclose the truth to the Sri Lankan citizens, a call that we should all join in. It is unfortunate that a bunch of half baked YouTuber ‘journalists’ with political axes to grind pounced on the well meant alert of the young authentic journalist as an opportunity to ‘score hits’ on their channels and increase their dollar income.
USAID agencies have implemented countless development projects in many countries across the world including Sri Lanka for over six decades now. As lawful and legitimate programs, they employ thousands of poor people, providing livelihoods for them. Before stopping the funds, if they must, such affected innocents will have to be looked after and found some compensation. It has already been suggested that president Trump’s moves are likely to be legally challenged in America for this and other reasons. For, whatever happens, the ultimate sufferers will be the poor wherever they happen to be.
As for Sri Lanka, it remains a poor indebted nation after 77 years of heavily qualified (22 years of dominion status + 53 years of fuller) independence. This is not for lack of undaunted patriotic striving after national unity, communal peace and economic prosperity for all citizens through overall comprehensive development by the democratic majority of multiethnic Sri Lankans while facing unavoidable manipulative foreign interventions and interferences, and internal resistance fed by such hegemonic forces. None of the three powers besieging us can be ignored or discounted. Maintaining a proper balance between them without aligning with a specific one among them is always work cut out for political handlers of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy matters. That is an unenviable task that confronts both the parliamentarians and civil servants involved. Judicious, efficient and corruption-free running of foreign aid projects for the above mentioned purpose of holistic national development is the need of the hour.
.
Karu Jayasuriya seems to envision the goal of answering that need, though obviously he is too old to play an active role in achieving that goal. His inspiring mentorship will be of help. He has a history of rising to the occasion when push comes to shove in resolving national issues. In 2007, when the UPFA government under Mahinda Rajapaksa was struggling to survive against the underhand dealings of the UNP’s Mangala Samaraweera with the separatists and the JVP’s non-cooperative stance. MR wanted to push the Humanitarian Operation against the separatists to its victorious end. Jayasuriya crossed over to the government side with 17 fellow front-liners of the UNP opposition. Jayasuriya’s timely move paid off. It saved the MR government, and in another two years they saw the end of separatist terrorism. So, Jayasuriya played a heroic role in that situation.
Karu Jayasuriya claimed that the 2015 regime change would not have become a reality but for the leading role played by the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) of which he was a prominent member. The original name of the campaign launched by the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera the Chief Monk of the Naga Viharaya of Kotte was the ‘National Movement for a Just Society’ (NMJS). Jayasuriya followed the much respected leading Buddhist monk, a committed patriot, as the organisation’s head after the latter’s unexpected death on November 6, 2015 at a Singapore hospital, aged 73. A pro-regime-change website of the time (most probably sponsored by a foreign funder), paying a memorial tribute, described him misleadingly as ”the monk who ended Sri Lanka’s decade of darkness”. In reality, of course, the ten year period (2005-15) saw the end of three decades of terrorist violence and the highest economic growth rate ever achieved during that time amidst numerous challenges, and these achievements were made by the nationalist forces that Ven. Sobitha had made common cause with in opposing the neoliberal policies of the West-oriented United National Party (UNP) led by president J.R. Jayawardane from 1977 to 1988, undergoing even physical harassment in the process. A Sri Lanka-born anthropology professor, trained in America, wrote in an article following his death that the monk was ‘a nationalist turned democratic activist’, wrongly equating nationalism with absence of democracy and representing it as a reactionary force.
Unfortunately, the poor professor was adopting the American definition of ‘nationalism’, which is what you find in the Google Dictionary: ‘identification with one’s own nation and support for its own interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations’. There is a subtle substitution of nation for race. So this definition fits racism, which we all know is primitive and reprehensible. Ven. Sobitha used ‘nation’ to mean all the people living in the country, not exclusively the Sinhalese Buddhists. So to try to denounce the monk as a ‘nationalist’ in the American sense was not right.
Be that as it may. This is no time to further contest the learned professor’s assessment of the upright nationalist Ven. Sobitha who rose up against the war winning president Mahinda Rajapaksa when he concluded that the latter, in the flush of victory, had turned authoritarian and was not doing what he had pledged to do as a true nationalist (i.e., in the non-American sense). He disliked the imprisonment of Sarath Fonseka, the general who played the pivotal role in defeating separatist terrorism, and agitated for his freedom. The monk also thought that the executive presidency was a problem and became an advocate of its abolition, which was not very wise.
At this point, unfortunately, Ven. Sobitha was discovered by the foreign funded regime change agents who had been able to split the victorious nationalist camp exploiting flaws in MR’s leadership as ripe for being ensnared into their plot. He soon became the most influential supporter of Maithripala Sirisena as the common candidate of the opposition. The monk didn’t know that he was participating in a conspiracy without his knowledge. According to Mahinda Rajapaksa, who visited him (presumably, when in hospital) after the 2015 regime change, the monk admitted having been misled by the Yahapalana campaigners. That does not redeem MR. We know that Jayasuriya figured prominently in that camp and had become a fair critic of Rajapaksa for the same reasons as the less worldly wise Ven. Sobitha, though he had earlier helped him to defeat the terrorists.
At the inauguration of the Institute of Democracy and Governance (IDAG), his brainchild, in Colombo on September 30, 2024, Jayasuriya spoke about the alienation of our current political leaders from the noble values espoused by leaders such as D.S. Senanayake, Don Baron Jayatilake, and their successors. Pursuit of self-interest seems to be more important to them than serving the public and scandals often damage their reputation, he said. In a newspaper article written to mark the launch of the IDAG on September 30th last year, a day after his 84th birthday, Jayasuriya’s daughter Lanka Jayasuriya Dissanayake, a UK qualified doctor,holding a position in WHO, Sri Lanka as a National Professional Officer, wrote:
‘(The IDAG) … initiative serves as both a celebration of his lifelong commitment to democratic values and as a gift to the nation—a pathway toward building a generation of leaders with the caliber and integrity that Sri Lanka desperately needs’.
The time for active politics is gone for Karu Jayasuriya as it is for many others of his era whose names will spring to your mind. Unlike some of them, however, he has something special to teach the young patriots engaged in politics. So, his assumption of a mentorship role, without just vanishing after having done his duty as a leader, as the great H.G. Wells suggested, is eminently appropriate for these critical but promising times.
To be concluded
