Did US Ambassador censor Sri Lanka’s official response to UK sanctions?
March 28, Colombo (LNW): US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Julie Chung has been accused of modifying the official statement issued by Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in response to the UK government’s sanctions on former Sri Lankan military leaders.
The above accusation was levelled by Leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya, former MP Udaya Gammanpila.
Gammanpila claimed that certain words had been deliberately removed, implying foreign influence over the Sri Lankan government’s stance on the matter.
Speaking on the issue, Gammanpila suggested that Minister of Foreign Affairs Vijitha Herath had originally drafted the statement with a strong patriotic tone. However, he alleged that Ambassador Chung, whom he described as wielding significant power over the government, had intervened to soften its language.
Gammanpila, whose far-right conspiracy theories on and off the House are not unheard of, shed this bombshell amidst the ongoing debate over the international community’s response to Sri Lanka in the human rights dialogue.
He argued that this interference diluted the government’s official response to the UK’s actions, which he views as part of a broader international effort to target Sri Lanka’s military leadership.
Gammanpila also questioned the government’s relationship with the Canadian Tamil Congress, drawing attention to a letter sent by the organisation to President Anura Dissanayake after his electoral victory.
The letter, according to the former lawmaker, expressed congratulations while also reminding the president of certain “responsibilities” that had been promised. He raised concerns over what commitments the government might have made to the organisation, stating that the details remained undisclosed to the Sri Lankan public.
Linking this to the government’s response to the UK sanctions, Gammanpila accused the administration of adopting a passive stance towards what he described as a systematic campaign against Sri Lanka’s military personnel.
He suggested that this lack of assertiveness could be interpreted as an attempt to honour undisclosed agreements with external groups, further questioning the government’s priorities and its handling of diplomatic affairs.
