-By A Special Correspondent
(Lanka-e-News -22.Dec.2024, 11.20 PM) In Sri Lanka’s labyrinthine political landscape, where policy and diplomacy often cross paths in mysterious ways, a private organization named the Pathfinder Foundation has been quietly, and controversially, carving out a space for itself. Founded by former diplomat Milinda Moragoda, Pathfinder has become a shadowy force, operating like an unsanctioned "parallel foreign ministry" that allegedly stirs geopolitical tensions between China and India while courting Western diplomats for funding. This combination of geopolitics, personal ambition, and questionable ethics deserves a closer look.
Milinda Moragoda is no stranger to the limelight. Once a high-ranking official, Moragoda transitioned from a career in politics to founding Pathfinder, which bills itself as a think tank dedicated to policy research. Critics, however, suggest Pathfinder’s primary agenda is far from altruistic. Instead, they accuse Moragoda of leveraging the foundation to maintain relevance, secure international funding, and meddle in Sri Lanka’s foreign affairs.
Adding fuel to the fire, Pathfinder employs a growing roster of ex-civil servants and retired bureaucrats, raising eyebrows about potential conflicts of interest. This practice, critics argue, provides Pathfinder with access to sensitive government information, which it could misuse to shape foreign policy narratives for its own benefit.
Pathfinder's activities have raised concerns in New Delhi and Beijing, two capitals with a vested interest in Sri Lanka’s strategic position in the Indian Ocean. The organization’s ties with the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF)—a think tank often associated with India's foreign policy elite—might have seemed like an olive branch to India. Instead, it has had the opposite effect, fueling suspicions that Pathfinder is attempting to dictate the terms of Sri Lanka's foreign policy.
Adding to the tension, Pathfinder has published reports critical of China's influence in Sri Lanka, painting a picture that appears calibrated to align with Western and Indian narratives. This anti-China rhetoric, allegedly led by Bernard Goonetilleke, Pathfinder’s chairman, is a sore point for Beijing. Goonetilleke, a former ambassador, has been accused of planting thinly-veiled propaganda under the guise of policy research—research that, detractors claim, lacks academic rigor and proper sourcing.
A particularly controversial move by Pathfinder is its rumored recruitment of Aruni Wijewardena, a former Foreign Secretary. This has sparked fears that sensitive insights from the Foreign Ministry could find their way into Pathfinder’s private hands. Critics argue that allowing retired high-ranking officials to join such organizations creates opportunities for policy leaks and manipulations, further blurring the line between public service and private interests.
The Sri Lankan government, it seems, has been caught flat-footed in addressing this potential ethical minefield. The call to ban organizations like Pathfinder from recruiting former civil servants has grown louder, but enforcement remains elusive.
Pathfinder’s critics claim that its operations are propped up by a delicate dance of courting Western diplomats for funding. The allegation? Pathfinder deliberately stirs geopolitical tensions to capture the attention of Western governments and donor agencies, securing grants and sponsorships in the process.
Adding to this narrative are questions about the involvement of former Central Bank Governor Indrajit Coomaraswamy, who was recently listed as a fellow member of Pathfinder. Coomaraswamy, respected for his economic expertise, has drawn scrutiny over his association with Moragoda, given the unresolved debts linked to Mercantile Credit, a company with ties to Moragoda's family. Observers are now asking: Why isn’t Pathfinder focusing on issues like repaying over $1 billion owed to Sri Lanka's Central Bank, instead of meddling in foreign affairs?
In a particularly audacious move, Pathfinder has ventured into maritime security and defense seminars, areas in which it lacks expertise. Critics argue that these events are nothing more than "cut-and-paste" productions, borrowing liberally from international conferences without offering original insights. These seminars, while billed as high-level discussions, are seen by many as attempts to ingratiate Pathfinder with foreign embassies and defense officials.
This raises a serious question: What qualifies Pathfinder to hold such events? The lack of transparency and expertise in these forums does little to bolster the foundation’s credibility. Instead, it feeds into the narrative that Pathfinder is more interested in appearances than substance.
Given the controversies surrounding Pathfinder, some have issued a direct warning to Western diplomats: stop taking this organization seriously. Its critics argue that Pathfinder is less of a think tank and more of a cult of personality, centered on Moragoda's ambitions to remain relevant in Sri Lankan politics and international circles.
To drive home this point, skeptics have called on Pathfinder to address more pressing and local issues. For instance, why hasn’t the foundation published research on how Moragoda’s relatives at John Keells Holdings have profited from the controversial Adani port project? Or how Adani Group’s financial practices have drawn scrutiny in the U.S.? If Pathfinder is truly committed to transparency and policy analysis, these would be worthy topics.
Pathfinder’s rise highlights a broader concern: the increasing influence of private organizations in shaping national policy. While think tanks play an important role in fostering debate, they must adhere to principles of accountability, transparency, and independence. Without these, they risk becoming vehicles for personal agendas, creating more harm than good.
Sri Lanka's government must take a clear stance on organizations like Pathfinder. Allowing a private entity to operate as a de facto foreign policy player, unchecked by public oversight, is a recipe for disaster—especially in a region as geopolitically sensitive as South Asia.
Pathfinder may claim to champion Sri Lanka’s national interests, but its critics argue that its actions tell a different story. From cozying up to foreign diplomats to fanning the flames of geopolitical tensions, Pathfinder seems more focused on self-promotion than solving Sri Lanka’s real challenges.
For Sri Lanka, the stakes are too high to let Pathfinder run amok. The government, civil society, and international partners must demand greater scrutiny of organizations that operate in the shadows of official institutions. As for Pathfinder, it’s time to stop acting like a shadow foreign ministry and start addressing the real issues facing the nation—like the billion-dollar debts and questionable financial dealings of its founder's associates.
---------------------------
by (2024-12-22 22:08:16)
)
Read 38094 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news