Maybe, but perhaps not to the same extent as what Wimal Weerawansa is claiming it to be. I don’t think the West is of the opinion that SF is more amiable than Mahinda, but SF seems to be the only candidate capable of ousting Mahinda. Following is an objective look at why the west may want a regime change.
Why US would care
I really don’t think the US would give two hoots about the LTTE or the civilian casualties. But I think they are somewhat concerned about the close ties Sri Lanka has developed with China. A fact that was not lost, when the following senate report was issued, recommending a more a cordial relationship with Sri Lanka. For those of you who wonder what strategic value Sri Lanka has, it’s placed in a strategic geographical location which is very close to international shipping routes. US does have a history of encouraging regime changes both overtly and covertly in nations they deem unfavorable to their overall goals. Historically UNP governments had a pro western outlook. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they approve of an UNP backed candidate, but I doubt they would go beyond that. Even if they throw money into the fray as claimed by some government politicians, I doubt it will have any effect. It all depends on the votes, so I don’t think it’s as scary as what Wimal is trying to portray.
Also the average Sri Lankan is not anti-US and would probably like to see a cordial relationship with the US, especially strong trade ties.
Why Norway would care
It’s no secret that Norway had a very favorable approach towards the LTTE. There wasn’t a sizable tamil population in Norway that could carry a swing vote during elections. So I am not sure what strategic value they saw in favoring the LTTE, other than perhaps the oil deposits available in the northern part of the Island. Norway also has an abysmal record in managing conflicts. Sudan is a case in point. Most Sri Lankans, not just the government, have a less than favorable impression about Norway and have openly expressed it. Also the present government led by Mahinda withstood immense political pressure and managed to destroy the LTTE which clearly made Eric Solhiem etc.. unhappy. Norway also has a history of funding various elements through it’s NGO’s, especially the now thrown out Peoples Aid. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Norway plays an active role in encouraging a regime change by doling out money to whoever they think might make a difference. To me this angle seems far more credible than anything else. But again everything depends on the votes.
Why Britain or France would care
I don’t think Sri Lanka is of any strategic value to either Britain or France (please correct me if I am wrong). They do have a reasonably sized Tamil population and especially in London it did become a thorny issue with protesters. But apart from a local politician or two who is motivated by votes, I don’t think they care much about the Tamils either. If they are encouraging a regime change it would be more due to the cold shoulder given to them by Mahinda and Gotabaya than anything else.
Conclusion
My personal opinion is that the west would like to see a regime change on the 26th. However I don’t think they are actively seeking it apart from Norway. Even if they do, the impact will be minimal as they don’t really have any viable mechanism for influencing votes. The most they could do is to throw money to support opposition campaigns. The opposition could also use that as bribes to get politicians to crossover etc. But I still think the impact is minimal if the population of Sri Lanka use their heads to vote.