Opinion

The Wickremesinghe Presidency Response to Dr Mahim Mendis

Published

4 years ago

2022/08/12

By Anura Gunasekera

All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common; it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership- J.K. Galbraith.Dr. M.M., through an inexplicable thought process, has seen it fit to classify my writing as – quote- “…. A reflection of a segment of the English-speaking middle class of Sri Lanka, confused and burdened by the state of flux, or the terrible uncertainty that engulfs the nation at large. They often confine their criticism to private gatherings, while a few others express themselves through newspaper columns with hard-hearted sentiments against politicians like Premadasa, whom they love to undermine”- end quote

Firstly, my viewpoints on national issues have been exposed in the public domain, through newspaper articles, fairly frequently across the last couple of decades. I cannot quite understand what he means when he says, “members if this social class, going by the contents of Mr. Gunasekera’s column, never believed in ousting Rajapaksas or Wickremesinghe, as they easily embrace the status quo”. To clarify, I have been a steadfast critic of the odious status quo that successive Rajapaksa regimes have represented since the day Mahinda Rajapaksa was first elected President, and I maintain that position to this day. I can also state with total confidence that I represent the viewpoint of a large mass of people, not all of them part of the so-called “English-speaking middle class”. If Dr. MM is in any doubt about my credentials, I suggest that he check out the blog, ‘Rilawala Reflections’, or my medium account – if he can find the time and the inclination.

I do not “resent” (Dr MM’s word) the militant outlook of the university student federations and the other participants of the Aragalaya. It is not possible to confront repression without militancy and steadfastness. But my concern, as an average, law-abiding citizen, was the descent of justifiable civil protest in to violence, particularly after the 9th May. Violence is frequently an outcome of civil protest, the world over, and Sri Lanka was no exception. The occupation of Temple Trees, the President’s house, the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s office were unnecessary, and the physical damage caused within those premises, unacceptable. The countrywide damage and destruction of private property was criminal and the murder of two men in Nittambuwa abhorrent, as was the torching of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s house. As far as I am aware, none of the leaders of the Aragalaya, insofar as it has a defined leadership, has publicly condemned those incidents.

Irrespective of the righteousness of the original purpose of the Aragalaya, which I endorse without reservation, those responsible must be made accountable for those crimes. To endorse the Aragalaya unequivocally is to endorse all those unacceptable acts. Dr. MM perceives this position differently. Quote- “Anura Gunasekera has taken the typical position often repeated by the English-speaking elites …”- end quote. The call for law and order is common amongst all right-thinking people and certainly not confined to “elite” groups. If Dr. MM wishes to explore the evolution of my views on the Aragalaya and connected events, I suggest that he reads my articles in The Sunday Island editions of April 11, April 17, April 25, May 15, June 05 and July 17. It is not necessary for me to go in to detail in this writing.

As for the “fatherly advice to these militant youth”, (Dr. MM’s words) let me illustrate my position with a detailed, real-life episode.

In or around 1992, R. Paskaralingam, Secretary of Finance in the R.Premadasa regime, summoned all private company corporate heads and directors, seeking from them a solution to the issue of unemployed graduates. He requested the assembled corporates to provide suitable in-house training, without remuneration, for a minimum period of six months, to make those graduates—in his own words—”employable”. However, Ken Balendra, then Chairman of John Keells, insisted that all trainees be paid and in order to maintain uniformity, it was agreed that each trainee would be paid an allowance of 3,000 per month. Paskaralingam’s ministry supplied around 6,000 names of unemployed graduates to the private companies represented at the meeting. I was present at the first meeting as well as all the meetings which followed.

At the final meeting, six months later, the late Lyn Fernando of the apparel sector submitted the graduate training programme details to Paskaralingam. Of over 4,000 graduates given training appointments, fewer than 10% completed the training programme. On behalf of my company, of which I was then the Head of Human Resources, I interviewed over two dozen candidates and did not employ any, as none of them were prepared to report for training on a Saturday. Exchanging notes then with many of my contemporaries in the private sector, I found that my experience was mirrored right across the sector. The project was a failure entirely due to the reluctance of the greater majority of unemployed graduates, despite being provided with employment opportunity, to conform to the diligence expected by the private sector. Hence, my ‘fatherly advice” to unemployed graduates.

In the last five decades, till retirement in 2020, I have been directly associated, in every organization that I worked in, with Human Resource Management. During this period, I have interviewed thousands of candidates. Therefore, I am fully aware of the issues regarding educational standards, especially in outstation areas, and the difficulties faced by graduates seeking employment. Contrary to Dr MM’s assumption, I speak with reasonable awareness and knowledge of the relevant issues, especially from the perspective of an employer. My knowledge is derived from direct interaction with every level of employment, from manual workers to senior corporate managers.

My criticism of Sajith Premadasa is not an attempt to undermine him. I have no party affiliations but I have voted at every election since 1977, casting my ballot on the basis of strongly held views on major national issues. I voted for Premadasa at the last presidential election as I considered a Gotabaya presidency abhorrent, for reasons I have explained in detail in other writings which pre-date the Yahapalanaya regime. In this instance, promoting Dullas as opposition to RW was, to me, and to many other people who expected greater things of Premadasa, a great disappointment for a number of reasons.

The rationale behind the promotion of the Dullas candidacy was probably the result of a think-tank deliberation, which, judging by Dr MM’s observations, he himself may have been privy to. Given the content of my article at issue, even without reference to any of my previous writings, it is quite absurd of Dr MM to pose the question, “Is Anura Gunasekera an appeaser of the Ranil-Rajapaksa regime to have a serious grouse with Sajith Premadasa for not accepting the Prime-Ministerial post under Gotabaya?” Frankly, that proposition does not merit debate.

Dullas A has been a Rajapaksa loyalist, which means a Rajapaksa lackey, for over two decades. He was the regular spokesman for Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the most incompetent leader this country has ever had. Until he suddenly developed a conscience and defected from the Rajapaksa ranks- though only when the writing on the wall was clear to all- Dullas endorsed the Gotabaya inspired tax concessions, the money-printing, the organic fertilizer fiat, the sugar scam, the ban on agrochemicals and the 20th Amendment.

In the above context, within a few short weeks after switching a decades- long loyalty, what makes him a better candidate for the presidency than Premadasa? The nation was confronted by the most crucial leadership vacuum since independence and, in my view, Dullas was not a choice. In his writing, Dr MM has detailed many of the issues Premadasa has been involved in, and the initiatives he has launched, as an Opposition leader. But that is exactly what an Opposition leader is expected to do. Weighted speeches and impressive rhetoric in parliament and at other forums are, at best, poor substitutes for concrete action at opportune moments. The ground reality, as far as I am concerned, is that he has faltered twice when confronted with the final hurdle. Ordinary citizens like me are not privy to what goes on in the minds of our leaders. We only see the results and, obviously, weigh those against our expectations and arrive at our conclusions. Sajith cannot expect to win by lying low, limiting his profile and interminably biding his time. In the words of another great crisis manager, “The nation will find it very hard to look up to leaders, who are keeping their ears to the ground.” ( Winston Churchill)

Dr MM’s writing suggests a preoccupation with the segment of our society which he labels as the “English-speaking middle class” and, in a sweeping generalisation, attributes to this group all manner of socio-political and ideological inadequacies. There is also a confusing reference, seemingly irrelevant to the context, “to those who have proved that they have not read any decent books in their own libraries.” As for me, although I now habitually write in English, I am quite fluent in Sinhala and reasonably so in Tamil. I also, calculatedly, seek the views of all linguistic groups in the country and many of my views are informed by such discussions.

I understand Dr. MM’s compulsion to reinforce his leader’s position and I respect his views, whilst holding firmly to mine. As for Sajith Premadasa, I pray, on behalf of a nation desperately in need of a viable leadership option in troubled times, that before long he is presented with that perfect opportunity he is awaiting. If it comes to a people’s ballot Sajith is assured of mine.

Dr MM has concluded his writing with a quotation on the “significance of compromise in politics,” attributed to Kevin Spacey, American actor and film producer, currently embroiled in a major sexual misconduct controversy. Let me conclude mine with a quote, attributed to another American, celebrated for genuine greatness; “Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”- Abraham Lincoln.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Think globally and act locally

Published

9 hours ago

2026/09/28

Thilina Walpola

By Prof. Amarasiri de Silva

The current period can be characterised by Sri Lanka reaching a historical crossroad which determines whether the island nation will continue following the logic of an inward-oriented mind or adapt to the realities of the globally connected world. Throughout the millennia, Sri Lankan psychology has been conditioned by the island nature of its geography. The ocean around the nation has served as a protective factor and as a boundary at the same time. In the language of Sinhala people, the phenomenon is known as lin medi manasikathwaya and implies narrowing of horizons, restriction of ambitions, and the need to focus on oneself. This mentality is not characteristic of the culture only; it also affects economic thinking, political behaviour, education, and social relations. In the epoch of global trends, the nation must abandon this approach and start thinking in a bigger way.

Inwardness is characteristic of many islands. However, Sri Lanka’s situation is quite unique as the island has had centuries of contacts with other countries. For millennia, travellers, monks, scientists, merchants, and others travelled from Sri Lanka to India, China, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Our ports were centres of economic activity and exchange; our ancient kingdoms absorbed knowledge, technologies, and culture from foreign countries. Therefore, the island was never isolated but functioned as a meeting place of civilisations. However, for some reason, in modern times, Sri Lanka started developing an inward orientation despite having centuries of experience. There are several reasons for the phenomenon: legacies of colonial past, post-independence nationalism, rhetoric of political parties, economic dependencies, and cycles. At some point, the ocean ceased serving as a bridge.

Inward in several areas

This inwardness can be observed in several areas. It takes various forms: a conviction that Sri Lanka is too small to succeed in the global competition, fears of external influences, a tendency to compare ourselves only to nearby countries, and a failure to adopt global approaches. In politics, the island’s inwardness can be revealed in rhetoric which dismisses global trends as unimportant or even threatening. In economics, the mentality can manifest itself in focusing on internal issues instead of considering global opportunities. In education, students study mainly about the history of their own country instead of global trends. In cultural matters, openness can be confused with dilution. To move forward, Sri Lanka needs to realize that global thinking is not a luxury but a necessity.

It is quite easy to notice the effect of inwardness on the economic life of Sri Lanka. For decades, the country was characterised by limited export diversification, dependence on remittances, vulnerability to external shocks, and financial constraints. All these problems do not only affect the economy but are caused by the mentality. In general, Sri Lankan entrepreneurs have a small market mentality: they design products for domestic markets, set standards based on domestic criteria, and never consider globalisation. To change the situation, the country must adopt a global economic imagination which would encourage the development of export-oriented entrepreneurship, integration into global value chains, partnership with global companies, and promotion of globally competitive industries (information technology, tourism, agriculture, renewable energy).

Abandoning island mentality

Small countries all over the world managed to transform their economy by abandoning the logic of island mentality. Singapore, Estonia, and Vietnam are examples of such transformation: they have made investments in education, technology, and global cooperation; they have encouraged their citizens to be a part of the global labour market. Sri Lanka can do the same but only if it starts thinking differently. One of the most underused resources of the transformation can be the country’s diaspora. Millions of Sri Lankans living outside the island can be helpful: they have global knowledge, networks, and capital. Instead of being seen as sources of remittances, the diaspora can be a strategic partner in the process of national development. Global imagination requires Sri Lankans to see themselves not only as inhabitants of the island but also as participants of global processes of innovation and research. To harness the potential, there should be special policies to encourage investment of diaspora into the nation, facilitate knowledge transfer, and develop the trust between the diaspora and the state.

Inwardness is a problem in politics as well. The political imagination has a great impact on the fate of the nation: when politicians think narrowly, the country follows the example; when they think globally, the country starts expanding its horizons. In general, Sri Lankan politics is characterised by a narrow focus on local problems: political leaders speak about village-level concerns and try to satisfy voters’ demands in the shortest time possible. Of course, local problems matter but they cannot be the only focus of national politics. Climate change, geopolitics, technological disruptions, and migrations have a significant influence on Sri Lanka. Therefore, to have a global political imagination, it is necessary to understand global systems, predict risks, position the country within global power dynamics, develop diplomatic skills, and learn from models of global governance which emphasise transparency and accountability.

Diplomacy as a powerful tool

Diplomacy is one of the most powerful tools at the disposal of small countries. Sri Lanka’s geographical position is one of the biggest blessings of the country as the island located at the intersection of major sea routes has huge geopolitical value. Global thinking requires the nation to utilize its potential through proper diplomacy instead of isolation or fear. Through diplomacy, Sri Lanka should attract investments, create alliances, enhance its security, increase exports, and promote cultural contacts. Countries which master diplomacy (like Qatar, Norway, and Singapore) can achieve much more in the world of politics than they actually should. However, this can be achieved only by the politicians who have global awareness, understand different economic models, technology trends, and best practices in the global context. Parliamentary debates should be conducted considering global statistics, not only local stories; policy proposals must be compared to global models. It makes a difference.

Education is the key

Education is the key factor which determines the nation’s imagination. If our education system is inward-looking, society will be the same. The curriculum of Sri Lanka must change: global history, global economics, global citizenship, foreign languages, and digital literacy should be included. Students must be prepared for global career, not only for working in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan universities must become global centres of research and innovations; this can be achieved through international universities, international faculties, international research projects, global accreditations, and encouragement of studying abroad and returning with new ideas. Furthermore, education must foster critical thinking. Inwardness is often connected with refusal from questioning, debates, and creativity.

Culture is also one of the areas where global thinking is needed. Culture does not stay the same; it develops through contacts, exchange, and adaptation. The rich culture of Sri Lanka (Buddhist heritage, Hindu traditions, Islamic influences, colonial legacy) shows that openness is a feature of our civilization. Global thinking requires cultural self-confidence: it means that Sri Lankans have confidence in traditions, arts, and values which allow the country to stand confidently in front of the world. Global thinking allows Sri Lankans to engage with global cultures without fear of losing something. Creative industries of Sri Lanka (film, music, literature, fashion) have huge global potential; to achieve it, it is necessary to cooperate globally, to promote the arts of Sri Lanka internationally, to support creative entrepreneurs, to use digital media for communicating with global audience. Tourism is also cultural diplomacy: every tourist is an ambassador of Sri Lanka. Global thinking requires improvement of tourism infrastructure, sustainable tourism, and promotion of the island’s cultural diversity.

Importance of technology

Technology is the tool of global transformation. Sri Lanka should embrace digital innovations in order to remain competitive in the global economy. A globally-connected nation requires high-speed internet access, digital payments systems, e-government, cyber security, and regulations friendly to technology. Innovation ecosystem requires startups, research labs, technology incubators, networks of venture capitals, and partnerships between universities and business. Artificial intelligence, automation, and robotics will revolutionize industries, employment, and governance. Therefore, Sri Lanka should invest in education in AI, data science, automation-ready industries, and frameworks of ethical AI.

Society must develop towards a global imagination as well. A globally connected society is inclusive, tolerant, and forward-thinking. Inwardness encourages division on ethnic, religious, regional lines. Global imagination encourages unity as it shows that diversity is strength. Sri Lankans should perceive mobility (travelling, migrating, working in other countries) as opportunities for development. In addition, global imagination requires recognising that learning about the world helps to improve the nation. Media plays an important role in forming imagination. Sri Lankan media should cover global news, provide international perspective, conduct critical analysis, and avoid isolation and sensationalism.

Overcoming inwardness

Overcoming of inwardness will take a lot of time and effort; nevertheless, there are steps to take. Leaders should act according to global imagination. Organisations should adopt global standards and practices. Citizens should acquire global awareness through studying global news, learning foreign languages, traveling whenever possible, interacting with global ideas and embracing diversity. The nation requires a national vision in which Sri Lanka is seen as a globally connected, innovative, and resilient nation. The vision should be conveyed consistently, clearly, and confidently.

The future of Sri Lanka depends on imagination of the nation. If the nation is going to be confined to its island mentality, it will continue struggling with economic stagnation, political fragmentation, and social division. However, in case Sri Lanka decides to open and start thinking in a global way boldly, strategically, and confidently, the country will be able to unlock its tremendous potential. Global thinking does not destroy the identity of Sri Lankans but makes it stronger. It allows the nation to interact with the world on its own terms. It turns the small size of the nation into an advantage. Geographical location is a strategic asset. It makes citizens globally-competitive and gives them ability to contribute to the nation as well. The sea around the country should be used as a bridge, not as a boundary. The world is close to us. The future of the nation depends on imagination; let us think globally, act wisely, and imagine boldly.

Opinion

Sri Lanka’s geopolitical positioning for future prosperity

Published

3 days ago

2026/09/25

Thilina Walpola

Kariyawasam

By Chula Goonasekera
For the LEADS Forum (admin@srilankaleads.com)

Sri Lanka’s future prosperity will depend on how effectively it positions itself within an increasingly complex global environment. At a recent LEADS Forum discussion (https://youtu.be/Bbr3e_qU1Fw), veteran diplomat Prasad Kariyawasam, former Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, High Commissioner to India, Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador /Permanent Representative to the UN in New York and Geneva —outlined the strategic choices Sri Lanka must make to secure long term stability and economic advancement. Kariyawasam offered a rare blend of historical perspective, diplomatic experience and practical guidance.

His central message was clear: Sri Lanka must exercise strategic agency—engaging all major partners while safeguarding its national interests.

Foreign Policy as an Extension of National Aspirations

Foreign policy, Kariyawasam emphasised, is inseparable from domestic priorities. As your text notes, “foreign relations often reflect the medium- and long-term aspirations of a country’s people and its leadership.” Governments must therefore craft external relations that reflect the public’s economic and social expectations, avoiding short-term political impulses that undermine long-term national interests.

For a small nation, foreign policy cannot be symbolic or personality driven. It must be purposeful, pragmatic and directed towards the security and prosperity of the people.

A History of Global Connectivity

Sri Lanka’s history demonstrates that the island has never been isolated. From ancient ties with India and Southeast Asia to Arab, Persian and Chinese maritime networks, the island prospered when connected to the wider world. We must realise that “geography creates opportunity, but geography alone does not create prosperity.” Institutions, infrastructure and policy determine whether geographic advantage becomes economic success.

Colombo’s emergence as a cosmopolitan trading hub and Galle’s role as a resupply station for Indian Ocean shipping in colonial times , illustrate how deeply Sri Lanka has been embedded in global commerce for centuries.

Lessons from Asia’s High Performers

Kariyawasam highlighted the experiences of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam. Their paths differ, but their success rests on common foundations:

• investment in human capital and infrastructure

• merit based institutions

• integration into global markets

• attraction of investment and technology

• export oriented industries

• strategic engagements with both China and Western economies

The lesson for Sri Lanka is not imitation but continuous adaptation and constructive integration with the global economy.

India: Sri Lanka’s Closest Major Partner

India’s transformation into a global economic power presents Sri Lanka with both opportunity and responsibility. India is already Sri Lanka’s largest source of tourists and a major investor. Kariyawasam states, “The larger question is how effectively Sri Lanka can participate in and benefit from India’s growth.”

A partnership should encompass modern, more open pathways for trade, investment, logistics, energy, technology, digital services, education and professional mobility—And asymmetry between the two economies must be handled with maturity and foresight, seeking special and differential treatment .

China and Other Global Partners

China remains a significant economic partner. Sri Lanka must avoid viewing this relationship through a zero sum lens. The goal should be productive and transparent engagement, ensuring better terms of trade and meaningful technology transfer.

Equally Important relations must be nurtured with the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, ASEAN and the Gulf.

All these relationships can be vibrant partnerships that does not lead towards , dependency but mutually beneficial pragmatic arrangements .

A Fragmenting International System

Global geopolitics is becoming more volatile. Trade tensions, wars, sanctions, supply chain disruptions, climate change and technological competition increasingly shape national security. We must realise, “foreign policy cannot be separated from economic policy.”

Sri Lanka’s recent economic crisis demonstrated the importance of international confidence, access to finance and resilient supply chains. Energy security, food security, cybersecurity and digital infrastructure are now core elements of national strategy.

Strategic Agency: The Guiding Principle

Sri Lanka must avoid becoming an arena for great power competition. Strategic agency means making decisions based on national interest, expanding Sri Lanka’s choices, not restricting them.

India is essential. China is important. The United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, ASEAN and the Gulf are important. The objective is a web of partnerships that strengthens resilience and autonomy.

Sri Lanka’s Strategic Assets

1. Location: Sri Lanka’s geography is a long standing advantage. Ports such as Colombo, Hambantota, Trincomalee and Galle can become specialised hubs—if connected to logistics, manufacturing, services and exports.

2. Digital Connectivity: Submarine cables, data centres, cloud services and cybersecurity are now as important as physical geography. Sri Lanka can turn its location into both a maritime and digital advantage.

3. Tourism and Natural Heritage: The focus should shift from tourist numbers to value creation—wellness, heritage, ecotourism, cruise tourism, education and MICE tourism.

4. Human Resources and Demographics: High literacy is no longer enough. Skills in technology, engineering, AI, logistics and advanced manufacturing are essential, especially with an ageing population.

5. Migrant Workforce: Migrant workers are a strategic asset, not merely a source of remittances. Bilateral labour agreements, skills recognition and diaspora engagement should be central to foreign policy.

Requirements for Sustained Prosperity

Sri Lanka’s future depends on:

• peace and security

• access to international markets

• productive investment

• a skilled, productive workforce

• modernised agriculture

• higher value tourism

• demographic preparedness

• climate resilience

• strong, predictable institutions

Please note that “foreign policy can open doors. Domestic institutions determine whether we can walk through them.”

The Role of the State

Sri Lanka does not need a larger state—only a more capable one. Policy continuity, professional institutions, predictable regulation and reduced corruption are essential. Geography does not change; long-term national interests do not change. Intentional relationships built over decades should not be reinvented with each election cycle.

Building Trust Internationally

Trust is a strategic asset. Sri Lanka must be known as a country that honours commitments and maintains predictable policies. This is vital not only for diplomacy but also for investment and long term partnerships.

Avoiding Zero Sum Geopolitics

Sri Lanka does not need to choose between India and China, or between Asia and the West. The task is to identify what each relationship can contribute to national development while protecting sovereignty and freedom of decision making.

Sri Lanka’s geography is an inheritance, but prosperity is not guaranteed. The world is changing rapidly—great-power competition, technological disruption, and climate vulnerability demand a foreign policy that is pragmatic, adaptive, and anchored in national interest.

Sri Lanka must build partnerships without dependencies, maintain strategic agency without isolation, and integrate with the global economy while strengthening domestic capacity.

“We cannot change where Sri Lanka is. We can, however, determine what Sri Lanka becomes because of where it is”

Opinion

A tariff deal with the US? Make haste slowly

Published

4 days ago

2026/09/24

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Gomi Senadhira

Sri Lanka’s former ambassador to the United States Mahinda Samarasinghe is back in Sri Lanka lobbying for speedier finalisation of a new tariff deal with the United States. According to news reports, delivering the keynote address at the Sri Lanka Institute of Directors’ Annual Meeting last week, he stated, “I have recommended very strongly to the government that we need to conclude the agreement so that we can lock in the very favourable tariff rate that Sri Lanka has got up to now“.

I do not understand why the former ambassador is urging the government to expedite the finalisation of a new tariff deal or what is “the very favourable tariff rate” he refers to in his speech. However, given the ongoing terrible tariff turbulence in the United States and the fragile economic situation in Sri Lanka, I believe, this is not the right time to rush into finalising any trade agreement with the United States. I am also of the opinion that at this juncture Sri Lanka should maintain strategic patience and explore all available options.

Lessons from the countries that rushed for trade deals

To better comprehend this, let’s look at experiences of the countries that rushed to conclude tariff deals with the United States after President Donald Trump declared his “reciprocal tariffs” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in April 2025. As Samarasinghe stated in his keynote, “The bottom line on all these negotiations was that every country that finally agreed to sign the agreement had to give either complete duty-free access for American exports into those markets, or near complete duty-free access.” In exchange for these tariff concessions and other market access commitments these countries managed to get the newly introduced country specific “reciprocal tariffs” reduced.

However, in February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down these “reciprocal tariffs” under the IEEPA. With that, the market access gains these countries received in exchange for complete duty-free access for American exports into their markets evaporated under U.S. domestic law. By moving too fast to conclude bilateral tariff agreements with the United States these countries are now bound to strict obligations whereas the benefits they bargained from the U.S. administration are not worth the paper those were written on.

Sri Lanka’s experience

In April 2025, President Trump declared his “reciprocal tariffs” and labelled Sri Lanka as the worst offender, imposing one of the highest additional duties at 44%. Since then, Ambassador Samarasinghe and other negotiators have managed to negotiate this down to 20%. I do not know what the deal was through which Sri Lanka managed to reduce the 44% tariff to 20% or what we gave in return for this “concession.” However, what we received in return has absolutely no value after the decision by the SCOTUS.

Current state of US tariffs

After the decision by SCOTUS, the U.S. administration introduced a temporary 10% additional tariff on all countries for 150 days. At the end of that period, this 10% tariff was replaced by a new “forced labor tariff ” of 10% to 12.5% on all trading partners under Section 301 of U.S. trade law. Twenty-five U.S. states and several small businesses have already filed lawsuits against these tariffs in U.S. courts. This new “forced labour tariff ” on Sri Lanka was first fixed at 12.5%. Later, after President Anura Kumara Dissanayake issued a gazette notice prohibiting the importation of goods produced using forced labour, it was reduced to 10%. That means Sri Lanka has already made a substantial commitment to receive this “tariff concession,” and I presume our negotiators understand the implications of this commitment.

Make haste slowly

After President Trump imposed 44% “reciprocal tariffs” on Sri Lanka, through an article published in The Island on 25th April 2026 (), I urged the government to engage immediately with the US administration on these tariffs. However, I also emphasised that the best way to move forward was to make haste slowly.

Two millennia ago, Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of Rome, frequently used the phrase, “make haste slowly”, because he detested rashness and haste in his military commanders. It was the recurring guiding maxim that he emphasised throughout his 40-year imperial rule. After 2000 years, this classical oxymoron remains a definitive golden rule for professional trade negotiators. More importantly it is the exact blueprint required when navigating turbulence in trade negotiations with the Trump administration.

The endgame – The most dangerous moment in trade negotiation

Samarasinghe has also stated the agreement is 90% complete. Any experienced trade negotiator should know that the final 10% contains high-stakes provisions and is the most dangerous moment in a trade negotiation. A single misplaced comma or ambiguous product description in a tariff schedule can cost millions through unintended loopholes. Rushing this last stretch to secure a deal can permanently expose Sri Lanka to sudden shifts in American trade policy, heavy compliance costs, or strict enforcement under Section 301 regarding supply-chain labour standards. Hence, this is the time for strategic patience.

(The writer can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)