Connect with us

Features

Don’t bank on FTAs with countries like Thailand to boost Sri Lanka’s exports

Published

on

Minister of Trade, Commerce, and Food Security, Nalin Fernando, with Phumtham Wechayachai, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce, after signing the Sri Lanka Thailand Free Trade Agreement on 03 Jan, 2024.

by Gomi Senadhira

“In Sri Lanka’s pursuit of transforming into a high-income country by 2048, involving trade negotiations with countries like Thailand, the Sri Lanka Thailand Free Trade Agreement (SLTFTA), was signed ….” (media release by the Presidential Secretariat, 03 February)

Five long years after starting negotiations, the trade ministers of Sri Lanka and Thailand signed what they claimed to be a very ambitious Free Trade Agreement. The negotiations on the FTA, which commenced in July 2018 during the official visit of General Prayut Chan-o-cha, then Prime Minister of Thailand, to Sri Lanka, continued through nine rounds before the agreement was finalised. At this stage, it is difficult to comment comprehensively on this agreement as the text of the agreement is still not available to the public. But it is appropriate and timely to share a preliminary analysis based on available information to initiate an informed discussion on this important agreement.

Given the lacklustre performance in the export sector over the recent years and the government’s inability to take any meaningful steps to reverse the trend, many Sri Lankans may view signing an FTA to boost exports as something to be welcomed. Particularly because of the very grand objectives Sri Lanka hopes to achieve through this FTA (as per information available through media releases), namely,

1. boosting exports from Sri Lanka to Thailand by threefold via the FTA,

2. enhancing access for Sri Lanka’s exports to markets in other ASEAN countries through Thailand’s gateway.

But can we achieve these objectives through this FTA? Or, are those just pipe dreams?

1. The objective to boost exports from the country to Thailand by three folds

In February 2023, after the third round of negotiations between Sri Lankan officials and the Thai delegation, headed by Thailand Trade Negotiations Department’s Director-General Auramon Supthaweethum at a post-Cabinet media briefing Minister Banduala Gunawardena, while justifying the plans to sign a trade agreement (FTA) with Thailand, stated,“Sri Lanka lacks FTAs with countries and that is one of the key reasons why we have not been able to boost our exports over time … and “The objective of the Government is to boost exports from the current $ 550 million to $ 1.5 billion via Sri Lanka and Thailand FTA,”. That was when Sri Lanka was facing its worst currency crisis in history. So, the claim was widely welcomed and given extensive publicity in the newspapers and news websites. However, those who are familiar with Sri Lanka’s exports would have noticed these numbers were far from accurate. Interestingly, before the commencement of the third round of the negotiations, a press release from the Presidential Media Division (PMD) had clearly stated, “… The start of the negotiations will take place against the backdrop of a significant trade imbalance in Thailand’s favour. In 2021, Sri Lanka imported goods from Thailand worth USD 355 million, but only sent USD 59 million to Thailand”. So, the officials at the Presidential Secretariat knew the correct numbers and should have issued a clarification/correction after the news was published. It should have been done promptly because these kinds of announcements send wrong signals, not only to the people of this country but also to our negotiating partners, particularly about professionalism of Sri Lanka’s Trade Negotiators.

Unfortunately, no corrections came from the government and then in May, Minister Gunawardena reiterated, “… the objective of the Government is to boost exports from the current $ 550 million to $ 1.5 billion via Sri Lanka and Thailand FTA.” That was after President Ranil Wickremesinghe had briefed the Cabinet on the progress of the discussions between the two countries.

Why is it that the Cabinet spokesman repeatedly stated “The objective of the Government is to boost exports from the current $ 550 million to $ 1.5 billion via Sri Lanka and Thailand FTA!”, at the post-Cabinet media conferences? We cannot expect the minister to have the trade statistics at his fingertips. So, where did the Cabinet and its spokesman get their numbers from? Was it from a Cabinet memo? Was he (and the Cabinet) misled by some officials in the Presidential Secretariat who wanted an FTA with Thailand at any cost? If the real numbers were presented, some ministers may have questioned the need for an FTA with Thailand, the 37th exporting destination of Sri Lanka. On the other hand, Thailand is the 10th largest exporter in to Sri Lanka. So, some may even ask will such an agreement exacerbate the foreign exchange crisis by increasing the imports from Thailand? However, none of the ministers would object to a trade agreement that would increase exports by one billion US dollars.

Anyway, now that the agreement has been finalised, I hope that the government will explain how Sri Lanka hopes to reach the highly ambitious objective set by our negotiators to boost exports by three times the current exports via the FTA. Not from $ 550 million as the government has finally corrected the numbers. Now, the new (revised) objective is, according to the PMD media release, of 3rd February, “…. tripling the existing bilateral trade value (USD 550 Mn) to USD 1.5 Billion within four years. One of the main objectives of entering into a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Thailand is to enhance market opportunities for Sri Lanka with possible expansion.”

That means the revised objective is triple the existing bilateral trade and not Sri Lanka’s exports within four years. Is it an achievable target within four years? Out of this USD 1,5 billion what would be the Sri Lanka’s share? Or, will it be heavily in favour of Thailand? A study undertaken by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) last year projected, “Assuming an immediate phasing-out of the existing tariffs, an FTA would increase bilateral trade to USD 619.6 million by 29.1 %. This increase falls short of the ambitious goal of a threefold increase in bilateral trade, at least in the short run.” The report also pointed out that if the existing tariff was immediately phased out Sri Lanka’s exports would increase by $27.6 million and Thailand’s exports would increase by $141.8 million. However, in real negotiations, it doesn’t happen like that. Countries negotiate and sign Free Trade agreements to help open markets and expand opportunities for their exporters in a balanced and mutually beneficial manner.

In 2022, out of Sri Lanka’s total exports to Thailand valued at $57.7 million, precious or semi-precious stones accounted for $33.4 million. Almost all these (precious stones) have duty-free market access in Thailand. Hence, the FTA will not add any additional enhanced market access. So, any export growth has to come from the rest of the basket and any new products that may get duty-free access to Thailand. What are the products our economic operators can export to Thailand under this FTA? What are those products that can add 100 million in additional exports within four years? Who are the exporters undertaken that challenge?

Recently in Bangkok, Ms Supthaweethum announced more realistic but substantial gains for Thailand from the FTA. She projected the Thai economy to expand by 0.02% equivalent to US$ 80 million through expansion of investment and value of Thai exports to Sri Lanka. Thai manufacturing industries and products that would benefits from the agreement would be automotive, fashion, gems, metal, electronics, rubber, pet food and corn. Although details on these projected gains are not available, I believe, most of the gains would come through duty reductions for these products by Sri Lanka. In addition to that Thai finance, insurance, tourism and R&D industries also are expected to benefit from the agreement. However, if Thailand’s economy is to expand by US$ 80 million that would require substantial (a threefold?) increase in Thai exports to Sri Lanka. But at this stage it is difficult to comment on this as we do not have the full text of the agreement.

2. Access markets in other ASEAN countries

The media release by the PMD in January, last year, identified one other objective of the Sri Lankan negotiators, that is,” … from the perspective of Sri Lanka, the negotiations will be aimed at enhancing access to our exports not only in the Thai market but also in markets in other ASEAN countries through Thailand’s gateway.” I cannot understand how this can be achieved through a bilateral FTA between two countries exchanging reciprocal concessions. Does this mean that Sri Lanka also has to open up the market to other ASEAN countries through Thailand’s gateway? How will the Rules of Origin impact such trade? It will be interesting to find out how our negotiators have achieved this objective.

Third time lucky! Or, Finally unlucky?

This is not the first time Sri Lanka and Thailand tried to negotiate an agreement to enhance trade. The attempts were made twice before. The first was to negotiate a preferential trade agreement (PTA). It was initiated when the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra visited Sri Lanka in 2003 on the invitation of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. I understand those negotiations were abandoned after few rounds as Thailand refused to include products of export interest to Sri Lanka in their concession list in a meaningful manner.

After that a very comprehensive FTA was negotiated with Thailand under the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). Although it was an agreement between the BIMSTEC members, as the South Asian countries already had preferential trade agreements and India had an FTA with Thailand, the negotiations essentially were between other South Asian members and Thailand. The negotiations which commenced in September 2004, in Bangkok, was largely driven by Thailand. After 20 rounds of negotiations, a comprehensive trade agreement was almost finalised before 2010. During the negotiations, Thailand aggressively pushed for enhanced market access for their products. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan negotiators conceded substantial amount of concessions to Thailand without receiving any significant concessions in return. Thailand kept the limited number of products Sri Lanka was interested on its negative list. As a result, the final draft was heavily in favour of Thailand. Consequently, before moving forward with negotiation any further, during the 2010 – 2011 period, the Department of Commerce carried out an extensive consultation process with local stakeholders.

During those consultations, local manufacturers clearly explained that the impact of the FTA would be highly disadvantageous to the local industries and lobbied strongly against the FTA. Even the export associations did not consider an FTA with Thailand a necessity. They considered the Thai market a difficult market to enter even with tariff concessions. Only the importers (and some officials) lobbied heavily in favour of the agreement. Based on those consultations the Department of Commerce advised the ministry and all other line agencies against signing of the agreement as the objective of signing a trade agreement was to boost Sri Lanka exports in a mutually beneficial manner. At the same time the department managed to renegotiate the agreement to expand the negative list to protect local industries. This was done because there was a possibility of a decision by the government to sign the agreement for “political or religious reasons”. Fortunately, 12 years later that agreement is still at the negotiation table.

$80 million boost for Thailand. How much for Sri Lanka?

After failing twice to get a trade agreement with Sri Lanka, the Thai negotiators have finally managed to overcome the hurdle in their third attempt. What have they achieved? And where does this US$ 80 million come from? And the time-frame? What gains will Sri Lanka secure from the FTA? It is extremely unlikely that total trade also will increase to US$ 1.5 billion in four years. Even if that happens then that increase will be heavily in favour of Thailand. What will be the share of Sri Lanka? But it is difficult to comment as government is yet to share the agreement with the people of this country. Meanwhile, we can consider the IPS prediction of US$ 27.6 million as a more realistic short-term objective. But that type of expansion does not need an FTA. A good customs cooperation arrangement to tackle misinvoicing can increase our (recorded) exports by that amount.

(The writer, a former Director General of Commerce, can be contacted via senadhiragomi@gmail.com.)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Digital Pulse: How AI is redefining health care in Sri Lanka?

Published

on

A quiet yet profound shift is underway in American healthcare, and its implications extend far beyond the United States’ borders. A recent Associated Press report describes a scene that would have seemed improbable, even five years ago: a woman in Texas, experiencing side effects from a weightloss injection, does not call her doctor, visit a clinic, or even search Google. Instead, she opens her phone and consults ChatGPT. She tells the system how she feels, describes her symptoms, and receives an instant explanation. This behaviour, once the domain of early adopters and technology enthusiasts, has now entered the mainstream. A West Health–Gallup poll confirms that nearly onequarter of American adults used an AI tool for health information or advice in the previous month. For a country with one of the world’s most expensive and fragmented healthcare systems, this shift is not merely a technological curiosity. It is a sign of the public searching for speed, clarity, and affordability in a system that often fails to provide any of these.

Sri Lanka, though vastly different in scale, culture, and resources, is not insulated from this global transformation. If anything, the pressures that drive Americans toward AI—long wait times, high costs, difficulty accessing specialists—are even more acute in our own health system. The difference is that Sri Lanka is only beginning to experience the cultural and institutional adjustments that accompany widespread AI use. Yet the trajectory is unmistakable. What is happening in the United States today is almost certainly a preview of what will happen here tomorrow in Sri Lanka, though in a form shaped by our own social realities, linguistic diversity, and healthcare traditions.

The American experience shows that AI is becoming the new gateway to health information. As Dr. Karandeep Singh of UC San Diego observes, AI tools now function as an improved version of the old Google search. Instead of sifting through dozens of links, users receive a concise, conversational summary tailored to their question. This is precisely the kind of convenience that Sri Lankans, too, will find irresistible. In a country where a single specialist appointment can require hours of travel, waiting, and uncertainty, the appeal of an instant, alwaysavailable digital assistant is obvious. The idea that one could ask a question about a rash, a fever, a medication side effect, or a lab report and receive an immediate explanation—without navigating hospital queues or private consultation fees—will inevitably attract public interest. For example, one of my friends, who was with me in school, called me and said he is prescribed Linavic, a drug for type 2 diabetes. I told him that, as it is not widely known in the USA, to give me the generic name. He searched ChatGPT and told me it is called Tradjenta, which is widely available in the USA as a prescription drug for type 2 diabetes.

But Sri Lanka’s path will not be identical to America’s. Our adoption of AI in healthcare is emerging through institutions rather than individuals. Nawaloka Hospitals has already introduced AI-powered chatbots, including NASHA, an OPD assistant capable of guiding patients through symptom assessment and basic triage. This is a significant development because it signals that Sri Lankan hospitals are preparing for a future in which AI is not an optional addon but a core part of patient interaction. The government’s draft National AI Strategy reinforces this direction by identifying healthcare as a priority sector and emphasising responsible, transparent, and safe deployment. Academic bodies, such as the Sri Lanka Medical Association, have also begun training clinicians to understand and work alongside AI systems. These are early but important steps, suggesting that Sri Lanka is building the professional ecosystem needed for safe AI integration.

  Yet, the public’s relationship with AI remains limited. Unlike in the United States, where consumers independently experiment with tools like ChatGPT, Sri Lankans tend to rely on doctors as the primary source of authority. Digital literacy varies widely, especially outside urban centres. Sinhala and Tamilcapable AI tools are still developing. And our society has a long history of health misinformation spreading rapidly through social media, from miracle cures to conspiracy theories. Without careful regulation and public education, AI could amplify these risks rather than reduce them. The danger is not that AI will replace doctors, but that poorly informed users may treat AI outputs as definitive diagnoses, bypassing professional care when it is urgently needed.

At the same time, Sri Lankans’ lived experiences reveal why AI will inevitably become part of the healthseeking landscape. Anyone who has visited the outpatient department of a major government hospital knows the reality: queues forming before dawn, patients clutching files and prescriptions, and overworked medical officers trying to see hundreds of cases in a single shift. In rural areas, the situation is even more challenging. A villager in Monaragala or Mullaitivu may have to travel hours to see a specialist, often relying on neighbours or family for transport. Many postpone care simply because they are unsure whether a symptom is serious enough to justify the journey. For such individuals, an AI-based triage tool—available on a basic smartphone, in Sinhala or Tamil—could be transformative. It could help them decide whether to seek immediate care, wait for the next clinic day, or manage the issue at home.

  Sri Lanka’s private healthcare sector, too, is ripe for AI integration. Private hospitals are increasingly turning to digital systems for appointment scheduling, lab report delivery, and patient communication. Anyone who has waited for hours at a private OPD, despite having an appointment, knows the frustration. AI-driven systems could help streamline patient flow, predict peak times, and reduce bottlenecks. They could also assist doctors by summarising patient histories, flagging potential drug interactions, and providing evidencebased guidelines. For patients, AI could offer explanations of lab results in simple language, reducing anxiety and improving understanding.

There are already glimpses of this future. Some Sri Lankan patients, especially younger urban professionals, quietly admit that they use AI tools to interpret their blood tests before seeing a doctor.

Others use AI to understand the side effects of medications prescribed to them. Parents use AI to check whether a child’s fever pattern is typical or concerning. Migrant workers, returning home for short visits, use AI to prepare questions for their doctors, ensuring they make the most of limited consultation time. These behaviours mirror the early stages of the American trend, though on a smaller scale.

Sri Lanka’s cultural context will shape how AI is used. Our society places great trust in doctors, often viewing them as authoritative figures whose word should not be questioned. This trust is a strength, but it can also discourage patients from seeking information independently. AI has the potential to shift this dynamic—not by undermining doctors, but by empowering patients to participate more actively in their own care. A patient who understands their condition is better able to follow treatment plans, ask relevant questions, and recognise warning signs. AI can support this empowerment, provided it is used responsibly.

The deeper question is not whether Sri Lanka will adopt AI in healthcare, but how. The American example shows both the promise and the peril. AI can democratise access to information, reduce anxiety, and empower patients. But it can also mislead, oversimplify, or create false confidence. The challenge for Sri Lanka is to build a culture of responsible use—one that recognises AI as a tool, not a substitute for clinical judgment. Hospitals must ensure accuracy and transparency. Regulators must set standards. And the public must learn to treat AI as a guide, not a guru.

 Sri Lanka has an opportunity to leapfrog. By studying the American experience, we can avoid its pitfalls and adopt its strengths. We can design AI systems that respect our linguistic diversity, our cultural habits, and our healthcare realities. We can integrate AI into hospitals in ways that enhance, rather than erode, the doctor-patient relationship. And we can prepare our citizens to use these tools wisely, with curiosity but also with caution.

The transformation is already underway. It will accelerate whether we prepare for it or not. The question for Sri Lanka is whether we will shape this future deliberately or allow it to shape us by default. The American shift toward AImediated healthcare is a reminder that technology does not wait for societies to catch up. It moves forward, and nations must decide whether to follow passively or lead thoughtfully. Sri Lanka, with its strong public health tradition and growing technological ambition, has every reason to choose the latter.

by Prof Amarasiri de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Not a dog barked

Published

on

I began running on the beach after a fall on a broken pavement left me with a head injury and a surgically repaired eyebrow. Mount Lavinia beach, world‑famous and crowded, especially on Sundays, is only a seven‑minute walk from home, so it became the obvious place for my rehabilitation jogs.

On my first day, my wife, a true Mount Lavinia girl, accompanied me. Though we’ve been married for over 40 years, this was the first time I had ever jogged on the beach. She practically shepherded me there and watched from a safe distance as I made my way towards the Wellawatte breakwater. Dogs were everywhere: some strays, some with collars. I’m not usually afraid of dogs, so I ran past them confidently. Then one fellow barked sharply, making me stop. He advanced even after I stood still. I bent down, picked up some sand, and only then did he retreat, still protesting loudly. On my return run, he repeated the performance.

The next time, I carried a stick. The beach was quiet, perhaps my friend had taken the day off. But on the third day he was back, barking as usual. I showed him the stick and continued. Further along, more dogs barked, and I repeated the ritual. Soon I found myself growing jittery, even numb, whenever I approached a dog. Jogging was no longer comfortable.

My elder daughter, an ardent animal lover who keeps two dogs and wanting to have more, suggested bribery, specifically, biscuits. So, on my next run, I filled my pocket with them. When the usual culprit appeared, I tossed him a biscuit before he could bark. He sniffed suspiciously, then ate it. I jogged on. The rest of the “orchestra” received similar treatment and promptly forgot to bark. Not a dog barked the entire run, or on my way back.

Some groups had five or six dogs, but bribing the noisiest one was enough to quieten the rest. Soon they grew used to me running close to them, and the biscuits made me a trusted friend. These round little sugary crackers turned out to be the perfect currency for seemingly aggressive but essentially harmless dogs, a fact well known to my daughter, Dr. Honda Hitha, but a revelation to me.

One day, a friendly dog decided to escort me home. After receiving his biscuit, he lingered near our gate before returning to the beach. Over time, the number of escorts grew until I found myself flanked by about 10 canine disciples. They became my strength instead of a source of fear. They were darlings. Unlike humans, their affection, even if won initially with biscuits, soon became unconditional.

They still accompany me home, whether or not they receive a treat. Bless them! May they be born human in their next lives, perhaps the only way our wicked world can become a better place.

by Dr. M. M. Janapriya

Continue Reading

Features

It’s Israel and US that need a regime change

Published

on

Netanyahu and Trump

If there is one country that urgently needs a regime change it is Israel. The whole world is suffering and thousands of people, including children and women, are dying due to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival strategy. He needs the war to avoid going to jail and also certain defeat at the next elections. The corruption and other charges against him, if proved, would send him to jail. He had asked the Israel President for a pardon and his friend Trump also has written to the President, on his behalf.

Netanyahu is able to commit genocide in Gaza with impunity because the US backs him to the hilt, economically, politically, militarily and also in the United Nations. Without all this, Israel will not be able to fight its many wars and pursue its “Greater Israel” project in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and also weaken the countries that oppose its grand plan, such as Iran, Yemen and Turkey. The US gives military aid to Israel, worth USD 3.8 bn, annually, which is used in these genocidal wars and expansionist projects. The US is, therefore, complicit in all these war crimes.

US presidents, beginning from Eisenhower (1950) to Joe Biden (2022), expressed displeasure at Israeli aggression. Ronald Reagan halted the shipment of cluster artillery shells, in 1982, over concerns about their use against civilians in Lebanon, and delayed the delivery of F-16 warplanes until Israel withdrew from Lebanon. George H.W. Bush (1990s) postponed $10 billion in loan guarantees in 1991 to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and to attend the Madrid peace conference. Barack Obama  frequently criticised Israeli settlement expansion and, in the final days of his term, withheld a US UN Security Council veto on a resolution regarding settlements. Joe Biden (2020s) threatened to withhold military aid if Israel launched a major offensive in Rafah during the 2024 conflict in Gaza, pausing a shipment of heavy bombs. Most of these presidents had been in favour of the two state solution for the Palestine problem as well.

Trump abandoned these longstanding US policies on Israel that were upheld by Obama and later restored by Biden. Significant and far-reaching changes, included recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital,  moving the embassy, declaring settlements not inherently illegal, and recognising Golan Heights, which belonged to Syria, as part of Israel sovereignty. These evil deeds of Trump seem to have boomeranged on him as he battles to extricate himself from a war forced on him by Israel, which has resulted in enormous economic and political, not to mention military, losses for the US and Trump. Consequently Israel, in the eyes of many leading political commentators, is now a liability for the US.

   How this war was started reveals the dastardly and barbaric mentality of Netanyahu and Trump. The US and Iran were engaged in negotiations, with the mediation of Oman, to resolve their differences, and on 26 February, 2026, the Foreign Minister of Iran stated that a historical agreement with the US was about to be entered into and, the following day, Oman corroborated this announcement. Iran apparently had agreed that its nuclear programme could be brought under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Surprisingly on 28 February, 2026, Israel and the US attacked Iran, Trump saying that it posed a nuclear threat to the US! Oman said it was “dismayed” and the Iranian Foreign Minister said it was a “betrayal”. Obviously, Trump, who is under obligation to the Jewish lobby, which had funded his election campaign, had been drawn into the war. The Epstein files issue may have pushed Trump across the threshold. Iran’s response was calculated and appropriate. Trump says he will obliterate the Iranian civilisation in one night but soon agrees to have negotiations with Iran, in Islamabad.

However, Netanyahu cannot afford an end to the war he started to save his own skin. He goes ahead and drops 100 bombs in 10 minutes on Lebanon, killing 254 civilians, including children. The massacre in Lebanon continues with Israel pushing towards the Litani river in an attempt to annex southern Lebanon. Israel disqualifies itself not only as a reliable ally but also as an honourable member of the world community by having leaders of the calibre of Netanyahu. Israel is fast becoming internationally isolated, according to experts like Professors Robert Pape, John Measheimier, Richard Wolff, Jeffrey Sachs and Yanis Varonfakis. And these experts are of the view that if Israel continues its aggressive approach and expansionist policy, disregarding the historical facts of its origin and the Palestine problem, it will implode and destroy itself.

Israel must face the reality that Iran has emerged stronger after the war and may have control over the Strait of Hormuz and may even force the US out of the region. Israel, under Netanyahu, may not be willing to acknowledge these facts, but the people in the US must realise that it is not in their national interests to have Israel as an indispensable ally. This war is very unpopular in the US not entirely due to the economic impact but the extremely atrocious way it has been prosecuted by Israel  and also the equally horrendous threats made by the US against Iran. It is also very unpopular among the US allies who bluntly refused to join or even approve it. Australia, Japan and South Korea, though far removed from the theatre of war, seem to be pretty angry about the whole thing, as they are badly affected by the economic impact of the war. They may be concerned about the brutality of Israel, and the degree of support and approval it gets from the US.

Those who have significantly gained from the war may be Russia who could have a windfall on their oil sales, and China who could quietly weave its diplomatic network throughout the Middle East and watch the decline of US influence in the region. Saudi Arabia and UAE, two countries bombed by Iran, have already started a dialogue with Iran. These developments may hasten the emergence of the new world order, spearheaded by China.

The war, that was started by Netanyahu, with a willing Trump, seems to have backfired on them, with both facing a hostile world and a fast changing geopolitical global situation. Trump’s MAGA project was aimed at quelling the growth of the new world order that had China and Russia at the head. He attempted to hit Russia with sanctions but failed. He tried to curb China with tariffs but failed. Denying oil supplies to China was attempted by kidnapping the Venezuelan President. China’s monopoly on rare earth minerals was a headache to Trump and he proposes to annex Canada and Greenland which have rich deposits of these elements. War on Iran was another opportunity to do a regime change and get control over that country and its oil. He threatened to wipe out Iran saying that “the civilization would die tomorrow night”, only a psychopathic megalomaniac could make such utterances , not a president of the US. Fortunately, the changing world order would not allow Trump to achieve any of his crazy goals.

Netanyahu inadvertently may have hastened his own downfall by starting a war without realising that the global geopolitics have changed and he cannot have his way even with the full backing of Trump. Both Israel and the US need a regime change if the world is to have peace.

 by N. A. de S. Amaratunga

Continue Reading

Trending