Features
Entering Australia, early resistance and the platform for Dilmah’s success
(Excerpted from the Merrill Fernando autobiography)
Australia and neighbouring New Zealand feature very prominently in my story as it was in Australia, in 1985, that I launched ‘Dilmah’ as a brand. I was familiar with the markets in those two countries as I had been exporting to both since my early days in the export trade. I had also made very useful connections during my days as one of the major bulk tea suppliers from Sri Lanka to Australia.
The late Bill Bennet, who, in the early 1950s trained as a tea taster at Heath & Co in Colombo, where he represented Bushells’ interests, became a good friend. A very friendly, large-hearted man, at that time he was also very much a mentor to me. Later, he joined his father in the family tea company, H. A. Bennet & Sons in Australia and, eventually, became its owner. He sold much of my bulk tea in Australia.
In my move from bulk to branded tea, his advice and guidance were invaluable. As was the case with many of my business associates, he and his family became very close to mine. For close upon 50 years, we never failed to meet on my visits to Melbourne, Australia. I was deeply saddened by the recent passing of this gentle and generous man.
Bill introduced me to his brother, Peter, and Jack Sholer, who owned the Australian Tea & Coffee Company, which used to supply private label tea and coffee to supermarkets. Since the demand for tea bags was growing and their factory was unable to meet the production increase, they turned to me for help. It was a very useful opportunity for me as, soon afterwards, I made a major breakthrough when I was awarded the contract to pack ‘Farmland’ tea bags for G. J. Coles, then the largest supermarket chain in Australia.
Initially, as I will describe in a subsequent chapter, my export initiatives of value-added tea were inhibited by restrictions on shipping opportunities and the differentiated freight rates for bulk and value-added tea. Those issues had to be resolved with a mix of confrontation, subtlety, and influence leverage and, after a long battle, I was able to achieve a reasonable parity.
In 1977 I acquired two tea bagging machines at a cost of around USD 500,000, but for about two years I was unable to generate any business. Eventually, after relentless promotion on my part, personally carried out, I obtained a decent opening in the G. J. Coles supermarket chain. I developed private labels for Coles, Woolworths, Franklins, Safeway and other smaller supermarket chains, within a year.
Max Currie, Head of Tetley and Lyons Australia, and I, established a very good relationship and I supplied him with tea bags under the Tetley label. I also encountered episodes of sabotage of my tea, most likely by his staff, as they would have feared that Max might transfer all the Tetley business in Sri Lanka to me. I went across to Australia and proved that a cigarette butt, which was allegedly found in one of my packs from Sri Lanka, would, most probably, have been introduced at the Aussie end, as that cigarette brand was not available in Sri Lanka! Eventually, after they secured their own tea bagging machines, I stopped supplying that label.
This was also a period of stringent exchange control regulations. Spending money abroad, even for genuine businessmen, was restricted to 10 pounds sterling per day for a 21-day maximum. Max was aware of this issue and was always generous to me with spending money, which was very useful. Despite my protests he continued this practice even after controls were relaxed.
Max was also the Chairman of the Victoria Economic Council, a very influential position in a Labour Party Government body. He offered me some very generous concessions, including a proposal for me to transfer tea bagging machines and to set up an operation in Melbourne, for which he would find the necessary land. He also offered me funding through the Economic Council. However, I explained to him that my philosophy was to provide employment in my country and to ensure that the benefits of value addition would remain in Sri Lanka.
His wife, Meris, too became our friend as she was especially fond of both Malik and Dilhan. She presented them with lovely sweaters and other woollen clothing when they were schooling in England. Max moved on a few years ago but Meris continues to live in Melbourne and I do not fail to meet her whenever I visit that city.
Why Dilmah?
`DILMAH, ‘the brand name that now symbolizes Quality Pure Ceylon Tea in over a hundred countries, was coined by combining the names of my two sons, Dilhan and Malik. When I linked the names of my two sons to my brand, I was demonstrating my commitment to my promise to deliver a quality product at a reasonable price, and the credibility of my pledge to the customer. My brand was as part of my family as my two sons were. In retrospect, despite the early setbacks and the initial misgivings of advertising and marketing experts about the potential of a brand name, which, in their view, did not seem linked to tea, it proved to be one of the best marketing decisions I had ever made.
The trial launch took place in 1985, in Australia, with a decent-looking but by no means impressive pack. This was well before the art of the graphic designer and five colour printing. I designed my own pack and first called it ‘Dilma’. I was then 55 years old and close to the age when most people retire!
My friend Gamini Goonesena, formerly a famous cricketer both in England and Sri Lanka, was then working for the Australian advertising agency, appointed by the Sri Lanka Tea Board, as the official media company for the promotion of Sri Lanka tea brands in Australia. Gamini helped me source a distributor, Aeroplane Jelly, a small, family-owned, jelly-producing company. I selected it because they had good access to the retail trade, especially in New South Wales.
However, I made slow progress with them and it soon became clear that the challenge of marketing a new product category like tea, in a highly-competitive environment, was beyond their capabilities. Therefore, I moved to Mauri Foods whilst George Patterson, a leading advertising agency, re-designed the package, which remains much the same to this day.
Patterson developed a new campaign strategy, with one of the first key initiatives being consumer testing of the brand name, ‘Dilma’. The results indicated that ‘Dilma’ did not have sufficient punch to create significant brand awareness and visibility. There were doubts about its appeal to a highly-sophisticated market like Australia. However, the creation of a new brand name was out of the question; quite apart from the sunk costs and the prohibitive additional cost of rebranding, my sentimental attachment to the brand name precluded any such consideration.
Finally, following rigorous consumer testing, it was decided to add the ‘H’ at the end of ‘Dilma’ and rebrand as ‘Dilmah’. Thus the brand was born. It was relaunched with a new packaging design, which was printed in Singapore to ensure highest quality in presentation.
Early struggles
I came up against stiff resistance when I tried to find a supermarket chain which would give ‘Dilmah’ space on its shelves. The Coles supermarket chain buyer whom I approached maintained that he was happy with the tea brands he was already selling and that he did not see the need to add to the portfolio of selling brands which had been around for generations. I had many friendly arguments with him, trying to get him to understand that big brand owners were simply looking for profit, without any concern for the consumer, who is driven to buy whatever is on the shelf, regardless of the quality of the product.
I tried to convince him that what was on the shelf was commodity tea and that whilst the brand names remained the same, the contents had changed and the consumers, who had been weaned on quality Ceylon Tea, were now being deceived by an inferior product. Finally, either convinced by my arguments or simply to appease my insistence, he accepted two Dilmah products and put genuine, quality Ceylon Tea back on the Coles supermarket shelf.
It was also a watershed moment in my life as a tea entrepreneur; for the first 38 years I had been supplying tea in bulk to blenders and packers around the world. With the launching of my own brand, ‘Dilmah,’ I took the first steps towards the fulfilment of a promise I had made to myself, as a young man in his novitiate in the tea trade.
Initially, despite my long experience in tea and my knowledge of multinational marketing strategies, I was still a bit naive. It was my intention to price Dilmah 20 cents above the market leader, but the Coles buyer would not agree. In deference to his opinion and advice, I priced it at AUS Dollars 1.89, 10 cents less. I was delighted with what I had achieved, in ignorance of what was to follow.
As Dilmah was relatively small, unknown, and, in my perception, posed no threat to the established multinational brands, I never expected a reaction from them. However, the then market leader discounted its tea to AUS Dollars 1.49 at the very next promotion. I was both disappointed and dispirited. I assumed that my long-held dream to bring Pure Ceylon Tea back to the consumer would have to remain as such. I fully expected Dilmah to be taken off the shelves when it came up for review three months later.
The Dilmah philosophy was a threat to the multinational operational style. The foundation of the latter, a well-entrenched colonial concept, is to subjugate the producer by acquiring his product in bulk, as a raw material, and to add real value by branding, packaging, and marketing elsewhere. Dilmah had broken that mould by adding that value in the country of production itself. If many others were to follow that example, the mass market traders’ business would be at serious risk. Hence, the immediate retaliatory response in Australia, which included aggressive media campaigns mounted by Lipton, Bushells and Lanchoo the then market leaders to counter my entry in to the Australian market with Dilmah.
Therefore, in the background of an envisaged worst case scenario, I was rendered speechless when, at my next visit to the Coles buyer, he said: “I have good news for you.” Apparently, never before had he received so many messages from happy customers, as he did about Dilmah, commending the product. The callers had thanked Coles for bringing real Ceylon Tea back in to their cups. That marked the beginning of the Dilmah success and the confirmation of my long-held belief, that if you deliver good quality consistently, the consumer will extend patronage. The brand is built and sustained by the happy customer.
Australia was a market with other, inherent advantages for a proposition such as Dilmah, as that market offered many house brands and generic packs, largely of Ceylon Tea. Whilst all such packs were under importers’ brands, with suppliers and origins changing from time to time, it was still an important part of Australian business and a pattern of trade and distribution common in other Western countries as well.
The opportunity given to me earlier, to provide such house brands and generic packs to retailers, gave me an invaluable insight in to the dynamics of the Australian tea market. That experience with the distribution system, and my connections with the retailers and their management, enabled me to very effectively introduce my own brand later.
Having first worked with Mauri Foods, I moved to Cerebos Australia whilst working with a few other foodservice importers. Subsequently, with the sales of Dilmah gathering momentum, I set up ‘Dilmah Australia’ as a company and a marketing platform, to operate in association with Broker Counterpoint Marketing Services. The latter functioned as regional brokers whilst we managed the customers and logistics through a logistics company. I recruited Cindy Dean, wife of a good friend, Ishan Ratnam, as the General Manager of Dilmah Australia. Thus, with my own team in place, I was beginning to achieve my goals for Dilmah in Australia.
However, I found that our distributors did not always share my passion for Dilmah and, as a result, I had to constantly review marketing strategies and distribution arrangements. One disappointing experience was with Valcorp, in 2008. I found that this company, headed by John Valmobida, did not possess the competencies and attributes necessary to drive Dilmah with the kind of energy that I liked to see. Finally, when we were unable to arrive at a resolution of issues regarding distribution of Dilmah in Sydney, Valmobida suggested that the operations agreement between us be cancelled.
I immediately agreed and resisted all his subsequent attempts to change my mind. From then on, having given Valcorp a couple of months’ grace, we set up our own distribution, eventually managed by Rohan Meegama, the son of my Shipping Manager when I was at A. F. Jones. Rohan was the Warehouse Manager for Valcorp and, despite the misgivings of both colleagues and friends, I set him up in the warehousing business on his own and entrusted our distribution in Australia to him. He has been doing an excellent job ever since.
Consequences of stress
That was a particularly trying time for me personally as, under the strain of resolving problems that were cropping up in all the major cities in Australia where we were in business, I actually fell physically ill. I was flying between cities almost on a daily basis and as a result of developing a seemingly unquenchable thirst, consuming large quantities of lemonade and other carbonated drinks. It was one of the most stressful periods in my life.
After a very strenuous spell in Australia I returned to Colombo soon afterwards, flew to London, still feeling terribly unwell but understanding the reason. A couple of days after I landed, the late Daya de Silva, then my doctor in London, diagnosed that I had come in for Type 2 Diabetes! An incipient condition had been triggered in to a major health episode by work stress. He wanted to immediately hositalize me but agreed to let me stay at home on the strict understanding that I would ring him twice a day, to personally report on my condition.
In the launching and promotion of Dilmah tea in Australia, I had to contend with humiliation, disappointment, and interventions designed to damage my progress. In addition, there was also opposition from people in Sri Lanka itself. However, whilst I was deeply shaken by the fierce and often unscrupulous competition from the multinationals, I was also inspired by the welcome reception to the concept of a quality tea that I eventually received from the supermarket buyer and the consumer. My persistence at that level paid off and resulted in supermarket chains agreeing to stock my products.
A refreshing counterpoint to the initial hostility I faced in Australia was the friendly reception, from the Romeo & Drake families of Adelaide, both running independent supermarket chains in South Australia. My association with these two families goes back to over 40 years. In the charming nature of such close-knit, traditional family businesses, very much like mine, the relationship has been extended to the second and third generations.
Rodney Arambawela, a proactive official
Rodney was Sri Lanka’s Tea Commissioner in the Middle East (Gulf Region) from 1975-1982. During this period of service he was stationed in Dubai, before it became the sophisticated and modern centre of business activity that it is today. I got to know him then and shared with him, my ideas for the launch of a Pure Ceylon Tea brand of my own.
In 1982, during Major Jayawickrema’s period as Minister of Plantation Industries, Rodney was appointed as Tea Commissioner to Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands. His appointment came at a time when the market for Ceylon Tea in Australia had declined alarmingly, with Australian packers opting for cheaper tea from different origins, more suitable for tea bags. Rodney’s remit in Australia, as defined by the minister himself, was to strategize the revitalization of the Ceylon Tea market in the country.
Apart from my own knowledge of the Australian market, the market research that Rodney conducted after assuming duties in Australia, provided statistics which were very helpful in the launch of Dilmah in that country. He was also very supportive in the early promotional campaigns and took an active part in the related activities. His proactive response to the project, and his enthusiasm for its successful implementation, was in complete contrast to the passive and often obstructionist attitude of some of the members of the Secretariat in Colombo. After leaving the Tea Board in 1988, Rodney reverted to an academic career but still continued his promotion of Dilmah in various forums. His assistance to the cause of Dilmah in Australia has been invaluable.
Nabi Saleh my friend
My story of Dilmah in Australia would not be complete without mention of Nabi Saleh, a highly-educated, Iranian-Australian businessman and commodities trader. I met Nabi, quite unexpectedly, about 40 years ago at the Franklins Supermarket, Sydney, whilst we were both waiting to meet the same buyer, Michael Hansel. We were competitors at first. but later became trade associates and, more importantly, good friends.
Nabi was then a private label supplier to Franklins and other distributors. through a small-time packer in Indonesia. After that first meeting. Nabi bought private label tea from me as well. In 1995 Nabi became the owner/Chief Executive Officer of Gloria Jean’s Coffee, a venture he developed into a worldwide success. Nabi admired my vision for Pure Ceylon Tea and was of assistance to me in establishing Dilmah in Australia. Like me, Nabi is also a man of great faith.
Features
Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics
The fact that some of the US’ topmost figures in business, such as Tesla chief Elon Musk and major US chipmaker Jensen Huang of NVIDIA fame, occupied as nearly a prominent a position as President Donald Trump at the recent ‘historic and landmark’ visit by the latter to China underscores the continuing vital importance of business in US-China ties. Business seemed to outweigh politics to a considerable degree in importance during the visit although the political dimension in US-China ties appeared to be more ‘headline grabbing’.
To be sure, the political dimension cannot be downplayed. For very good reason China could be seen as holding the power balance somewhat evenly between East and West. The international politics commentator couldn’t be seen as overstating the case if he takes the position that China could exercise substantial influence over the East currently; that is Russia and Iran, in the main. The latter powers hold the key in the Eastern hemisphere to shaping international politics in the direction of further war or of influencing it towards a measure of peace.
For example, time and again China has prevented the West from ‘having its own way’, so to speak, in the UN Security Council, for instance, in respect of the ongoing conflicts involving Russia and Iran, by way of abstaining from voting or by vetoing declarations that it sees as deleterious. That is, China has been what could be seen as a ‘moderating influence’ in international politics thus far. It has helped to keep the power balance somewhat intact between East and West.
At present a meet is ongoing between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. This happened almost immediately after the Trump visit. Apparently, Beijing is in an effort to project itself as treating the US and Russia even-handedly while underscoring that it is no ‘special friend’ of the US or the West.
This effort at adopting a non-partisan stance on contentious questions in international politics is also seen in Beijing’s policy position on the Hormuz tangle and issues growing out of it. The Chinese authorities are quoted as saying in this regard, for instance, that China is for ‘a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire in the Middle East’.
Such a position has the effect of enhancing the perception that China is even-handed in its handling of divisive foreign policy posers. It is not openly anti-West nor is it weighing in with Iran and other Eastern actors that are opposed to the West in the West Asian theatre. A ‘comprehensive and lasting ceasefire’ implies that a solution needs to be arrived at that would be seen as fair by all quarters concerned.
On the highly sensitive Taiwan issue, President Xi was comparatively forthright during the Trump visit, but here too it was plain to see that Beijing was not intent on introducing a jarring, discordant note into the ongoing, largely cordial discussions with Washington. On the Taiwan question President Xi was quoted saying: ‘If mishandled, the two nations could collide even come into conflict.’ In other words, the US was cautioned that China’s interests need to be always borne in mind in its handling of the Taiwan issue.
The cautioning had the desired result because Trump in turn had reportedly conveyed to Taiwan that the latter’s concerns on the matter of independence had to be handled discreetly. He had told Taiwan plainly not to declare ‘independence.’
Accordingly, neither the US nor China had said or done anything that would have made either party lose face during their interaction. Apparently, both sides were sensitive to each others’ larger or national interests. And the economic interests of both powers were foremost among the latter considerations.
There is no glossing over or ignoring economic interests in the furtherance of ties between states. They are primal shaping forces of foreign policies and the fact that ‘economics drives politics’ is most apparent in US-China ties. That is, economic survival is fundamental.
Among the more memorable quotes from President Xi during the interaction, which also included US business leaders, was the following: ‘China’s doors will be open wider’ and US firms would have ‘broader prospects in the Chinese market.’
Xi went on to say that the sides had agreed to a ‘new positioning for ties’ based on ‘constructive strategic stability’. The implication here is that both sides would do well not to undermine existing, mutually beneficial economic relations in view of the wider national interests of both powers that are served by a continuation of these economic ties. That is, the way forward, in the words of the Chinese authorities, is ‘win-win cooperation.’
It is the above pronouncements by the Chinese authorities that probably led President Trump to gush that the talks were ‘very successful’ and of ‘historic and landmark’ importance. Such sentiments should only be expected of a billionaire US President, bent on economic empire-building.
One of the most important deals that were put through reportedly during the interaction was a Chinese agreement to buy some 200 Boeing jets and a ‘potential commitment to buy an additional 750 planes.’ However, details were not forthcoming on other business deals that may have been hatched.
Accordingly, from the viewpoint of the protagonists the talks went off well and the chances are that the sides would stand to gain substantially from unruffled future economic ties. However, there was no mention of whether the health of the world economy or the ongoing conflicts in West Asia were taken up for discussion.
Such neglect is regretful. Although the veritable economic power houses of the world, the US and China, are likely to thrive in the short and medium terms and their ruling strata could be expected to benefit enormously from these ongoing economic interactions the same could not be said of most of the rest of the world and its populations.
Needless to say, the ongoing oil and gas crisis, for instance, resulting from the conflict situation in West Asia, is taking a heavy toll on the majority of the world’s economies and the relevant publics. While no urgent intervention to ease the lot of the latter could be expected from the Trump administration there is much that China could do on this score.
China could use its good offices with the US to address the negative fallout on the poorer sections of the world from the present global economic crunch and urge the West to help in introducing systemic changes that could facilitate these positive outcomes. After all, China remains a socialist power.
Features
The Quiet Shift: China as America’s “+1” in a Changing World Order
“Everything ever said to me by any Chinese of any station during any visit was part of an intricate design”
— Henry Kissinger
That design may already be complete before this week’s , a meeting that could shape the future balance of global power.
The wind arrives quietly. By the time it is heard, history has already begun to turn. Across Asia, that wind is no longer distant. It carries with it the exhaustion of an old order and the uncertain birth of another. The question now is not whether the world will change. It is whether those who hold power possess the wisdom to guide that change toward something less violent than the century behind us.
Since 1945, the United States has carried the burden of a global order built with its Western allies. To its credit, the world avoided another direct world war between great powers. The conflicts remained contained in distant lands—proxy wars fought in the shadows of ideology, oil, and influence. From Latin America to Asia, the American century expanded not only through prosperity, but through intervention. Yet empires, even democratic ones, grow tired. Fatigue settles slowly into institutions, alliances, and public memory. The role of global policeman no longer inspires certainty in Washington as it once did.
The “rules-based order” now confronts its own contradiction: it was built to be universal, yet it often appeared selective. During my recent visit to , a young researcher asked me quietly, “Does the West itself still believe in the rules-based order?” The question lingered long after the conversation ended. The rising century demands a more inclusive architecture—one that recognises the reality of Asian power, especially China.
My three years of field research across South and Southeast Asia, documented in , revealed a transformation too significant to dismiss as temporary. China has moved beyond being merely a competitor to the United States. In trade, infrastructure, technology, cultural diplomacy, and economic influence, Beijing has established itself as what may be called the world’s “US +1.”
Great powers often search for such a partner. History shows this tendency clearly. When an empire becomes overextended—burdened by wars, alliances, sanctions, tariffs, and crises—it seeks another center of gravity to stabilize the system it can no longer manage alone. The United States today faces disorder stretching from Venezuela to Iran, from Ukraine to the unsettled Middle East. In this landscape, China emerges not simply as a rival, but as a state powerful enough to broker peace where Washington alone no longer can.
Drawing from the lessons of the Nixon–Mao era, warned that “” The United States and China are now engaged in a long-term economic, technological, political, and strategic competition. Managing that competition wisely may become the defining challenge of this century. In such a deeply polarized and unstable world, recognising China as a “US +1” partner is not surrender, but strategic realism.
Donald Trump understood this reality before boarding his flight to meet Xi Jinping. Their meeting inside Zhongnanhai—the guarded compound where China’s leadership governs—was never merely ceremonial. It symbolized a deeper recognition already acknowledged quietly within the itself: China is the nearest peer competitor the United States has ever confronted. Before departing Washington, Trump seemed to reassess not only China’s strength, but its unavoidable position as a “” shaping the future global balance.
Yet the significance of a Trump–Xi meeting extends beyond trade wars, tariffs, or diplomatic spectacle. It presents an opportunity to confront two crises shaping the century ahead: global energy insecurity and regional instability. Washington increasingly understands the limits of direct engagement with Tehran. Decades of pressure, sanctions, and confrontation have produced exhaustion rather than resolution. In that vacuum, Beijing now possesses leverage that Washington does not.
For China, this is an opportunity to evolve from a development partner into a security actor. Xi Jinping’s (GSI) was never designed merely as rhetoric. It was intended as the next phase of Chinese influence—transforming economic dependence into strategic trust. The geopolitical spillover from the Iranian conflict now offers Beijing a historic opening to project itself as a stabilising force in the region, not against the United States, but alongside it as a “US +1” partner.
If China succeeds in helping stabilise the Gulf and secure energy corridors vital to Asia, it will reshape perceptions of Chinese power globally. Beijing would no longer be seen only as the builder of ports, railways, and industrial zones, but as a guarantor of regional balance. This transition—from infrastructure diplomacy to security diplomacy—may become one of the defining geopolitical shifts of the coming decade.
Xi Jinping does not seek open confrontation. His strategy is older, more patient, and perhaps more formidable because of its restraint. Beijing speaks not of domination, but of a “,” advanced through three instruments of influence: the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). These are not slogans alone. Across Asia, many governments increasingly trust China as a development partner more than any other power.
India, despite its ambitions, has not matched this scale of regional penetration. In both ASEAN and South Asia, China’s economic gravity is felt more deeply. Ports, railways, technology networks, and financial dependency have altered the geopolitical map quietly, without the spectacle of war.
In , I compared three inward-looking national strategies shaping Asia today: Trump’s MAGA, Modi’s emerging economic nationalism , and Xi’s strategy. Among them, China has demonstrated the greatest structural resilience. Faced with American tariffs and decoupling pressures, Beijing diversified its supply chains across Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia. Rail corridors now connect Chinese industry to European markets through Eurasia. ASEAN has surpassed the United States as China’s largest trading partner, while the European Union follows closely behind. Exports to America have declined sharply, yet China continues to expand. Trump, once defined by confrontation, now arrives seeking a new “” with China—an acknowledgment that economic rivalry alone can no longer define the relationship between the world’s two largest powers.
Unlike Washington, which increasingly retreats from multilateral institutions, Beijing presents itself as the defender of multilateralism. Whether genuine or strategic matters less than perception. In geopolitics, perception often becomes reality.
What emerges, then, is not surrender between rivals, but interdependence between powers too large to isolate one another. The future may not belong to a bipolar Cold War, but to a reluctant coexistence. The United States now recognises that China possesses diversified markets and partnerships capable of reducing dependence on America. China, in turn, understands that its long march toward global primacy still requires strategic engagement with the United States.
This is where the true geopolitical shift begins.
Many analysts continue to frame China solely as a threat. Yet history rarely moves through absolutes. The next world order may not be built through confrontation alone, but through uneasy partnership. Artificial intelligence, technological supremacy, economic stability, and global governance now demand cooperation between Washington and Beijing, whether either side admits it publicly or not.
Trump will likely celebrate his personal relationship with Xi, presenting himself as the American leader capable of negotiating a “better deal” with China than his predecessors. But beneath the rhetoric lies something larger: the gradual acceptance of China’s indispensable role in shaping the future international order.
Even the question of war increasingly returns to Beijing. If Washington seeks an understanding with Tehran, China’s influence becomes unavoidable. Iran listens to Beijing in ways it no longer listens to the West. This alone signals how profoundly the balance of power has shifted. And Xi, careful as always, refuses to openly inherit the mantle of global leadership. He delays, softens, and obscures intention. It is part of a longer strategy: to rise without provoking the final resistance of a declining hegemon too early.
History rarely announces its turning point. Empires fade slowly, while new powers rise quietly beneath the noise of the old order. Washington still holds immense power, but Beijing increasingly holds the patience, reach, and strategic depth to shape what comes after.
The century ahead may not belong to one power alone, but to the uneasy balance between Washington and Beijing. And in that silence, a new world order is already taking shape.
By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera
Features
Egypt … here I come
Chit-Chat Nethali Withanage
Three months ago, 19-year-old Nethali Withanage, with Brian Kerkoven as her mentor, walked the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week. On 06 June, she’ll walk for Sri Lanka in Hurghada, Egypt, as the country’s delegate to Top Model of the World 2026._
I caught up with Nethali as she prepares to fly out, this weekend, and here’s how our chit-chat went:
1. Tell me something about yourself?
I’m someone who blends creativity with ambition. I’ve always loved expressing myself, whether it’s through fashion, styling, or the way I present myself to the world. At the same time, I’m very driven and disciplined, especially when I was working, as a student counsellor, at Campus One, at a young age, where I’ve learned how to connect with people, understand them, and communicate with confidence. I believe I’m still evolving, and that’s what excites me the most … becoming better every single day.
2. What made you decide to be a model?
Modelling felt natural to me because it combines everything I love – fashion, confidence, and storytelling without words. I realised that modelling isn’t just about appearance, it’s about presence and how you carry your energy. I wanted to be part of an industry where I could express different sides of myself, while inspiring others to feel confident in their own skin.
3. What sets you apart from other models?
I would say my ability to connect. Whether it’s with the camera, a brand, or an audience, I bring authenticity. I also have a strong background in communication and sales, which gives me an edge in understanding how to represent a brand, not just wear it. I don’t want to just model clothes, I want to bring them to life.
4. What clothing do you prefer to model?
I enjoy modelling versatile styles, but I’m especially drawn to elegant and expressive fashion pieces that tells a story. I love looks that allow me to embody confidence and femininity, whether it’s a structured outfit or something soft and flowing.
5. What is the most important aspect of modelling?
Confidence combined with professionalism. Confidence allows you to own the moment, but professionalism ensures that you respect the work, the team, and the brand you represent. Both are equally important.
6. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
I would say I’m learning to trust myself more and not overthink. I’ve realised that growth comes from embracing who you are, not constantly trying to change it. So instead of changing something, I’m focused on becoming more confident in my own voice.
7. School?
I did my O/Ls at Seventh Day Adventist High School Kandana, and, while at school, I was actively involved in creative activities. I enjoyed participating in English Day events that allowed me to express myself and interact with others. Those experiences helped me build confidence, teamwork, and communication skills, which continue to shape who I am today.
8. Happiest moment?
One of my happiest moments is realising how far I’ve come from being unsure of myself to stepping into opportunities, like modelling, and representing myself with confidence. That feeling of growth is something I truly value, and also a dream come true!
9. Your idea of perfect happiness?
Perfect happiness for me is peace of mind, being surrounded by people I love, doing what I’m passionate about, and feeling proud of who I am becoming.
10. Your ideal guy?
My ideal partner is someone who is respectful, supportive, and confident in himself. Someone who values growth, understands my ambitions, and encourages me to be the best version of myself.
11. Which living person do you most admire?
I admire strong, self-made individuals who have built their identity through hard work and resilience. People who stay true to themselves, despite challenges, inspire me, because they show that success is not just about talent, but also about strength and consistency.
12. Your most treasured possession?
My most treasured possession is my confidence. It’s something I’ve built over time, and it allows me to face challenges, take opportunities, and believe in myself, even when things are uncertain.
13. If you were marooned on a desert island, who would you like as your companion?
I would choose someone who is calm, positive, and resourceful, someone who can turn a difficult situation into an adventure. The right mindset matters more than anything.
14. Your most embarrassing moment?
I’m 19 and still haven’t faced any most embarrassing moment. But I would say I’ve had small moments where things didn’t go as planned, but I’ve learned to laugh at myself. Those moments remind me that perfection isn’t necessary; confidence is about how you recover, not how you avoid mistakes.
15. Done anything daring?
Pursuing modelling and stepping into competitions is something I consider daring. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and challenged me to grow, both personally and professionally.
16. Your ideal vacation?
My ideal vacation would be somewhere peaceful, yet beautiful, like a beach destination where I can relax, reflect, and reconnect with myself, while enjoying nature.
17. What kind of music are you into?
I choose music that matches my mood at that time, whether it’s calm and relaxing or energetic and uplifting. Music is something that helps me express emotions and stay inspired.
18. Favourite radio station?
Usually I don’t listen to radio stations but whenever I get into a car I would search for Yes FM because it has a refined balance of contemporary hits and timeless music. I appreciate how it maintains a vibrant yet sophisticated energy, keeping listeners engaged while creating a consistently uplifting atmosphere. It’s something I enjoy because it adds a sense of positivity and elegance to my day.
19. Favourite TV station?
At the moment, I don’t have a television at home, but growing up, my favourite TV station was ‘Nickelodeon’. I genuinely loved the shows and series it aired; they were fun, creative, and full of personality. It was something I always looked forward to, and those memories still bring a sense of joy and nostalgia, whenever I think about it.
20. Any major plans for the future?
My future plans are to grow in the modelling industry, work with international brands, build a strong personal brand and finish completing a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Studies. At the same time, I want to explore my creative side further, especially in fashion and business, so I can create something of my own one day.
-
Features5 days agoSri Lankan Airlines Airbus Scandal and the Death of Kapila Chandrasena and my Brother Rajeewa
-
News6 days agoLanka’s eligibility to draw next IMF tranche of USD 700 mn hinges on ‘restoration of cost-recovery pricing for electricity and fuel’
-
News5 days agoKapila Chandrasena case: GN phone records under court scrutiny
-
News5 days agoRupee slide rekindles 2022 crisis fears as inflation risks mount
-
Features2 days agoOctopus, Leech, and Snake: How Sri Lanka’s banks feast while the nation starves
-
Business5 days agoExpansion of PayPal services in Sri Lanka officially announced
-
Features7 days agoMysterious Death of United Nations Secretary General Hammarskjöld
-
News5 days agoCourt orders further arrests in alleged USD 42 Mn NDB fraud case


