While the whole world was waiting anxiously for President Donald J. Trump, a self- proclaimed “tariff man”, to present his plan for “reciprocal tariffs” on his “Liberation Day”, an American commentator Jon Stewart declared on “The Weekly Show” podcast that he knew what “Donald Trump’s whole plan” was. Since Trump was elected, I have been closely following the developments in Washington but didn’t come across any other such claims. Yet, I was not surprised by Jon Stewart’s claim because he is a highly paid comedian and his podcast was recorded on the day before President Trump unveiled his plan. But now I know Jon Stewart was not the only person who knew how Trump’s plan for “reciprocal tariffs” would unfold. Most of our politicians (other than those in the government) had known what the plan was, much in advance of the official announcement. Now they are on our evening TV news blaming the government for not taking measures to pre-empt Trump’s move and providing their expert advice on how the government should engage with the US!

Tariff Tsunami

Unlike these politicians and their advisers, I did not expect President Trump to slap punitive tariffs of 44 percent on our exports. Our garment exports to the United States expanded from the early 1980s to December 2004, due to a very generous textile and apparel quota extended by the United States under the now-defunct Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. It was a clear and very successful example of providing trading opportunities as development aid by a development partner. However, we were also paying high tariffs for these exports but remained competitive in the US market as quotas ensured a reasonable market share. But after 2004, with the end of the quotas, the Sri Lankan exporters started to face strong competition in the US market, particularly from countries that had duty-free market access. So, in December 2004, Sri Lanka was hit by two tsunamis, the Asian Tsunami and the Tariff Tsunami.

On 06 January 2005, The Wall Street Journal published on its op-ed page an opinion piece titled, “Tariff Tsunami,” highlighting this: “… some eye-popping statistics showing how U.S. tariffs discriminate against world’s poor, including in particular those in Sri Lanka. The duties paid on Sri Lankan garment exports to the US in 2003 were $238.5 million – which was more than the total duties ($227 million) paid that same year on every product exported to the U.S. from all six countries of Scandinavia. That’s despite the fact that Scandinavia exports roughly 12 times more to the US than does Sri Lanka – $23.8 billion versus $1.8 billion in 2003. The average US duty rate from products from those rich nations of Northern Europe is about 1%, while the average rate on Sri Lankan goods is 13.8% and 16.6% on the bulk of its exports, which happens to be clothing.”

Twenty-one years later, if one checks the US Customs data for 2024 a similar pattern will be observed, as our exports’ basket to the US and the import duties in the US have not changed much. Though, some of our exports, like tea, gem stones and rubber products, have duty free access. for some apparel products we pay 25% tariff resulting in very high average tariff.

When Trump promised, during his campaign for the White House, a 10 percent tariff on all imports from all countries and a higher tariff on China, I expected Sri Lanka to improve her competitiveness and anticipated a shift in sourcing from China to other Asian countries. I also believed that the “slow surge in orders” received by Sri Lankan apparel exporters after the US elections, as well as the investment by an American engineering technology group at Wathupitiwala, could have resulted from this discreet shift of sourcing. (Please read my article published on 8th January in “The Island.”). It also appeared that when US Ambassador Julie Chung stated, last October, at the foundation stone laying ceremony for a new American factory at Wathupitiwala, “SHIELD’s decision to shift its facility in China to establish a manufacturing facility here in Sri Lanka is a testament to the growing interest of US investment in Sri Lanka …. If the new government can strengthen the investment climate, implement anti-corruption measures, and strengthen business-friendly governance and transparency, there is potential for even more manufacturers to make similar moves,” she, too, didn’t expect that, six months later, the United States would hit us with punitive tariffs. Because no American investor would ever think of investing in Sri Lanka with an over 44% tariff.

A guessing game on the tariff plan

When President Trump announced, in early February, his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” on Trade, he did not provide much information about the plan. Then a few weeks later, the Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, stated that 10 to 15 countries accounted for America’s “entire trillion-dollar trade deficit” and the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, mooted a plan for a higher tariff for the ‘Dirty 15’, a group of countries that have large trade imbalances. But they did so without naming the countries they were planning to target. Based on these two statements a guessing game started all over the world on the composition of this group. Still, most of the observers expected these countries to be those with highest goods trading deficit with the United States. In 2024, the United States faced highest trade deficits with China ($291 billion), the EU ($236 billion), Mexico ($172 billion), Vietnam ($124 billion), and Taiwan ($74 billion). Compared to these countries, Sri Lanka’s trade deficit with the United States is relatively insignificant.

However, with these declarations, there was a remote possibility of Sri Lanka getting hit by a higher tariff due to our relatively large trade deficit as a percentage of the total trade. For many years this was always raised by the American negotiators during the negotiations at bilateral multilateral levels. Though we had always managed to settle it amicably, with mutually acceptable explanations, the issue had remained as an irritant in our bilateral relations. Therefore, the Sri Lankan Embassy in Washington, and appropriate government agencies in Colombo, with inside knowledge of the views of the US trade officials on the bilateral trade deficit, should have prepared for this worst-case scenario, however remote it was, and strategised on possible responses.

Highest tariff on countries “which nobody has ever heard of”

A few weeks after the American elections, at a birthday party, I bumped into a Sri Lankan expert on the United States who works on these issues for the government. During our conversation I raised Trump’s proposed tariff with him, and inquired whether they had initiated any study on it, particularly any possible adverse impact on Sri Lanka. “Don’t worry,” he quipped, “…

Trump doesn’t know where Sri Lanka is. So, we will be the last to get hit!” As we were standing at the bar, sipping our first round of drinks, I didn’t take the conversation any further. But what he said reminded me of my first visit to the office of the United States Trade Representative, in Washington. That was in January 1998. After examining my freshly issued State Department diplomatic ID, the security guard inquired, very politely, where Sri Lanka was. And I explained, with the help of a quick sketch, where we are located. During the next three years, during my frequent visits to that building, she always welcomed me with a broad smile and remembered my name and where I was from. During my tour in the United States, I met few other people who had never heard of a country called Sri Lanka.

Unfortunately, predictably unpredictable Donald J. Trump had decided to impose the highest reciprocal tariffs on countries “which nobody has ever heard of,” Lesotho and the French Archipelago of Saint Pierre and Miquelon! Both got 50% tariffs under the new reciprocal tariff plan. Since the beginning of the century, Lesotho, a tiny landlocked African country, managed to expand her exports to the US under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) and is considered as one of the success stories under that programme. But during his annual address to Congress last month, President Trump, while defending his extensive cuts in the US aid budget, singled out a past aid project of “eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho … a country that nobody has ever heard of.” In spite of its size, Lesotho refused to ignore the comment or take the matter lightly.

Foreign Minister Lejone Mpotjoane declared that the Lesotho government was “shocked and embarrassed” by the comments because Lesotho “… did not expect a head of state to refer to another sovereign nation in such a manner” and had sent an official protest note. Now, Mr. Mpotjoane must be a contented man. With the highest tariffs in place, the entire world has heard of a country called Lesotho! Saint Pierre and Miquelon, with a population of roughly 6,000 people and very limited trade with the US was the other country to get hit by 50% tariff. However, for this a tiny French archipelago, located off the shores of Canada, the time under the global limelight was short-lived as soon after the announcement the US administration made a U-turn and reduced the tariff to 10%.

Some of the other countries in this group with highest tariffs are not so tiny and are more well known. The table illustrates the United States imports from these countries and trade balance (in USD million) during 2023. (See Table 1)

Although President Trump has declared that these reciprocal tariffs are necessary to tackle America’s massive $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit, from this group of countries only Vietnam with $109 billion surplus and Cambodia with $11.8 billion surplus can contribute meaningfully towards a reduction of that deficit. The US trade deficit with all other countries in the group are minimal and together accounts for less than $5 billion. Based on 2023 statistics it is difficult to even understand Syria’s inclusion in the list. Then how did these countries end up with highest reciprocal tariffs?

Calculation of reciprocal tariffs

President Trump, while presenting his new tariff plan, stated that “reciprocal means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple. Can’t get simpler than that,” and according to his Executive Order on the reciprocal tariffs, these are based on the average tariff rate charged to US exports, plus currency manipulation and other trade barriers. However, in many countries it is very difficult to quantify the tariffs, currency manipulation and other trade barriers. So, the calculation was simply done for each country by taking its trade in goods deficit for 2024, then dividing that by the total value of imports which provides the size of the trade imbalance in percentage terms. The US administration simply presumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent trade from balancing. Therefore, it divided that percentage number by 2 to fix the amount of reciprocal tariff. If the presumption on which the tariff is fixed is inaccurate then the burden of proof is with the country affected by the tariffs.

Way forward – ‘Make Haste Slowly’

With a 90-day grace period, Sri Lanka has sufficient time to move forward thoughtfully, appropriately, and discreetly. However, it is essential to negotiate with the American Administration the removal of the reciprocal tariffs, and if that is not negotiable, then reduce them to the global average. As the livelihood of thousands of poor workers are dependent on it, the government should act fast without making any wrong moves. In other words, it is time to make haste, slowly. But it is important to understand, as of now, it is a guessing game like blind man’s bluff, with modified rules: only two players at a time, and you are blindfolded. You have to guess where the other player stands and catch him, while the game is played on a cliff edge.

By Gomi Senadhira

(The writer, a former public servant and a diplomat, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)