Opinion
WHO taken hostage by global corporate network
by Dr Wasantha Bandara,
The Secretary,
Patriotic National Movement
According to the reports of various independent research institutes in the world, the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently contemplating bringing the entire decision-making authority of the global health system under its control. It is also reported that WHO is planning to use two main devices for that purpose: the revision of the International Health Regulation system (IHR), and the signing of a new global epidemic convention to bind all countries of the world to the organisation’s strategic plan and the guidelines based on it.
This process is called “One Health Agenda” and that will give power to make decisions in respect of all areas affecting public health under the authority of the World Health Organization. Accordingly, the World Health Organization will have the power to influence decision making at the global level in relation to many fields such as food, agricultural production patterns, animal production process, environmental protection, population variables, etc. This situation is very serious due to the fact that the big companies that provide funding to the World Health Organization have been given decision-making power over the process and fields of deploying those funds. For example, if funds are provided for a specific project, the organisation does not have the power or ability to deploy the funds according to the priority, no matter how critical the priorities are. As such it cannot be hidden that the World Health Organization currently determines technical decisions and set priorities according to the wishes of funders.
As such, many researchers have revealed that WHO is almost completely dependent on private funds for all its budgetary requirements. According to Dr. David Bell’s research reports, the biggest funder of that organisation is Bill Gates and the umbrella organisations dominated by him. Dr. David Bell accuses Bill Gates of using his funds as leverage to shut down the entire world and introduce mandatory vaccination programmes during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is no secret that a large vaccine market was created and the accounts of large companies were fattened. It has now been revealed that the Bill Gates and Melinda Gates Foundation invested large amounts of money for it even before the pandemic. However, even though the orders are given by WHO for epidemic control, the programmes in every country of the world should be launched with the funds of the taxpayers of those countries.
Accordingly, WHO is accused of having destroyed 200,000 small businesses in the world while 40 new billionaires were created by the end of the Covid epidemic. The whole process has been dubbed by various researchers as “epidemic industry”. Therefore, in the future, it is possible to present an “epidemic package” with measures such as new epidemics control measures and mass vaccination programmes, as well as imposing restrictions on economic and social activities and shutting down the entire world in the end. The cost will be borne by the taxpayers of the respective countries and the profits will be credited to the accounts of Global Corporate network.
Accordingly, the billionaires can ensure that the process is carried out the way they want through the International Health Regulations and the New Pandemic Convention, which gives WHO “global police powers” as mentioned above. New regulations revealed to be currently being drafted will introduce new criteria for declaring a global pandemic and health emergency. Consequently, by creating an epidemic or emergency situation that can happen or is likely to happen, it is possible to recommend actions to be taken in a real situation. For example, it is possible to completely shut down a country and create a global mass market by implementing mass vaccination programmes or preparing for other medical interventions.
According to the new international health regulations, the directives given by WHO are mandatory and all the countries that were parties in 2005 are obliged to implement those directives. Also, the new regulations empower the Director-General of the World Health Organization as an individual to independently declare a health emergency or a global pandemic. As such, the possibility of the independent expert committees to challenge the objectives of the funders is minimal. A mechanism will also be set up to ensure that the relevant orders are strictly implemented by establishing a very comprehensive centralised enforcement process. Accordingly, member countries are constrained in their ability to seek other options other than submitting to the directives of the Director General of the World Health Organization. As an extension of that, the Director General will be empowered to publish any country’s data without that country’s permission, as well as to provide it to the requesting party to be used for any purpose.
Above all, the Director General will have the power not only to deploy the resources of member countries but also to make decisions on intellectual property rights and will also have the power to censor the disclosure of information. Also, it is considered a very autocratic situation to make individual people bound by regulations. Accordingly, the public will have to be obliged as individuals to submit to the closure of borders, the imposition of travel restrictions, to follow the quarantine process, to submit to medical research, to submit to mandatory medical treatment and vaccinations.
In that way, it is very clear that in addition to binding countries and individuals by the new international health regulations, the new Epidemic Convention creates many other obligations. According to the draft currently under discussion, the power of the World Health Organization will spread beyond epidemic control. For example, a global supply chain will be created under the supervision of the World Health Organization for health supplies. In addition, each country must allocate 5% of the national health budget to maintain the emergency situation management structure of the WHO. As an extension of that, each country should create a specific governance structure for the health emergency situation management process under the supervision of the World Health Organization.
This new global pandemic agreement will expand the mandate of the World Health Organization indefinitely under the umbrella of ‘One Health Agenda’. Accordingly, the control of climate change as mentioned above is also considered as a health emergency and the power to impose restrictions and orders related to it has been submitted to the authority of the World Health Organization or in other Words the authority of the funders. In this way, the World Health Organization will have the power to impose orders overriding the local laws of a country. In such a situation, in the name of controlling climate change or in the name of controlling a related health emergency, the Director General of the world health organization will be able to take over the power to control the entire world’s food production system.
WHO is not the only organisation that comes forward to confirm the need for this so-called one health agenda. Not only the United Nations Organization, the European Union, the United Nations Children’s Fund, but also the Global Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have come forward to spend money for that and popularise the concept. Even if this organizations invest in the so-called epidemic industry in this way, the operating costs should be borne by the taxpayers of the respective countries. Hence, Dr. Bell states that the public must invest money for billionaires to make profit and ultimately to become victims of exploitation and destruction. The World Economic Forum has introduced a new theory to provide protection for this evil process. It is known as Public Private Partnership. In order to give it further legitimacy, it is termed as the transformation of the process from the dominance of shareholders to the dominance of stakeholders.
It is very clear that the end result of this private-public or private-government partnership is that the profits of the entire process are accumulated in the accounts of a handful of big companies. To facilitate this process, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed an agreement in 2019 and thereby impose the business interests of large companies on sovereign countries through this United Nations and its affiliated international multilateral organisation network. It is in the context that the World Economic Forum gathered in Davos, Switzerland in 2020 presented a new theory called “The Great Reset”. A key device in that theory is contractual private-public cooperation. In other words, the global multilateral institutions system is used to re-establish or reset the world according to the wishes of the global billionaires’ forum or the World Economic Forum. In that process, a Global Decision-Making system will be established.
Eventually, that so-called decision-making system becomes a global governance system or a global government of billionaires. The seriousness of the process is hidden by not naming it the global government but created as a technical decision-making system at global level. But the real situation is the creation of a global government above the independent states of the world. The World Health Organization will become the most powerful tool used to manipulate or control states in the way that the global government desires. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of the new International Health Regulations and the new Global Epidemic Convention should be understood and redefined in this greater context or bigger picture.
It can now be clearly seen that the current moment in which the world is undergoing a great economic depression is being used to pass a critical juncture related to the process of re-establishing the world. It is obviously a kind of imperialist operation. Accordingly, the next World Health Assembly will be used to adopt international health regulations. If that operation becomes a success, the relevant amendments will be put to the vote in May 2024. There, only a simple majority is required to pass those resolutions. But according to the procedure of the conference, the member countries will have a period of 10 months to reject the relevant amendments. As such, in March 2025, the process of creating a new world will begin. If a country has the courage to oppose it, only that state will have a limited space to act according to the international health regulations that have been in force since 2005.
Meanwhile, the World Pandemic Convention will also be put to the vote in May 2024, but will require a special two-thirds majority to pass it. After the adoption of the convention, if endorsed by 30 countries, all signatory countries are bound to implement the convention. But global giants are not waiting until then, and will launch an operation in September 2023 to begin a rehearsal through an operation called the Global Pandemic Response Platform. There is no doubt that it is a rehearsal to guide countries to the 2024 Agenda.
Opinion
Think globally and act locally
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
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
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)
-
News5 days agoMastermind Naufer Moulavi among 15 found guilty
-
Midweek Review5 days agoThileepan’s fast unto death: An authentic narrative that many missed
-
News6 days agoProtest against setting up of cement factory in highly populated area near BIA
-
Editorial6 days agoTrouble beginning in earnest
-
Latest News4 days agoShowers above 100 mm are likely at some places in the Western, Sabaragamuwa, Central and North-western provinces and in Galle and Matara Districts
-
Editorial5 days agoBig Bad Bills
-
News6 days agoPolice may seek clarification from US
-
News6 days agoGovt. confident of 2/3 majority despite NPP split speculation
