By Nimendra Mawalagedara
The recently imposed US tariffs on Sri Lanka are not merely an economic challenge – they are a signal of a transformation in the contemporary global political landscape.
These tariffs should not be understood merely as trade measures, but also as political symbols that reflect the Trump administration’s broader diplomatic style, characterized by transactional politics and the pursuit of symbolic victories. For Sri Lanka, recognizing this context is not an option; it is essential. It is not a choice; it is an imperative.
In a world where diplomacy is increasingly shaped by optics and domestic theater, interpreting these tariffs as merely economic would be a profound misreading of the times. The tariffs highlight a pivotal moment, one that forces the world to confront a shift it could once afford to ignore.
The tariffs lay bare two interlinked political realities: the rise of far-right populism in the West, and the profound ways this ideological shift has reconfigured global diplomacy and rewritten international norms. It is a transformation so pervasive that no country can claim exemption from its impact. Therefore, the task before us is not only to pursue economic remedies, but to confront the political reality they represent.
The rise of symbolic diplomacy
Sri Lanka now finds itself in unfamiliar diplomatic territory. Traditionally, Sri Lanka’s foreign relations were conducted through mainstream political parties, candidates, and established institutional channels, particularly in Europe and North America.
But the global rise of far right and right-wing populist parties and candidates, most prominently leaders such as Donald Trump in the United States, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France, Herbert Kickl in Austria, and Viktor Orban in Hungary, has significantly altered this diplomatic landscape.
This trend can be traced to the unexpected rise of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party (FPO) in the late 1990s: a pivotal moment when a far-right, exclusionary nationalist, and anti-immigration platform gained political legitimacy in a Western democracy. That electoral breakthrough shocked the sensibilities of mainstream Europe.
Nonetheless, it marked the beginning of a broader party realignment across the continent – one in which the far-right started moving from the fringes into centers of power. Mainstream parties, struggling to retain their relevance and voter base, began absorbing far-right rhetoric and even some policy positions.
As a result, Sri Lanka now engages with leaders and diplomats whose values, priorities, and negotiating styles differ significantly from those of their predecessors. These new diplomatic actors are not only ideologically distinct; they often rose to power by weaponizing anti-establishment sentiments.
Far-right populist leaders capitalized on widespread public frustration with political elites, institutions, and traditional governance frameworks. They framed themselves as political outsiders capable of “draining the swamp” and fixing long ignored systemic failures. This strategy reframes the state itself as an obstacle to efficient governance, national prosperity, and security.
The consequences of this brand of anti-establishment politics extend far beyond domestic politics: they reshape how these countries approach international norms, alliances, and institutions. In this context, foreign policy becomes another area to stage symbolic defiance and project nationalist strength.
These far-right movements, often driven by nationalism, anti-globalization, economic protectionism, and anti-establishment rhetoric, have redefined traditional diplomatic engagements.
For Sri Lanka this means rapidly adapting diplomatic strategies, communication styles, and negotiation tactics. The expectations from these new actors are fundamentally different: diplomacy is now more transactional, more explicitly driven by symbolic gestures, and perceived domestic political victories.
Thus, understanding these ideological shifts is not just beneficial – it is critical. Sri Lanka must recalibrate without further delay, acknowledging this new diplomatic environment as a permanent reality rather than a temporary aberration.
Retreat, realignment, and the reconfiguration of global power
As the United States seemingly retreats from its longstanding role as the anchor of global leadership and multilateralism, a strategic political vacuum has emerged, creating uncertainty across the international system.
Traditional powers such as the European Union (EU) and Russia, along with rising powers like China and India, are actively repositioning themselves to respond to this shift. Each seeks to either contain the domestic fallout from the United States’ retreat – by limiting its political, economic, or security repercussions at home – or exploit the resulting power vacuum to carve out their own spheres of influence within the emerging global order.
China, sensing the opportunity early on, has accelerated initiatives such as the Belt and Road, leveraging economic partnerships to expand influence. India, conscious of regional power dynamics, has adopted a Neighborhood First policy and is recalibrating its foreign policy to assert stronger leadership in South Asia and beyond.
Meanwhile, Russia is positioning itself as a reliable partner for states disillusioned by “Western unpredictability.” Despite their strategic rivalries, all three countries are working to strengthen BRICS as a potential counterbalance to the existing international institutional order.
Simultaneously, the European Union is looking to redefine itself; it aims to strengthen its internal economic and security capabilities, thereby, finally addressing its overreliance on the United States for national and regional security. Canada, for its part, is attempting to balance its asymmetrical dependence on the United States by forging closer economic and political ties with the European Union.
Strategic autonomy: rethinking power from the periphery
In response to the shifting landscape driven by changes in the United States and Europe, the smaller peripheral states are beginning to reassess their strategic alignments and diplomatic priorities. Historically dependent on major powers for security and economic stability, these states are now increasingly seeking alternatives – forming new alliances among themselves and pursuing greater autonomy from traditional power centers.
This peripheral realignment presents Sri Lanka with significant diplomatic and economic opportunities. Countries across Africa, South and Central America, the Pacific, and parts of Asia, facing similar geopolitical uncertainties, are more receptive than ever to partnerships built on mutual benefits rather than great-power dominance.
New regional and cross-regional coalitions might emerge, formed not under traditional great-power leadership but around shared political histories, economic interests, developmental priorities, and ideological alignments.
Sri Lanka must actively engage with these peripheral states and emerging alliances. By identifying and forging strategic partnerships with other nations that are also navigating this transitional period, Sri Lanka can strengthen its international position, secure new markets, and gain greater geopolitical resilience.
Rather than merely observing these developments, Sri Lanka should rebrand itself as a leader among the peripheral states and take an active role in shaping these new alignments. We do not need to wait until we have achieved ideal economic conditions to assume this role. Instead, we must leverage our political and diplomatic assets now, positioning Sri Lanka to gain maximum advantage amid the ongoing global realignment.
Strategic non-alignment in a fractured global order
Sri Lanka’s historical commitment to non-alignment remains strategically relevant. However, it must now be reinterpreted for a different world order. The original formulation of non-alignment emerged in the context of the Cold War bipolarity between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Today, the geopolitical fault lines are more fluid: they may involve the United States and the EU on one side, with Russia and China on another, or the United States and Russia on one side, with the EU on another. What remains constant and extremely relevant to Sri Lanka is the divide between great powers and peripheral states.
In this context, non-alignment must be understood not as a posture of neutrality, but as a clear commitment to political flexibility and strategic autonomy. It means refusing to be drawn exclusively into the orbit of any single power bloc, while actively preserving and strengthening relationships on all sides.
Contemporary non-alignment must not be confused with disengagement; it is a calibrated engagement with multiple centers of power, without becoming dependent on or subordinate to any.
In practical terms, this requires Sri Lanka to seek new markets, diversify its international partnerships, and avoid excessive dependence on any single geopolitical actor. This is why Sri Lanka cannot, and should not, sever ties with Europe or the United States – even if maintaining these ties may appear politically challenging, and even seem futile to some.
Such a strategic non-alignment, in this new era, must become a forward-looking foreign policy doctrine: one that prioritizes national interests while asserting Sri Lanka’s role as a decisive actor within an evolving and contested international order.
Strategic Recommendations: Regional Partnerships and Pivot to South America
Sri Lanka’s current foreign policy remains largely reactive, shaped by short-term pressures and ad hoc responses to external shocks. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis, we also suffered a national crisis of confidence.
As a country, we stopped imagining ourselves as contributors to global conversations, let alone as designers of diplomatic futures. Yet we already possess the political awareness, historical perspective, and global context necessary to make strategic decisions that anticipate, rather than merely absorb and react to, global developments.
What follows is not a list of policy preferences but a foreign policy framework that is rooted in a long-term strategy and responsive to evolving geopolitical dynamics and domestic political realities. In a world increasingly shaped by power fragmentation and shifting alliances, Sri Lanka must move from reaction to design, and from doubt to direction.
Sri Lanka’s strategic vision must balance three priorities: a commitment to regional partnerships, an expansion into new diplomatic and economic spaces, and a nuanced approach to managing longstanding relationships with our allies in the West who are undergoing domestic political realignment.
The regional approach, prioritizing our enduring relationships with India and China, remains foundational. These ties are essential not only for economic recovery but also for maintaining geopolitical stability in a region increasingly shaped by strategic competition.
Strengthening them is not just a matter of proximity or necessity; it is also a diplomatic imperative, as both countries play an increasingly significant role in shaping global affairs. In doing so, Sri Lanka can also affirm its relevance and resilience in South Asia.
This regional focus must now be accompanied by a wider diplomatic reach. South America and Africa represent significant and largely untapped opportunities for diplomatic and economic partnerships, particularly with countries that share our developmental concerns and political experiences.
Sri Lanka’s National People’s Power (NPP) holds unique potential in this regard, possessing ideological similarities and developmental visions closely aligned with many governments in South and Central America. Leveraging these shared values, Sri Lanka, under NPP’s diplomatic initiatives, could forge meaningful relationships and mutually beneficial alliances across South and Central America.
Sri Lanka must also refine its approach to managing relations with existing Western partners undergoing far-right political shifts. These governments are increasingly driven by domestic political imperatives: policies that once reflected strategic planning now serve as symbolic performances meant to reassure electorates who feel displaced or left behind in a rapidly globalizing world.
States where authoritarian tendencies are on the rise, where checks and balances are being eroded, will increasingly prioritize projecting patriotic strength on the international stage over maintaining stable foreign policy and respecting long-term partnerships. In this context, diplomacy becomes less about mutual economic benefit and more about constructing political narratives that resonate at home.
In this context, if Sri Lanka hopes to secure favorable economic agreements with far-right or populist-led Western governments, it must understand the political currency these leaders value most: symbolic political victories.
Our bargaining power lies not in economic leverage, but in our ability to offer gestures that allow these leaders to project strength to their domestic audiences. This means that any economic or policy concession we offer must be crafted to serve their political theater.
Even modest gestures can be valuable bargaining chips if they help our counterparts appear decisive, victorious, or unyielding at home. Understanding this dynamic is not merely useful– it is essential. We must master the art of strategic messaging as a core tenet of diplomacy, knowing that optics are often as important as substance – at times, perhaps even more so.
By expanding our diplomatic horizons beyond traditional partners, while managing our existing relationships with greater nuance, Sri Lanka can significantly diversify its global partnerships. This three-pronged strategy, grounded in regional consolidation, global diversification, and recalibrated engagement, positions Sri Lanka to maximize geopolitical opportunities and better navigate an increasingly complex international landscape with clarity and control.
Dr Nimendra Mawalagedara holds a PhD and M.A. in Political Science from Georgia State University, and a BA in Political Science with a minor in History from Southern Arkansas University. She has taught courses in both American and International Politics at Georgia State University in the United States and is currently a Visiting Lecturer in Sri Lanka, where she teaches courses in International Relations and US politics.
Factum is an Asia-Pacific focused think tank on International Relations, Tech Cooperation, Strategic Communications, and Climate Outreach accessible via www.factum.lk.
The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the organization’s.
