In recent months, China has made significant and visible efforts to help Sri Lanka – and many other countries – respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, including a $500 million loan agreement signed in March. In a separate report, News 1st reported that in response to a question they asked, U.S. officials said that “the Sri Lankan government has asked for time to review the MCC agreement and the U.S. is complying with that request.” Some politicians and civil society groups have linked MCC`s draft to other more open security agreements, such as the US Status of Armed Forces Agreement, which sets the framework for the entry of US military personnel into Sri Lanka and which some critics have seen as an attempt to create a US military foothold. or even a possible base in the country. ==Officials called the latter claim “blatant misinformation.” McC Review Committee Observations After the presidential elections, the new cabinet appointed a four-member MCC review committee, chaired by Professor Lalithasiri Gunaruwan, from colombo University`s Department of Economics, consisting of Nihal Jayawardena, D.S. Jayaweera and Nalaka Jayaweera. They concluded a six-month review and submitted the final review report to the Chair on 31 June 2020. Interestingly, the long-awaited review report did not raise any programmatic issues.
It was not mentioned that MCC bought 28% of the country from Sri Lanka, no electric fence that separated the north and east, no creation of a Colombo Trinco corridor and no US military base on the corridor, etc. The main topics discussed were the esoteric constitutional, legal and implementation aspects of the agreement, an area that may not have been qualified or had references. The report contains so many false statements and assumptions and reflects a level of paranoia and distrust that is a spirit of today`s times. Below are some observations on the MCC review report: these are several clauses such as current legislation, public procurement guidelines, termination, diplomatic immunity and intellectual property, intellectual property, etc., which are quite standard in donor aid agreements, because they are somehow unconstitutional, are outside the legal framework and violate sri Lanka`s sovereignty, which is a clear lack of familiarity or experience with the basic provisions of these agreements. They are standard and comparable to the grants and credit agreements signed by Sri Lanka over many decades with USAID, JICA, ADB and the World Bank. It applies to denunciations and suspensions in countries where implementation is being carried out smoothly (e.g.B Niger) or which have never been eligible for a pact (e.g.B . . .