Two major arguments have been made against this agreement. The first is that the land project means that the country owned by the Sri Lankan government will be available to the U.S. government for purchase. 1. Land expropriation: the MCC`s economic growth limitations analysis identifies existing legal restrictions on land size and re-union as obstacles to commercial agriculture and proposes to liberalize the land market and allow the acquisition of land by foreign companies. Some of these proposals are in line with land reforms and other development assistance programmes that have been in place by the World Bank since the mid-1990s. They do not know the importance of small-scale agriculture, despite the obvious failure of large export-oriented agricultural enterprises around the world. The Sri Lankan people have in the past questioned attempts to oust small-scale farmers. National statistics show that 27% of the island`s labour force is employed in agriculture and fishing, while more than 80% of the area is owned by the state. Indebted rural communities (many of them small producers) would be forced to use the land granted to them as collateral to repay their loans, resulting in land grabbing by creditors, transferring first-class land to multinationals, and losing livelihoods for local farmers. The transformation of the lease and property could force many landless people into the informal sector. In addition, export-oriented commercial agriculture often results in excessive use of agrochemicals and monocultures, which harms biodiversity, food security, health and well-being of herders, many of whom already suffer from chronic kidney disease.
But what remains of Sri Lanka, given the breadth of public opinion, with other negotiating options, ministerial advice and the approval stamp of the Attorney General (GA)? The agreement will not enter into force until it has been presented to the Sri Lankan Parliament and adopted by Parliament and will provide comprehensive safeguards to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in the approval process. Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera said concerns about the non-presentation of the agreement to Parliament before it was signed were inappropriate, saying that Parliament could not debate any unsigned documents. Some politicians and civil society groups have linked the proposed pact to the GCC to other more open security agreements, such as the U.S. Agreement on the Status of the Armed Forces, which sets the framework for the U.S. military`s entry into Sri Lanka, which critics have seen as an attempt to create a U.S. military base. , or even a possible base in the country. U.S. officials called the claim «blatant misinformation.» Civil society groups have also criticized that the land component of the project could lead to the eviction of small-scale agricultural producers and land grabbing by export-oriented enterprises.
3. Threatening sovereignty: the pressure on the MCC compact came after the Easter Sunday attacks on the Sri Lankan economy and people. It also corresponds to the search for a new foothold in the Indian Ocean by the United States, precisely when the military occupation of the Chagos Islands by Great Britain and the United States by the Chagossian people is called into question. In this context, the MCC should be read and evaluated at the same time as the Cross Acquisition Agreement (CASA) and the proposed status of the Forces Agreement (SOFA). It should be noted that the MCC itself was created as an extension of the Nexus of security development in the context of the war of terrorism in the United States in 2004. In addition, the U.S. government has increasingly talked about its need to balance China in the Indian Ocean and stressed China`s presence in Sri Lanka. The MCC, SOFA and ACSA are all in tune with U.S. policy in Asia and the trade war against China, Iran and the rise of Asia. So far, Mc Mc`s activities