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. The opposition`s argument that the agreement should be suspended until after the elections also carries serious risks of losing the entire subsidy due to Sri Lanka`s recentgradation to higher middle income status. 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 has been at the centre of heated debates and political conflicts in recent months: the president has refused to approve the agreement before the end of his term, a petition of fundamental rights (FR) against the signing of the agreement, which will be filed before the Supreme Court, and even an almost orchestrated protest earlier this week. The second argument is that the GCC agreement is an attempt to undermine Sri Lanka`s national security. While both allegations have been disputed by MCC country director Jenner Edelman, there remains a suspicion. The document makes it clear that the Sri Lankan government is “the primary responsibility for monitoring and managing implementation” of projects, and legal advice signed by the Sri Lankan GA must be sought before the agreement enters into force. The main points of contention are: where does the money go and what does this funding mean? In accordance with the draft publicly available agreement, the MCC is providing this grant to address two of the “binding constraints” that Sri Lanka imposes on economic growth: (a) inadequate infrastructure and transport logistics planning and (b) lack of access to land for agriculture, services and industrial investors. Other concerns regarding the construction of a physical economic corridor, links to the SOFA and ACSA agreements, the acquisition of Sri Lankan land by the U.S. government, dumped land transactions, the construction of U.S. settlements and/or military bases, the construction of electric fences and the destruction of the local environment were also confirmed as unfounded in the review of the agreement. Indeed, Sri Lanka is often cited as a case study of debt trap diplomacy in the region and it is legitimate to argue that the government should be vigilant in reviewing the terms of future development agreements.