Features
Elon Musk and the politics of influence
By Uditha Devapriya
As Donald Trump prepares himself for his second presidency, his most powerful advisor, the world’s richest man, is busy amplifying his voice across and beyond social media. In just three weeks, Elon Musk has commented – brazenly, according to his critics – on European politics, taking potshots at Keir Starmer and calling one Opposition MP in the UK a “snivelling cretin.” The EU appears to be at a loss with what to do with such remarks: while leaders of Britain, France, Spain, and Germany have shot back, the Italian Prime Minister has defended Musk, saying he does not deserve the labelling he has got.
Coupled with Meta’s abrupt cancellation of fact-checking – the platform will replace it with its version of X’s “Community Notes” – this seems to forebode an unholy collusion between billionaire interests, social media, and right-wing politics. While Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has not been candid about his political preferences, Musk has been nothing but politically partisan on the internet, and particularly X. He regularly tweets that the “legacy media” has failed, adding that “you” – the people – “are the media.”
While attacking British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for supposedly doing nothing to stop rape gangs in his country, Musk has praised far-right parties, including the Alternative für Deutschland, whose leader Alice Weidel he interviewed on X days ahead of elections in Germany. At the same time, he has attacked right-wing party leaders, including the UK Reform Party’s Nigel Farage, for not being right-wing enough: in Farage’s case, for being reluctant to endorse Tommy Robinson, an anti-Islam campaigner.
It is difficult to say how far Trump shares these sentiments. Judging by his recent remarks, particularly on Canada (which he described as the 51st state), Mexico (he wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America), and Greenland (which he says he wants to claim from Denmark), it is clear he sees himself as a disruptor, though what he wants to disrupt remains open to debate. Certainly, the Western political order is at a crossroads: European leaders have not been this upset at a US President’s remarks since Trump 1.0. Given his antipathy to organisations like NATO and his dithering over issues like Ukraine – issues that have unified the European political establishment – Musk’s interventions will most likely make a Trump presidency more polarising and fierier than it already is.
The political interests that Musk supports have all pitted themselves against what they call “the Establishment.” From a right-wing perspective, the establishment, at least in Europe, encompasses all those parties– right, left, and centre – committed to the European Union, and to organisations like NATO. In this regard, Musk’s interventions are reminiscent of the press barons, corporate magnates, commentators, and moneyed interests that called for the US’s withdrawal from the Second World War. Not surprisingly, he has been compared to William Randolph Hearst and Charles Lindbergh, two of the most vociferous “America First” isolationists during that formative period in world history.
Western liberals and military hawks alike have voiced their concerns at these developments. In the US, both Democratic politicians – particularly those positioning themselves on the centre, if not centre-left – and military strategists – the most interventionist, including those allied with the Cheney-Bush wing of the Republican Party – have criticised Musk. In an op-ed to the New York Times last month, for instance, Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré, who retired from the US army in 2008, described him a “national security risk.” Honoré’s article is full of the China- and Russia-baiting that characterises the liberal hawkish wings of both parties, but his accusations resonate with those who feel that Musk, while openly ridiculing Western politicians, has said absolutely nothing about China and Russia.
Of course, Musk has his reasons. His business is thriving in China, even if his prospects have come down somewhat: Tesla, which once dominated the market there, is now facing competition from Beyond Your Dreams (BYD), which in turn has benefitted, rather ironically, from US tariffs on electric vehicles. The latter were imposed by President Joe Biden in response to what his administration framed as “unfair” government subsidies on Electric Vehicles (EVs): a claim which, according to critics in China, does not hold water given how US government subsidies helped finance several of its key industries, including Tesla itself.
The mainstream Western media has also alleged connections between Musk and Vladimir Putin. These allegations, however, remain unsubstantiated and unconfirmed. Musk has defended himself against accusations that he is sitting on the fence, or worse, taking sides against Ukraine: in a tweet months ago, he stated that Starlink was providing essential services to the Ukrainian military. On the other hand, he joined Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. While we may never know what transpired in that conversation, Musk’s subsequent tweets, which ridiculed Zelenskyy’s pleas for military aid from the West, have in his critics’ eyes made him a Putin apologist.
However, to draw a clear line between Musk’s politics and the politics of the Democratic and Republican “establishments” is problematic. Musk and Trump, and the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party, share a great many things. Yet they also differ on a many other issues, prime among them China. While the Democratic Party remains hawkish on both China and Russia, the Republican Party under Trump has become more hardline on China than even the Democrats. To what extent this will align with Musk’s interests in China has yet to be seen. On the other hand, despite Trump’s calls for tariffs and measures against Beijing, it would do well to remember that, in the first months of his first presidency, he openly praised and tried to reach a settlement with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Musk regularly tweets about the decline of Western civilisation, even as he shies away from commenting on Chinese and Russian politics. As Donald Trump assumes office, critics wonder whether his support for alt-right politics will put on the back-burner issues that the liberals and war hawks of the West have rallied around for decades: including European unity, NATO, and the rules-based order which provided the Western political establishment with the hegemony it needed to sustain itself for half a century.
Uditha Devapriya is the Chief International Relations Analyst at Factum, an Asia-Pacific focused foreign policy think-tank based in Colombo and accessible via www.factum.lk. He can be reached at uditha@factum.lk.
Features
Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines
Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.
Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.
Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.
Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.
Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.
The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.
The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:
=Joint planning across operational divisions
=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making
=Continuous cross-functional consultation
=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates
Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.
Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.
By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst
Features
Why Pi Day?
International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow
The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.
Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.
It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.
Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.
Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.
π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)
The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.
π = 9801/(1103 √8)
For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.
It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.
This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.
Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.
Happy Pi Day!
The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.
by R N A de Silva
Features
Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink
The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.
As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.
It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.
Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.
Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.
Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.
The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.
While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.
On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.
Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.
Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.
Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.
Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.
Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.
However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.
-
News6 days agoPeradeniya Uni issues alert over leopards in its premises
-
News4 days agoRepatriation of Iranian naval personnel Sri Lanka’s call: Washington
-
News6 days agoWife raises alarm over Sallay’s detention under PTA
-
News3 days agoProf. Dunusinghe warns Lanka at serious risk due to ME war
-
Features4 days agoWinds of Change:Geopolitics at the crossroads of South and Southeast Asia
-
Latest News6 days agoHeat Index at ‘Caution Level’ in the Sabaragamuwa province and, Colombo, Gampaha, Kurunegala, Anuradhapura, Vavuniya, Hambanthota and Monaragala districts
-
Features6 days agoThe final voyage of the Iranian warship sunk by the US
-
Sports2 days agoRoyal start favourites in historic Battle of the Blues

