by Rajan Philips

Musk behind The Resolute Desk. Who is the boss?

America has a hegemon; and the hegemon has a henchman. Americans elected Donald Trump as president by a slender majority, but the whole world has to suffer him without having any say in the matter. Both America and the world have also to suffer Elon Musk, Trump’s unelected henchman. Just who is who – between the hegemon and the henchman – seems to be the question that is deliberately being provoked in political circles, hoping to trigger Trump’s ire against Musk. Inasmuch as Musk appears to be outdoing the president. Time magazine’s cover page placing Musk behind the president’s desk is amusing even as it might be provoking Trump. CNN’s Jack Tapper has started calling Musk, the President’s “First Buddy,” arguably more significant than the traditional First Lady.

For now, Trump seems to be giving Musk the long leash as Musk and his young software interns run amok through federal government departments and their projects, in Washington and elsewhere, including far flung places throughout the world. All in the name of eradicating government ‘waste, fraud and corruption.’ And all discovered in a matter of days by teams of Musk’s X employees, some of them in their teens, and all of them with a worldview that pretty much starts and ends at their laptop and tablet screens. It is as if the old ‘revenge of the nerds’ is being played out for real in the theatre of the American state in Washington DC. With the difference that the nerds roaming Washington have a hegemon to back them up.

President Trump is all hell bent on demolishing Washington institutions even as he has taken to calling Gaza a “demolition site.” He did that without any touch of irony at a joint White House press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu, Gaza’s demolitionist-in-chief. Netanyahu had completed Gaza’s demolition before Trump started his second term, and he was rewarded for that with the honour of being the first foreign leader to be invited to the White House for presidential audience.

Trump’s description of Gaza as a demolition site is no accident, but a natural projection of his real estate mind. At the press conference, as a befuddled Netanyahu stood and stared, Trump rambled on about redeveloping Gaza into a Riviera in the Middle East, where the poor Palestinians will be allowed to work to support all the (rich) people of the world gathering for their holidays.

The horror of this scheme is the presumed eviction of the already displaced residents of Gaza to unknown desert tracts in Egypt, Jordan, and any other host country in the Arab world. These countries will have to just receive the displaced Gazans and shelter them just because Donald Trump has said so, even as the Trump Administration is rounding up ostensibly illegal but organically integrated immigrants in America and deporting them in handcuffs by military aircraft to their home countries. Even as far away as India.

The new Secreatary of State, Marco Rubio, a right wing Cuban American with more blind loyalty to Trump than any gravitas in world affairs, and other similarly inconsequential minions in the Administration, tried vainly to soften their president’s dangerous fantasy about Gaza. But Trump doubled down and summarily said that the Palestinians of Gaza will have to leave, Gaza will be redeveloped for the amusement of the rich under Israeli security, and all enabled under American laws. Whatever those laws are!

While there is little chance that a Riviera will ever be built on the Gaza waterfront, Trump’s outlandish speculations are only going to further aggravate the already turmoiled situation of the Palestinian people and rule out any possibility of a fair and durable resolution of a conflict that is as old as the UN. Trump has even worse contempt for the UN than he has for Gaza.

Imperial Illusions

President Trump’s Gaza musings are also indicative of a significant new dimension to his second term in comparison to his first. He seems to be labouring under the illusion that his second term could be the beginning of a new era of American expansionism. There were rambling allusions in the inauguration speech to a new United States that “expands our territory … and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons … and … pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars.”

The first step in the flight to Mars is to impose tariffs on earth. All countries of the world, no matter friend/neighbour (Canada, Mexico) or foe (China) or everyone in between (India) must pay an admission fee for the privilege of entering the coveted American market. The revenue generated by import tariffs will be used to support the massive tax cuts that Trump is determined to give the wealthiest in America. The entrepreneurs of the world are welcome to locate their businesses and factories in the US and enjoy the world’s lowest taxes, or stay where they are (that is “your prerogative,” Trump said to a virtual session in Davos) and pay the world’s highest tariffs. All of this seems to be Trump’s new economic gospel, if not philosophy.

Trump is not alone in this American economic thinking, but he is alone among America’s political classes to think that America can do this unilaterally and the rest of the world will fall in line either without political demur or under economic duress. Trump’s external thrust has surprised almost all serious political observers in America. There are overtones of 19th century imperialism in Trump’s garbled rhetoric. There are also multiple points of contradictions between his new expansionist thrust and his old isolationist insistence. Even the madman theory that he has tried to tout on his own behalf has few followers because crazy unpredictability is second nature to him and unreliability is what his fellow transactors expect of him.

Allies, Adversaries and the Rest

Then there is the peculiarity of Trumpism in configuring the positions of America’s traditional allies and adversaries in this expansionary vision. His expansionism provides for the annexation of Canada as America’s 51st state; renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America; threatening the takeover of Greenland; and taking control of the operation of Panama Canal. Turning to Europe, Trump wants to impose tariffs on EU exports to America, has no abiding interest in NATO, and just this week indicated that he would be repudiating all of Biden’s commitments to Ukraine and force Ukraine to negotiate peace with Russia on Putin’s terms.

In other words, the Trumpian vision of American expansionism has no place for America’s traditional allies and suggests the annexation of at least one of them, Canada. Trump would rather have America contending for the world with its traditional adversaries, China and Russia. That would be a contest which, presumably in his understanding, will create all the opportunities for maximizing wealth and profit within market capitalism, without any of the inconveniences of state regulations, legal hurdles and overall accountability whether at the national or global level. It will be a system of hegemons and their henchmen carving up the planet as they please.

In such a set up, there is no place for American involvement in the World Health Organization (WHO), or continuing with the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump has withdrawn America from both using two Executive Orders that were among the very early ones issued following his inauguration. He is keeping America in the UN for now, mostly to exercise the US veto at the Security Council in support of Israel, America’s only ally in the world organization. He has again pulled the US out of UNHRC in Geneva, and stopped funding to UNRWA, the UN’s relief agency among the Palestinians.

There is then the rest of the world – excluding the US, the West minus the US, China and Russia. Trump’s main interaction now ‘with the rest of the world’ countries is in the humiliating deportation of their citizens after apprehending them as illegal aliens in America. A second interaction is through the abrupt closure of the USAID agency and the myriad of programs that the agency has been conducting in hundreds of countries throughout the world.

Many of these programs help in saving lives, improving health, and avoiding starvation. The Trump Administration may legitimately question the policy premises of these programs, but there is nothing wasteful, fraudulent or corrupt about them as alleged by Musk and marauders. Unilaterally closing them has been the most unkindest act so far by the Trump Administration.

The countries where USAID presence has been insensitively terminated are now fertile grounds for Chinese engagement. Even though Trump is quite triumphant about killing BRICS with his 100% tariff threat, the membership in the organization is bound to swell as Trump tries to reorder the world, and BRICS itself is bound to emerge as a force to reckon with by post-Trump America. Equally, European countries will similarly try to strengthen their economic ties with China to make up for what Trump might deprive them through reckless tariffs. Yet there is no country in the world that seems ready to push back on Trump and call his bluff. With every country so much dependent on global trade, no government is prepared to poke the madman and risk inflicting economic pain on its people.

Columbian President Gustavo Petro tried to protest the forced deportation of Columbian immigrants from the US, but was quickly forced to retreat by Trump’s tariff threat. South Africa has been singled out for harsh treatment mostly for prosecuting Isreal at the International Court of Justice, on charges of genocide in Gaza. Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa and often uses his X platform to accuse the South African government of genocide against White South Africans, may have had a hand in this. At the same time, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has reached out to Elon Musk apparently to help address “issues of misinformation and distortions about South Africa” in Washington.

In the midst of it all, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi landed in Washington, after a stopover in Paris, to cap what had been a tumultuous first three weeks of Trump’s second presidential term. Both Trump and Modi acknowledge the good chemistry between them, and they used the meeting to highlight their mutual benefits even if the talks were more symbolic than substantive. American media picked on the protocol of Prime Minister Modi meeting with Elon Musk before arriving at the White House. For his part, Trump offered to help India and China resolve their “skirmishes on the border which are quite vicious,” and expressed the hope that “China, India, Russia and US, all of us can get along. It’s very important.” That seems to be Trump’s preferred world order. Each country has its own hegemon, and they all have their henchmen.

The 76th birthday of the Late Mr. Anura Bandaranaike fell on February 15

by Gamini Gunasekara

Mr Anura Bandaranaike, an Honours graduate in History of the University of London, was a formidable and prestigious leader who engaged himself in gentlemanly politics. He was never accused of any wrongdoing. From whatever angle one views his career, it would be fair to name him a man of unblemished character, in the fullness of the meaning of that phrase- a person who enjoyed the respect of everyone who lived in this country, be they political supporters or opponents and a leader of prestige here and abroad.

He was a rare person who had the good fortune to associate with foreign leaders at the highest level from his childhood and to enjoy their affection. It is no exaggeration to say that he was the only political leader in Sri Lanka who has had that fortune. From his childhood he was able to associate closely with the leaders of many countries such as India, Pakistan, Japan, China, America, Russia, England, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, the Middle-Eastern countries and countries of Europe. In consequence no other leader in Sri Lanka could claim the international contacts that he had.

At the same time the extreme facility with which he could handle the English language was always combined with his erudition. The knowledge that he possessed of a wide range of subjects including international politics, modern and ancient history, the world economy, classical Western literature, modern world trends etc etc is immense. He was second to none as a person who shone in debates both in Sinhala and English, in our legislature. His absence is acutely felt when one looks at the Parl iament today.

Anura Bandaranaike was born on 15th February15 , 1949 and passed away on March 16, 2008, saddening many a Sri Lankan heart. A large concourse of people converged on Horaglla Walawwa, where his body lay, in long queues from all corners of Sri Lanka, until the day of the funeral. I met that day even people who had come all the way from such far off places as Trincomalee. I recall that many such people standing in the queues were in tears. I attended that funeral along with Minister Sarath Amunugama.

I was Mr. Bandaranaike’s Media Secretary at the time. Dr. Amunugama and I associated closely with Mr. Anura Bandaranaike. Often when Mr. Bandaranaike wanted some assistance from Dr. Amunugama I acted asthe medium.When Dr. Amunugama wanted some assistance from Mr. Bandaranaike also I acted in similar fashion. My association with Mr. Bandaranaike was that close. It is the same with my association with Dr.Amunugama.

Mr. Anura Bandaranaike was a leader who always sincerely felt for the people. A significant feature of his character was that he never craved for wealth or power. We should remember that he donated to members of his household staff, portions of the commercially very valuable Horagolla Walawwe land which was his ancestral inheritance. It must also be placed on record that Anura Bandaranaike was a very distinguished Speaker of the Sri Lanka Parliament. He was also the youngest Leader of the Opposition in the Commonwealth at the time ( 1983- 1988).

The Late Gamini Dissanayake once told me that Mr Bandaranaike as the Leader of the Opposition played his role extremely competently, against a very strong Government. The degree dissertation of a female undergraduate of the Peradeniya University last year, was the role played by Mr. Anura Bandaranaike, as the Leader of the Opposition. She consulted me too on some matters. Mr Bandaranaike as the then youngest Speaker in the Commonwelth, conducted himself in international relations also preserving the prestige of Sri Lanka, by expressing his views fairly and fearlessly.

Anura wasthe only son of Prime Minister Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandararanaike and the world’s first female prime minister Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. His family has a long history in our country’s political and social arenas. His grandfather was Sir Solomon Dias Bandaranaike, Mudaliyar of the Governor’s Gate. His mother’s father i.e. his maternal grand father was Rate Mahattaya Barnes Ratwatte Dissaswe.

At the time Anura was born his father S W R D Banadaranaike was the Minister of Health and Local Government who later became the fourth Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and was assassinated on September 26, 1959, when Anura was just 10 years old. His mother became the first woman Prime Minister of the world in July 1960 establishing a record, after assuming the leadership of the party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, that her husband had founded.

Anura, after being appointed the leader of the youth wing of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, built up the SLFP youth wing into a formidable force in all districts including in the North and East. At that time he was the most popular youth leader in Sri Lanka. He contested Nuwara Eeliya- Maskeliya multi member

constituency as the SLFP nominee in the 1977 parliamentary general elections. While the SLFP suffered an ignominious defeat in that election, we must remember that Anura secured the Second MP position relegating Mr. Thondaman to third place.

Anura has told me that he devoted only two weeks at Nuwara Eliya-Maskeliya at that campaign. The rest of the time he was campaigning for the party all over the country. He secured more than 49,000 votes in the Nuwara Eliya – Maskeliya multi-member constituency. Gamini Dissanayake was elected the First member. These two were friends. I was also fortunate enough to be able to associate closely with Mr. Gamini Dissanayake.

Truly, the country has now been orphaned by the loss of such political leaders. Most people are unaware that Mr. Anura Banadaranaike delivered lectures on South Asian politics in foreign universities. He often quoted writers from Shakespeare and T S Eliot in his lectures. He inherited that talent from his father. People doing politics today should read the biographies of leaders like this. The lessons one can learn from such reading is immense.

(The writer is the President, Education Friendship Guild)

By Uditha Devapriya

Washington’s systematic gutting of government funded foreign aid has given rise to a flurry of debates. On the one hand, critics of the move say it both undermines the humanitarian work that the US has poured billions of dollars into and undercuts US national interests vis-à-vis its rivals, which in the present context includes China and Russia. On the other hand, as Elon Musk tweets every hour on what institutions like USAID were spending money on, critics contend that such programmes have served no purpose and retrenchment of these institutions would be in everyone’s interest, including the affected countries.

Donald Trump’s dismantlement of foreign aid signals what I see as the third wave of the US conservative right’s attack on the Kennedy-Johnson consensus that guided US foreign policy for much of the last half-century. In the first wave, during the Reagan years, Washington did away with many of the domestic programmes which had been set up by John F. Kennedy at the heyday of Keynesian economics. In the second wave, which I trace to both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, domestic social programmes were again singled out for attack, with welfare and healthcare facing much of the brunt.

President Trump’s attacks on foreign aid programmes, barely five years after Joe Biden revived them, including in countries like Sri Lanka – a good example being Peace Corps – are as radical and far-reaching as they are going to get. Over the last two decades, going back to the Tea Party movement, Washington has lurched so far to the right that older generation of conservatives identified by Trump supporters as warmongers and establishment folk – the likes of Liz Cheney and her father Dick, the Bushes, and so on – resemble in no way their critics in the Republican Party. Musk’s battle of the tweets with the likes of conservative commentators like Bill Kristol and Republican senators like Liz Cheney is telling in that sense because it underscores a pivotal ideological shift in US politics.

This shift mirrors a broader lurch to the right that continues to characterise the anti-woke right in much of the Global North and, I would say, parts of the Global South. In the US, the anti-woke right has been incensed by what they frame as the doling out of taxpayer dollars to divesiry, equity and resilience (DEI), climate resilience, and gender initiatives in countries like Sri Lanka, programmes which in their view have served no one. As more and more disclosures about what USAID programmes were used for here – prominently in media and democratic governance NGOs, to say nothing of parliamentary committees – come to light, it becomes easier to see why the right has become so angry. That the likes of Victor Orban have been openly happy at Trump’s ongoing retrenchment of foreign aid is understandable, if you factor in Orban’s and Vladimir Putin’s past attitudes to USAID and even private donors.

In that sense, what of the contention that US national interests will be undermined by these developments? The argument, in my view, has some merit for two reasons. First, it is an admission of something the Left, particularly the anti-imperialist Left, has voiced for years if not decades: that organisations like USAID were used as tools and instruments of US foreign policy, as a means of entrenching American hegemony.

In response to Musk’s criticism of her involvement with USAID, Liz Cheney declared that she was “proud” of having helped defeat the Soviet Union via such institutions. This goes to show that, far from being a benevolent bequest, foreign aid has very much been linked to the geopolitical ambitions of powerful countries. To say this is to remember that, during the Kennedy years, institutions like the Alliance for Progress, while doing necessary, good work in a postcolonial world, was shaped by that administration’s priority of economic stability in countries which seemed vulnerable to Communism.

There were times when such organisations were used in more explicit ways to achieve these geopolitical objectives. Costa-Gavras’s beautiful and searing film State of Siege, a fictional account of USAID employee Dan Mitrione, who taught torture and interrogation techniques to the Uruguayan police before being kidnapped and killed by left-wing guerillas there, is a stark case in point. Yet even if one concedes this point, it is possible to acknowledge the good work such institutions have done on the humanitarian front – as liberal commentators like Nicholas Kristof have constantly reminded us today.

The second reason as to why the national interest argument has merit is that once the US withdraws from the multilateral order vis-à-vis foreign assistance, it theoretically becomes possible for countries like China and Russia to take their place. I say “theoretically” because, for all the rhetoric about Beijing filling the gap that the US will leave behind in institutions like the World Health Organisation, it is questionable whether those countries will, in fact, devote their budgets to financing them in the long run. I believe it is in everyone’s interests, not least of all China’s, that they do. This is precisely what the older conservative right in the US, represented by the likes of Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnell, fear.

But really, such fears are unwarranted. In a context of growing tensions between the US and the rest of the world, these developments will be bemoaned by the liberal and conservative establishment yet accepted as necessary collateral damage by the hardcore, Trumpist right. Until now, the US political establishment took great pains to distinguish between ally and enemy – even if, as was seen during the Reagan years, the government engaged in verbal gymnastics (“autocratic” versus “authoritarian”) to justify its foreign policy. Today, no such distinctions exist – Elon Musk continues to attack elected heads of state, while both the US President and Vice-President support the work he is doing as “good” and “necessary.” What we are seeing now is a return to the days of naked big stick diplomacy, with Trump as symbol of the pre-Wilsonian phase of US foreign policy.

The writer 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.