Politics
A march, a tweet, some angst and mild sabre-rattling

by Malinda Seneviratne
If something deserves to be called ‘Event of the Week’ it would be the ‘Pothuvil to Poligandy (P2P) March’ which ended on Sunday, February 7. At the end of the march there were around 2,000 people. Most significantly, it was an event that saw the participation of both Tamils and Muslims. The basic differences in grievances were obviously negated by a felt need to be united against, let’s say, a perceived common enemy, the Government to some, ‘Sinhala Chauvinism’ to others.
It marked also, as D B S Jeyaraj has mentioned in his weekly column, a return of sorts to non-violent protests. Now it is not that all Tamil and Political action was violent. There have been all kinds of non-violent protests even during the conflict. However, this was a sustained, determined and even colorful affirmation of a politics that harked back to a different time. ‘The Satyagraha of 1961,’ is what Jeyaraj was reminded of. There are two interesting statements that are related to this march. First we had the government withdrawing STF security assigned to TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran. Sumanthiran retorted, ‘if something happens to me the Government will be held responsible.’ Now the agitation of the man does seem misplaced considering that he was involved in a five-day march (ok, he may not have be ‘on the moving spot’ all five days, but still! Was he not worried about security? Also, Sumanthiran has openly supported the LTTE, indulged heavily in Eelam-speak as well as celebration of the terrorists. He would do well to reflect on the fate of others who came before who did the very same thing, especially the leader of the TULF, Appapillai Amirthalingam. Amirthalingam spouted rhetoric which was like an endless nutritional feed to extremism. The beast, in his insatiable hunger, at one point did much more than bite the hand that fed it. One hopes that things don’t snowball to a repeat of all that, but Sumanthiran, having seen what happens to hands thrust into fires ought to keep his in his pockets. Nevertheless, withdrawing security granted on a threat perception is an overreaction.The second is a hilarious tweet from the tweet-happiest diplomat in Colombo, Alaina B Teplitz: ‘#Peacefulprotests is an important right in any #democracy and significant, legitimate concerns should be heard. I saw Tamil media coverage of the march from Pottuvil to Point Pedro and wondered why it was not more widely covered by Colombo-based media?’She has a point. The English, Sinhala and Tamil media have different preferences that have little to do with newsworthiness. Perhaps it is all about the target audience; after all there’s a reason why entertainment value has framed reporting and presentation, why sensationalism has become an important driver and so on. This holds for different media houses as well; owners have agendas. Nevertheless, there is a serious problem if matters of political significance are down-played or ignored altogether, one has to question the sense of responsibility of the particular media institutions.On the other hand, we cannot ignore the ‘Season of Vexatious Persecution’ (i.e. the annual human rights circus in Geneva) which is all about whipping things up from December to February. Now it could be a coincidence that P2P was organized at this particular moment, but few will buy it considering the personalities involved and their political history. The Teplitz tweet only serves to add credence to the view that this was just another side show of the above mentioned circus. The tweet also indicates an important fact: Teplitz is running out of slogans. Before we get to that, let’s have a say on the key words — the hash tagged ‘peaceful protests,’ ‘democracy’ and ‘legitimate concerns.’ It is downright laughable for a US diplomat to talk about such things given that country’s absolute rubbishing of such things, domestically and internationally. That aside, there’s the fact that Teplitz has been pained to the point that she has to whine about media coverage. Is it that a pet project directly or indirectly sponsored, planned and executed, didn’t move as many Tamils and Muslims as was envisaged? We didn’t hear Muslim and Tamil leaders complaining about news coverage. Have they deferred that kind of task to Teplitz? If that’s the case, who is the pawn or who are the pawns here? Is it Teplitz? Are they Tamil and Muslim leaders who in their wisdom believe that the best bet to get grievances, real or imagined, sorted and aspirations, reasonable or outrageous, fulfilled is to support the US in securing strategic objectives in Sri Lanka? If such happens (not a certainty, certainly) do they believe they’ll get some crumbs off the table? And what does all this have to say about the agency of Tamil and Muslim citizens? Are they too pawns? Indeed, are all peoples of all communities pawns in games where they are sacrificed at will? Jeyaraj sees in P2P ‘a remarkable show of solidarity and unity’ between the Tamil and Muslim communities. He does exaggerate about the numbers (tens of thousands, he says) and deliberately introduces the ‘Tamil-speaking’ qualifier which Tamil nationalists have often used to rope in rhetorically ‘The Muslims’ to their various political projects. Jeyaraj remembers 1961 but has forgotten the late eighties when M H M Ashraff (in)famously stated that even if Prabhakaran abandons Eelam, he would not. He dialed down the rhetoric over the next decade, but what did Prabhakaran do to the (Tamil-speaking) Muslims, has Jeyaraj forgotten? The LTTE ethnically cleansed the Jaffna Peninsula of Muslims. The LTTE turned one in ten Muslims into refugees, slaughtering dozens, driving them off their homes, seizing properties etc. Muslim leaders cannot pretend to be unaware of that history. Muslim Affairs, if you will, featured in other ways over the week. Recently returned to Parliament, Ven Athureliye Rathana Thero presented a private member’s bill to repeal the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act. Justice Minister Ali Sabry who prior to entering Parliament championed the notion ‘One Country, One Law,’ responded by saying ‘steps are being taken to amend the Muslim Laws and that a Cabinet Paper had already been presented in that regard.’Elaborating, Sabry said that the Cabinet Paper sought to amend the minimum marriageable age of Muslim girls to 18, to permit women to act as Kathis and also to make it necessary to get the consent of Muslim women when they get married.That’s it? That makes it ‘One Country, One Law’? Sabry must do a serious rethink on what he says and does and the meaning of the terms he uses (so loosely!).
He is correct when he says that ‘if the personal laws were to be abolished, all the personal laws such as Muslim Laws, Kandyan law and Thesawalamai Law should be abolished altogether.’ ‘Through a social discussion,’ he adds. There’s been enough social discussion, he knows this. One-country-one-law would certainly call for abolishing all customary laws. His concern seems to be limited to correcting existing laws that privilege Muslim men over Muslim women. That’s not even scratching the surface of the problem though!
Here are a question for Sabry: Are there plans to abolish polygamy (can’t have it for some and not others, no?)? Here’s another: The Special Parliamentary Committee on Extremism appointed by the previous administration presented a report in February 2020 recommending extensive measures with respect to Muslim laws as well as ‘educational’ institutions — have you read it? Are you in agreement? If so, what have you done so far? Are you planning to defer everything to the experts tasked to draft a new constitution? What are those experts doing by the way? When will we see a draft? And finally, what exactly do you understand by ‘One country, one law’? Let’s have some answers, please.
This week also saw Wimal Weerawansa making some news. He openly advocated a prominent and even principal role for Gotabaya Rajapaksa in the SLPP leadership. He was taken on by the General Secretary of the SLPP, Sagara Kariyawasam who questioned Wimal’s rights to talk of the SLPP since he’s not a member. Wimal retorted that people in the SLPP talk of other parties. Sagara wondered what Wimal’s fate would be had he and his party contested independently. Wimal pointed out that Sagara, a national list MP, hadn’t even contested.
Light banter at best. Some sections of the Opposition have salivated, naturally. They believe and talk of ‘a rift!’ in the Rajapaksa camp, friction between the brothers (Wimal’s antipathies to Basil being well known).Too early to conclude such of course, but as debating points go, both Wimal and Sagara have scored. What this ‘scoring’ says about the future of the SLPP is of course left to be seen. There’s bound to be differences of opinion in any political coalition. If everyone was on the same page there wouldn’t be a coalition in the first place. You win some, you lose some — this is something that junior or weaker partners know very well (ask Prof Tissa Vitarana of the LSSP).
The so-called ‘smaller parties’ did make a lot of noise regarding the East Container Terminal issue. It seems, as of now, that the ‘big party’ listened. Whether they’ll still have the ‘big ear’ regarding the West Container Terminal is left to be seen. On the other hand, we know the story about the dog and the tail, no offense to canines or tails.
Politicians and political parties are about power and about elections. If, for example, Champika Ranawaka and the Jathika Hela Urumaya, having broken ranks with the UPFA decided to go it alone and not join the UNP-led coalition as they did, where would Ranawaka be today, one might ask. Indeed is it not such questions that persuaded him to resign from the JHU and become a 100% SJBer, one could also ask. There are no elections in sight, but when they do come around, all parties big and small will revisit ‘coalition’ and calculate the impact of decisions (and rhetoric) on electability.
For now, though, noises can and will be made. The likes of Wimal would have to pick their battles and select decibel levels. That said, his point about the distance between president and parliament on account of political sway within the party is valid. It goes without saying that the effectiveness of a program sometimes comes down to parliamentary weight which of course can be deployed best if the executive has a degree of control. The President either doesn’t have it or cannot count on it or imagines he doesn’t need it. He could ask his brothers, both veterans in this respect. That however might mean give-and-take, if we were to believe the notion that the brothers are bound by blood but not about vision.
India, meanwhile, is not happy, going by statements issued regarding the East Container Terminal. India cannot be happy about the ‘Chinese Footprint’ whose size was considerably expanded by the previous government by virtually handing over the Hambantota Port to China. India cannot be happy about energy projects given to the Chinese. India cannot be happy about the scheduled visit by Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan and MoUs that are said to be signed and/or renewed.
India speaks of Sri Lanka ‘reneging’ on an MoU. However, India forgets that MoUs are not exactly agreements, signed after crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s. They are by definition non-binding and amenable to change. Circumstances can change and changing circumstances have to be taken into account.
If an agreement causes political instability it would be foolish for a government to go ahead with it. If, prior to inking an agreement, one party (India in this case) stands with a country that seems hell bent on bullying Sri Lanka (the USA in this case), then it would be silly for that party to assume that the counterpart be oblivious to such developments. If one party has in the part ‘reneged’ (as India has with respect to the Indo-Lanka Accord which from the get-go was a product of shamelessness bullying and moreover was heavily slanted in India’s favor), then that party should be careful before using the word.
And on the subject of ‘foreign affairs,’ we have Dinesh Gunawardena claiming that Sri Lanka is not afraid of the soon to be tabled resolution in Geneva. There are 47 members in the Human Rights Council (HRC). The Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot be saying ‘the majority are with us.’ The brave words could probably mean ‘we expect this, we know the consequences, we know it’s the work of nations wallowing in a cesspool of bias, we know that they’re hinting at sanctions, we know what the UN itself has found out about the impact of sanctions in other countries, especially Venezuela in recent times, we know there’s talk of taking things to the General Assembly and then the Security Council, we know who our friends are and more importantly who our enemies are, and we know what it takes to secure sovereignty to the extent possible.’ Dinesh Gunawardena might not elaborate in the above manner. After all, he is required to be ‘diplomatic’ although he is not averse to calling a spade a spade. ‘Geneva’ is just over a week from now. A resolution is likely to be tabled. It is likely that it will be passed. Most importantly, it will show us what India’s ‘neighborhood first’ foreign policy is really about.
malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com.
Features
The Hegemon and his Henchman

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.
Features
Anura Bandaranaike was an exemplary and honourable leader

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)
Features
The US in a brave new world

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.
-
News7 days ago
Oracle Corporation pledges support for Sri Lanka’s digitalization
-
Sports4 days ago
Remarkable turnaround for Sri Lanka’s ODI team
-
Editorial7 days ago
Groping in the dark
-
Opinion7 days ago
Shortage of medicines: Senaka Bibile Policy is the solution
-
Opinion7 days ago
The passing of Sarjana Karunakaran
-
News5 days ago
Speaker agrees to probe allegations of ‘unethical funding’ by USAID
-
Business4 days ago
UN Global Compact Network Sri Lanka: Empowering Businesses to Lead Sustainability in 2025 & Beyond
-
Features4 days ago
Scammed and Stranded: The Dark Side of Sri Lanka’s Migration Industry