Connect with us

Features

Donald Trump’s second tenure and the US’ ‘democratic health’

Published

on

Donald Trump acknowledging the cheers of his supporters. Credit: REUTERS

It ought to be an hour of soul-searching for those sections of the US electorate that voted Donald Trump to the position of US President for the second time. Primarily, does it sit easy on their consciences that their President-elect has a past criminal record?

Are they comfortable with the fact that he tried to wreck their country’s democratic process by seeking to overturn the presidential electoral verdict that brought Joe Biden to the pinnacle of governance in ‘the world’s mightiest democracy’ in 2020?

These are merely two of the most basic questions that Trump supporters need to ideally address. The US is far from being the proverbial ‘beacon of light’ for the rest of the world in quite a few respects but from the viewpoint of democratic development the US has thus far been considered foremost.

It follows that what the US does with its democracy, given this reputation, has an impact on the rest of the democratic world. Bad examples ‘from the top’ at whatever level or sphere tend to have a strong ‘copycat’ effect. That’s the troubling prospect for the admirers of the US in general and for Trump supporters in particular.

It was in Donald Trump’s narrow interests to get back to power. For some time at least it would ensure a spell of relative security for himself from the numerous lawsuits which were brought against him and their troubling legal consequences. It would also enable him to continue with his financial empire-building and ensure the seeming consolidation of what has come to be labelled as the ‘free enterprise system’ in the US. But what’s in Trump’s comeback for his supporters? Particularly those supporters who tried to savage the presidential election result of 2020? How do they stand to gain from their electoral decision?

Right now, if these rank-and-file Trump supporters believe that their personal lot would be any better under Trump, they are in for a huge disappointment. The fact is that inflation and related economic hardships would not only continue to plague them but would worsen in the future since Trump has announced no-holds-barred trade wars between the US and the foremost of economic powers, such as China.

For that matter how could any economy hope to be in one piece by having troubled economic links with China, the world’s second most vibrant economy and the world’s number one exporter of goods and services? Right now, there is no country that is not dependent to some degree on Chinese goods. Apparently, Trump supporters have bitten off more than they could chew by depending on some kind of ‘Trump magic’ to deliver them from their economic woes.

Besides, are die-hard Trump supporters expecting the US to be the number one world power indefinitely? Right now, the US is the foremost power alright but this position is not going unchallenged. There is of course China to consider. There is also the fact that India is fast catching up on both these powers. It wouldn’t be too long before India would prove no easy ‘push-over’ for the rest of the world’s foremost powers.

India’s current achievements in science and technology speak for themselves. Besides, India is the US’ topmost trading partner. China has been elbowed out of contention in this respect. For example, it is reported that India’s bilateral trade with the US would ‘cross the $ 200 billion mark in 2024 from $ 195 billion in 2023.’ Accordingly, international economic realities are increasing in complexity.

It would be foolish on the part of any section to think in simplistic terms on these questions. It would smack of naivety, for instance, to see the US’ seeming economic supremacy going indefinitely unchallenged. As matters stand, international economics would primarily drive international politics.

Considering even only the foregoing it seems that considerable sections of Trump supporters thought naively when they voted Trump back to power. Apparently, they fell for Trump’s rhetorical claims of the kind that the US would be made ‘number one’ in the world once again. Apparently, rationality was not their strong point.

But these supporters could not be judged harshly. An economically battered people easily fall for election platform rhetoric. This has time again been proved even in Small Sri Lanka; once described as South Asia’s ‘five star’ democracy.

Even on the foreign relations front, there are complex realities that the average US voter needs to ponder over. The Middle East is where a Trump administration’s foreign policy sagacity would be tested most. In that ‘powder keg’ region a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is believed to be taking shape, but much give-and-take between the warring sides is called for.

Getting the hostages back is compulsory for both sides but there needs to be a guarantee that there would be no reversion to bloodshed and contention once this is done. Right now, it is open to question whether the incoming Trump administration could provide this ironclad guarantee.

To begin with, Trump would need to get tough with the Netanyahu regime and the political right supporting it. Since the Trump administration is itself backed by the extreme political right on the domestic front and is hand-in-glove with religious fundamentalist opinion in the US, it is doubtful whether Trump could deliver a durable peace in the Middle East.

It ought to be equally thought-provoking for the impartial commentator that considerable sections of Trump supporters apparently allowed themselves to be carried away by his racist slogans. Illegal migration is a major issue in US politics and there need to be legal ways to manage the crisis, but a successful democracy stands or falls by the way it treats its minority communities.

Considering the foregoing what one could gather is that the majority of Trump supporters were egged-on by emotion rather than reason when they opted to vote for him. It ought to have been clear to them that there are no quick-fixes for the ‘foreigner presence’ in their midst.

For instance, they ought to have seen that to act heavy-handedly towards ‘foreigners’ was tantamount to vitiating the values of tolerance and fair treatment which are central to the democratic ethos, which hitherto have been considered a defining essence of US governance.

However, Trump appealed to the gut emotions of his hardline supporters when he claimed, for instance, that the US public needed to protect their pets from migrants. The implication was that the latter were indiscreet flesh eaters. Such claims would have undoubtedly turned credulous sections in the US against migrants and compelled them to see in Trump a savior of sorts. Thus, Trump’s incendiary rhetoric translated into votes.

However, the upshot of these developments and more was that the democratic system in the US was exposed as vulnerable to rabble-rousing presidential contenders. The democratic vibrancy or ‘health’ of US governance has thus come into question. It’s an issue the US polity needs to address urgently.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Rohingya question and states’ international obligations

Published

on

A boat load of Rohingyas rescued off MullaitIvu

The presence of Rohingya refugees in Sri Lanka has prompted sections in the South of the country to raise some concerns in connection with it but The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka’s (THRCSL) recent report on the issue, if received and read in a spirit of reconciliation and humanity, should put their minds at ease.

To be sure, there is considerable substance in the objections and worries of the relevant Southern quarters but the majority of the refugees in question need to be seen as victims of complex political circumstances in their countries of origin over which they do not have any control.

Those Rohingyas who are now literally adrift in the seas of South Asia and beyond, are strictly speaking stateless. Most of them are escaping endemic political turmoil and runaway lawlessness in the Rakhine state of Mynamar and the spillover of such tensions into the Myanmar-Bangladesh border and beyond.

There has been playing out in the Rakhine region over the decades a Rohingya armed struggle for autonomy but the majority of the Rohingyas are not in any way supportive of this armed struggle which is an expression of the Rohingyas’ awareness of their separate identity as a community, although they possess a wider Muslim identity as well.

But there has been an influx of Rohingya refugees to several neighbouring countries from this conflict, including very significantly Bangladesh, and this has been triggering concerns among the wider publics in those states which are compelled to manage the Rohingya refugee presence amid economic pressures of their own.

The problems arising from the Rohingya refugee presence have been compounded by the rise of Islamic militancy in South Asia and the tendency among some of these militant groups to exploit this presence for the propagation of their causes.

However, this does not take away from the fact that the majority of Rohingyas are helpless victims of circumstance. They are caught up in the metaphorical ‘exchange of fire’ between mutually suspicious states that are compelled to contend with issues growing out of the rise of Islamic militancy. But for the majority of Rohingyas such endemic conflicts among states translate into displacement, statelessness and growing powerlessness.

For an enlightened understanding of what states need to do in connection with the refugee crisis and connected questions it would be necessary to read the THRCSL report above mentioned. States that are members of the UN family are obliged to ratify and implement a number of conventions related to refugees and the THRCSL mentions some of these. They are: The 1951 Convention on Refugees; 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons; 1961 Convention on the Reduction of the Stateless and the Rights of Refugees and Stateless Persons within Sri Lanka.

If Sri Lanka and other countries facing a refugee influx have not adopted these laws they would need to do so without further delay if they are opting to remain within the UN fold. In this connection, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be seen to be of fundamental importance. The Declaration is the fountainhead, so to speak, of international humanitarian law and UN members states have no choice but to adhere to it.

Contentious issues are likely to grow out of the implementation part of the mentioned conventions but it is best that signatory states take up these matters with the relevant key agencies of the UN rather than grouch over matters that surface from their inalienable obligations towards the stateless and homeless.

It was encouraging to note a Southern group in Sri Lanka mentioning that the Lankan government should draw the attention of the UNHRC to the fact that the state is not a signatory to some of the mentioned refugee conventions. This is the way to go. A dialogue process with the UNHRC, which does not happen to be very popular in Sri Lanka, on such issues would perhaps throw up fresh insights on Sri Lanka’s obligations on refugee issues that may then convince the state to sign and ratify the conventions concerned.

There needs to be a flourishing of such positive approaches to meeting Sri Lanka’s obligations as a UN member state. The present most unhappy existence of being a UN member state and not implementing attendant obligations needs to end if Sri Lanka is not to be accused of ‘double speak’ and ‘double think’.

Meanwhile, identity politics and connected problems are bound to remain in South Asia and bedevil all efforts by states of the region to see eye-to-eye on issues such as the stateless. The yawning ‘democratic deficit’ in South Asia continues to be a formidable challenge.

But all efforts should be made to reduce this deficit through collaborative efforts among the concerned states. This is so because increasing democratization of states remains the most effective means of making identity politics irrelevant and the latter is a primary cause for the break-up of states, which process throws-up troubling consequences, such as statelessness and refugees.

Fresh initiatives need to be undertaken by the ‘South Asian Eight’ to end the continuing ‘Cold War’-type situation between India and Pakistan, since they hold the key to re-activating SAARC and making it workable once again. It ought to be plain to see that it is only the SAARC spirit that could help in ushering a degree of solidarity in South Asia which could go some distance in resolving issues growing out of nation-breaking.

Once again, South-South cooperation should be seen as a compelling necessity. If vital sections of the South come to this realization and recognize the need for such intra-regional cooperation, the coming back to power of Donald Trump could be considered as having yielded some good, though in a highly negative way. Because Trump has made it all too plain that he would not be considering it obligatory on the part of the US to help ease the lot of the South any more.

The South would have no choice but to fall back on strategies of self-reliance. No doubt, this situation would accrue to the benefit of the world’s powerless. Self-reliance is the best option and the only key to unravelling external shackles that bind the South to the North.

Meanwhile, those sections of Southern Sri Lanka that are tending to cheer Trump on need to put the brakes on any such idle distractions. The message that Trump has for the world is one of division and strife. By rolling back almost all the progressive ventures that have come out of Washington over the years, Trump is plunging the world into further ‘disorder’. The international community needs to brace for stepped-up nation-breaking.

Continue Reading

Features

Effective and non-effective methods for mitigating human-elephant conflict

Published

on

Villagers living in fear of wild elephants. (File photo)

by Tharindu Muthukumarana
tharinduele@gmail.com

(Author of the award-winning book “The Life of Last Proboscideans: Elephants”)

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.

-Albert Einstein

When we examine the records of funds spent in the years beforehand to mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC), it is evident that the expenditure has been growing. For example, in 2010, USD $505,001 was spent, but in 2018, USD $1,068,021 was spent. So, this shows that expenditure had been over double within a period of less than one decade. But in the same way, the HEC had always been rising throughout the years. So, what went wrong? The answer is that the funds were expended mostly on ineffective mitigating strategies rather than effective mitigating approaches. Henceforth, let’s look at a glimpse of what are the non-effective methods and effective methods.

Non-effective methods Translocation

Elephant translocation involves capturing elephants from one place and moving them to a safer environment. Sri Lanka had done this for many decades. One of the earliest translocations occurred in 1979, when 10 elephants were relocated from Deduru Oya to Wilpattu National Park (NP). So, it was a new experience for the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), and they even had to get a foreign veterinary surgeon named Dr. Ian Hoffmeyr from Etosha NP in Namibia to sedate the elephants.

Unfortunately, radio tracking collars were not put on those elephants to monitor updates of those elephants. So, ultimately what happened was that those translocated elephants’ status never got documented. However, in recent translocations, the GPS tracking collars were fixed on them and have given accurate updates on their whereabouts. According to those data, 3 conclusions are probable: (i) The translocated elephant got killed in the new home. (ii) Left the new home and returned to the initial home. (iii) created conflict with neighbouring villagers in the new home.

As for example, in 2007, a tusker named Ravana that was crop raiding in Anuradhapura got translocated to Udawalawe NP. He then got into conflict with neighbouring villages of Handapanagala, Aluthwewa, and Buttala. Due to this, Ravana got shot in the leg, and as a result, Ravana got re-translocated to Lunugamvehera NP. Again, Ravana raided crops on leased land in the park, and a few months later, Ravana got shot in the jaw and had an agonising death after suffering for a few days.

Another tragic event happened when a young bull elephant named Homey that frequently foraged at a garbage dump in Hambantota got translocated to Yala NP Block II, which took a journey of 75 km. Within a few days, Homey was back at the garbage dump. Astonishingly, when data from the collar was downloaded, it was shown that the route Homey took to return contrasted with the route Homey was taken. For the second time, Homey was translocated to Udawalawe NP, but as time passed by, he created conflict with neighbouring villages. Subsequently, Homey left the park and again returned to the garbage dump. For the third time, Homey got translocated to Maduruoya NP, almost 300 km away from Hambantota. At times, Homey tried to come back to the garbage dump but was unsuccessful due to compact human settlements. So, he continued to stay at Maduruoya but started to create conflict with neighbouring villages. This resulted in him getting shot frequently. One day he got shot in the head and died in a paddy field.

Elephant Drives

Elephant drives involve chasing elephants from one area to another area, and for this, firecrackers or thunder flashes would be used. This procedure can take days to get completed. These drives had happened as early as the 1970s, and the latest to be 2024. From a scientific perspective, the decades of elephant drives that have been done are one of the key reasons for Sri Lanka having the highest level of HEC in the world. Records have clearly shown that after an elephant drive, some or all driven elephants returned. Also, in every location where elephant drives took place, HEC still persists. In many cases, the problem-causing males don’t get driven because those males usually avoid it. Instead, non-problem-causing female elephants get driven. In such incidents, after those driven elephants got enclosed in a restricted home range, those elephants did face starvation and malnourishment that eventually made them die. For this, there are examples coming from Lunugamvehera NP and Yala NP.

Removing the problem elephants

Removing problem elephants could be done in two ways: one is domestication and the other is culling. Such acts can enhance the risk for elephants’ extinction. Problem elephants are usually male elephants, and elephants that raid crops are risk takers. Emerging research shows that risk-taking behaviour contributes highly to their reproductive success. So, if such elephants are removed from the gene pool, it weakens the elephant population.

In modern days, there is a popular misconception that the elephant population has risen, and it is immoderate. In fact, scientifically, there is no way to explain whether the elephant population has risen or plummeted. Because the first legitimate elephant census was done in 2011. Before 2011, elephant population numbers were given as guesses or estimations. After 2011, last year an elephant census was done, but still the results haven’t been published. There are many who think that the elephant population has increased because, around the country, there are places where locals are newly experiencing HEC. This happened because of habitat loss and the blocking of elephant corridors that occurred due to poor development planning done by various governments. So, as a result of it, new places experience HEC.

Still, the Sri Lankan elephant is classified as “Endangered” by the IUCN Red List due to its high risk of extinction and declining population. Also, we must remember that though culling or capturing of elephants is not done, yet annually, in the last few years, over 350 elephants have died due to HEC. This is only the documented data, and the undocumented figure can give a higher value. A mother elephant usually gives birth to a single calf with a two-year gestation period. They have 4-5 years of interval until the next calf is born. Females become less fertile after 40 years. In Sri Lanka only 6,000 elephants are left. So, such a high mortality rate due to HEC is critical.

Biofencing and Geological Barriers

A victim of the human-elephant conflict

Palmyra Palm fencing: This involves planting palmyra trees (Borassus) as a fence to restrict elephants’ movements. Though it has some positive effects, practically there are problems to call it a solution. This project is expected to take a longer time to achieve its anticipated outcomes and could take even a decade. Even so, the germination rate is lower, and by any chance, if at least one tree fails to grow, the fence becomes ineffective.

Thorny plant fencing: Plants such as agave, cacti, and bougainvillaea had been used to deter elephants, but those had been unsuccessful because of elephants’ thick skin. Besides, elephants even feed on thorny plants such as Acacia eburnean that have sharp thorns that can grow up to 1 inch.

Beehive fencing: The fence is erected at chest height with beehives fixed to it and spaced every ten meters. This method had high success in deterring crop-raiding elephants in Africa. In addition, the produce from hives provided economic benefits to farmers. This project was introduced by Save the Elephants Organisation (SEO). From 2014-2019 SEO collaborated with the Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society (SLWCS) to do a pilot project in Wasgamuwa. Unfortunately, results showed it was ineffective due to the reason that African honey bees (Apes mellifera scutellata) and Asian honey bees (Apes cerana indica) behaviour contrasts. Asian bees cannot scare away elephants, and those bees are not active at nighttime.

Trenches: Soil erosion had made trenches ineffective, and also the construction and maintenance cost is very expensive. According to past experiences, it had impeded wildlife movement, and a lot of other smaller animals had died after falling to them. Also, there is a potential of hydrological impacts that would have a negative effect on villages.

Effective methods

Before touching this topic, it is important to mention that the strategies put forward here are science-based projects, and these projects had been put into experiment as pilot projects with successful results. The villagers state that after the implementation of the project, HEC had been solved or mitigated. These projects had been done by the Centre for Conservation and Research and SLWCS.

According to research, it has been proved that the electric fence is the most effective to deter elephants. But it depends where the electric fence is erected. If it is erected in the boundary of a protected area, it can be ineffective, but instead, if it is erected at the border between elephant habitat and human-use areas, it can be successful. This is what is called community-based electric fencing and proved to be successful in mitigating HEC.

Another method is the paddy-field electric fences. These fences are installed seasonally. During cultivation the fences are installed, and during harvest the fence is removed and stored in their houses until the following crop season. So, during the fallow periods, elephants would forage the leftover harvest and other vegetation. By 2020, approximately 50 village electric fences and 25 paddy-field electric fences were active in the Kurunegala, Hambantota, Trincomalee, and Anuradhapura districts for up to 12 years. Feedback from the villagers is positive.

It needs to be mentioned that in 2020 a National Action Plan for the Mitigation of HEC was made by a committee of wildlife experts. Strategies included in the National Action Plan were chosen based on their demonstrated effectiveness, capacity to be executed on a suitable geographic and temporal scale, and cost-effectiveness. Stakeholder discussions were performed with the public and relevant agencies, and their feedback was integrated into the Action Plan as needed. So, if that action plan gets implemented, HEC could be mitigated!

Continue Reading

Features

Congratulations…and celebrations

Published

on

Twenty-one years in the news, in Toronto, Canada, and that certainly calls for big time celebrations!

Dirk Tissera, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of The Sri Lanka Anchorman, is working on making it a big scene.

He says the 21st Anniversary celebrations will take the form of a gala dinner dance, scheduled for Friday, 30th May, 2025, in Toronto, Canada, adding that there would be plenty of surprises!

In fact, The Sri Lankan Anchorman’s 20th Anniversary, ‘A Night To Remember,’ held on 31 May, 2024, at the J&J Convention Centre, in Toronto, turned out to a resounding success.

Dirk mentioned that last year’s event was sold out long before the scheduled date.

“We generally work on our anniversary celebrations months in advance to ensure that the audience got their monies worth, and there was plenty of variety in the music we provided last year, led by veteran singer, the legendary Fahmy Nazick, along with the band Déjà Vu, guest singer Cherry Deluna, and DJ Chami.

What is special about The Sri Lanka Anchorman, a tabloid newspaper, is its wide and varied content which Sri Lankan-Canadians eagerly look forward to reading.

In fact, Dirk Tissera received a top Toronto press award from the National Ethnic Press & Media Council of Canada (NEPMCC) for excellence in editorial content and visual presentation.

An old boy of St. Mary’s College, Dehiwela, he had his early grooming, in journalism, right here, in Colombo, and then moved to Canada, and is now based in Toronto.

Dirk Tissera is efficiently supported by his wife Michelle in the publication of The Sri Lanka Anchorman.

Continue Reading

Trending