An era of ‘America First’

In his inaugural address, US President Donald Trump recently declared that “the golden age of America” was starting as he listed his priorities on trade, immigration, and national security. His previous presidency, which ended in 2021, left a profound mark on American domestic policies and global relations, especially through his ultra-nationalistic ‘America First’ doctrine. As he pursues re-election in 2024, the effects of his policies continue to influence both American politics and the global order, sparking ongoing debates about economic nationalism, immigration, trade, and America’s international role.

Economic Nationalism:

Protectionism and Trade Wars

A core component of Trump’s ultra-nationalistic agenda was his approach to trade, which aimed to reduce US dependence on foreign imports and rebalance trade relations. Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the renegotiation of NAFTA into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) reflected this goal. The new trade deal included provisions that favoured American workers and industries.

Trump’s trade war with China, marked by the imposition of tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods, aimed to protect American manufacturing and address trade imbalances. However, these tariffs disrupted global supply chains and strained relationships with key allies. Critics argued that the trade measures hurt American consumers and businesses reliant on imports, while supporters saw them as necessary steps to confront unfair trade practices.

Immigration Policies: Restrictionism

and Border Security

Trump’s ultra-nationalism was also evident in his strict immigration policies, which he justified as essential for national security and cultural preservation. His administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, which resulted in family separations at the southern border, sparked widespread outrage. The US-Mexico border wall became a symbol of his presidency, with Trump arguing that it would reduce illegal immigration and drug trafficking. However, its effectiveness remained a contentious issue.

Additionally, the travel ban restricting immigration from predominantly Muslim countries was seen by opponents as discriminatory and in conflict with American ideals of diversity and inclusion.

Foreign Policy: America

as a Lone Actor

Trump’s foreign policy emphasized America’s sovereignty over international cooperation, often adopting a more isolationist stance. He frequently criticized multinational organizations, such as NATO and the United Nations, accusing them of unfairly benefiting from American contributions. Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing that it disadvantaged American industries, and he also pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, opting for a more unilateral approach.

His administration’s focus on bilateral agreements over multilateral diplomacy continued his ‘America First’ stance, which sought to prioritize American interests over global cooperation.

Cultural Nationalism and

Populist Rhetoric

Trump’s rhetoric tapped into a cultural nationalism, emphasizing traditional American values and critiquing globalism. His message resonated with working-class Americans who felt left behind by globalization and demographic changes. However, his inflammatory language often exacerbated divisions within the US, particularly with minority groups.

Trump’s Legacy: Polarizing

but Persistent

Trump’s ultra-nationalistic policies were praised by supporters for their bold assertion of American sovereignty and self-reliance. Critics, however, argue that these policies eroded global cooperation and undermined America’s global leadership. Domestically, they were seen as deepening political polarization and neglecting the country’s multicultural identity.

While Trump’s previous presidency officially ended in 2021, his influence persists, especially as he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024. The ripple effects of his policies continue to reverberate across American politics and global relations, embodying both the promises and perils of his ‘America First’ agenda.

Economic Impact

Trump’s protectionist economic policies had a complex impact. While his tariffs on imports and tax cuts aimed to boost domestic production, they also disrupted global trade and raised costs for US businesses and consumers. His tax reforms, designed to stimulate growth, contributed to higher national debt without yielding substantial wage growth or long-term investment benefits. Trump’s stance also led to a decline in foreign direct investment (FDI) as global investors faced increased uncertainty.

Impact on Trade Partners

Trump’s trade policies reshaped relationships with countries like China, Mexico, Canada, and the European Union. The trade war with China, for instance, led to reduced exports and higher consumer costs. The renegotiated USMCA imposed stricter labour and environmental standards on Canada and Mexico, altering the competitiveness of industries in both countries. Meanwhile, tariffs imposed on European products disrupted the automotive and steel industries.

Impact on Developing Countries

For developing nations, which rely heavily on trade with the US, Trump’s policies increased trade barriers and disrupted global supply chains. Countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America faced challenges in maintaining access to the US market, which limited their economic growth potential. His withdrawal from multilateral agreements, like the TPP, further restricted trade opportunities for developing countries.

Direct Impacts on Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka, heavily dependent on exports to the US, saw the effects of Trump’s protectionist measures. Despite benefiting from tariff-free access, under the US Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), Sri Lankan exporters faced heightened uncertainty due to the renegotiation of trade agreements and the imposition of tariffs. Trump’s ‘America First’ strategy reduced demand for imports from developing countries like Sri Lanka, making it harder for industries such as textiles and apparel to thrive.

Additionally, Trump’s tax reforms, which incentivized US companies to repatriate profits, led to reduced foreign investment in Sri Lanka, particularly in sectors like tourism, manufacturing, and technology.

Indirect Impacts on Sri Lanka

The US-China trade war had a significant indirect impact on Sri Lanka’s economy, as China’s reduced access to the US market led to a decline in demand for Sri Lankan exports to Chinese industries. At the same time, the trade war disrupted global supply chains, affecting Sri Lanka’s participation in regional production networks. However, there were some positive effects, particularly in the apparel sector, where Sri Lanka briefly gained market share as American buyers sought alternatives to Chinese products.

Debt Sustainability and Dollar

Appreciation

Trump’s tax cuts and tariff measures contributed to the appreciation of the US dollar, which had adverse effects on Sri Lanka. The stronger dollar increased Sri Lanka’s dollar-denominated debt servicing costs, exacerbating fiscal deficits and limiting its ability to finance essential development projects. It also pushed up the cost of imports, leading to inflationary pressures on goods like fuel and food.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s reduced focus on South Asia and disengagement from multilateral organizations opened the door for China to expand its influence in the region, particularly through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Sri Lanka deepened economic ties with China, including major infrastructure projects, like the Colombo Port City and Hambantota Port, which increased Sri Lanka’s dependence on Chinese financing. Critics argue that this dependency undermines Sri Lanka’s policy autonomy.

Impact on Remittances

Sri Lanka’s reliance on remittances from overseas workers was also indirectly affected by Trump’s immigration policies. Stricter immigration restrictions and a reduced openness to foreign workers in countries like the US and the Gulf States led to fewer employment opportunities for Sri Lankan migrant workers, thereby impacting remittance inflows that are crucial to Sri Lanka’s economy.

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s ultra-nationalistic policies, which reshaped both American and global landscapes during his presidency, continue to reverberate in the 2024 election cycle. His ‘America First’ approach, while securing the support of a significant portion of the American electorate, has also sparked intense global debate over the trade-offs between national sovereignty and international cooperation. For nations like Sri Lanka, Trump’s protectionist trade measures, shifting geopolitical priorities, and tax reforms have had profound effects on exports, foreign investment, and economic stability. As Trump seeks a return to the White House, the legacy of his policies will remain a defining feature of American politics, global trade, and international relations, forcing nations to navigate the complexities of a world where economic nationalism increasingly dictates the rules of engagement.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). Views expressed in this article are personal. He can be contacted at saliya.a@slit.lk and www.researcher.com)

by Jehan Perera

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is showing the change for the better that a single individual can bring by challenging old ways of doing things by those who have traditionally governed the country.  According to the news media and first person accounts by reliable commentators contacted in Jaffna, the president’s visit to the Jaffna peninsula last week was a resounding success that is good for the unity of the country. It seems that the president timed his visit to the north in the context of forthcoming local government elections that are anticipated to be held in April.

The focus on Jaffna during his visit would have been the central place that Jaffna has as the civilisational seat of the Tamil people.  The president used the time he had allocated to Jaffna to pay his last respects to former parliamentarian and leader of ITAK (Federal Party) who had, for decades, been at the forefront of the Tamil struggle for regional self-government, devolution of power and equal rights.  He also had the confidence to go to Valvettithurai which was the birthplace of the late LTTE leader Velupillai Prabakaran and conduct a public meeting there.

 The president’s visit took place without the usual high security in which large numbers of soldiers would be placed at strategic locations not only in the areas that the president would be visiting but also on the approach roads to Jaffna.  Residents observed that the security presence appeared to be low in comparison to the past, when roads would be closed and security personnel stationed on a 24-hour basis on the roads in residential areas. The reduced level of security demonstrated the president’s trust in the goodwill of the people.  During his visit he mingled at close quarters with the people, being embraced and having his photographs taken with them.

 EVERYDAY FOCUS

 Addressing the people, President Dissanayake promised to bring development to Jaffna.  In the year prior to the onset of fierce fighting in Jaffna that destroyed its housing and factories, Jaffna had a handful of industries, chief amongst them being the salterns in Paranthan and the cement factory at Kankesanthurai.  The president pledged to rebuild these industries and to establish three new industrial zones in Paranthan, Mankulam, and Kankesanthurai to boost employment and economic growth. Sri Lankans who emigrated due to the war were invited to invest in these projects.

 The president also used the occasion of his visit to present an analysis of the reasons for the ethnic conflict the country had experienced.  He said that previous generations of politicians had used ethnic nationalism as a means to win elections and this had resulted in the division of people into different communities that did not trust each other.  However, the last general election that had brought the NPP to power had seen the people reject the traditional political leaders who came from elite families.  Instead, they had voted for the NPP regardless of ethnicity, religion or region.  The president pointed out that this was a new development.

 The general election in December last year saw the NPP win the majority of parliamentary seats in the north and east which have traditionally voted for Tamil political parties which take up an ethnic Tamil nationalist line.  The main issues they have canvassed have been Tamil equality and self-rule in the north and east.  However, those parties have never been able to deliver on the mandates they received at elections.  Some of the Tamil parties reached agreements with the ruling parties of those days, but were invariably let down.  The president’s focus on the everyday problems of the people would be important in inducing them to vote for the NPP at the forthcoming local government elections.

UNHRC RESOLUTION 

It is worth noting that President Dissanayake made a positive impact on the people of Jaffna even though he did not address the issues of Tamil nationalism and self-rule that have preoccupied them in the past.  The fact that the forthcoming elections are local level ones also reduces the significance of national issues.  Local government elections the world over are about local level issues rather than national ones.  In his public speeches the president spoke about providing jobs to unemployed university graduates from the 30,000 vacancies in state institutions.  He stated that Tamil speaking police officers would be recruited.  He also referred to improving the water supply schemes to the people of the north, making the observation that they had the lowest consumption of piped drinking water in the country

The president would be aware that whatever concession he makes to Tamil nationalism will be seized upon by his political opponents in the south of the country to fan Sinhalese nationalism. There are indications that the former ruling parties that got defeated at the last presidential and general elections are seeking to make a comeback by coalescing with one another. Their concern about the present political developments would have been increased by the president’s statements in Jaffna that the government would not permit the self-seeking traditional political elites to divide the people anymore and that they will be held accountable before the law for corruption they have engaged in.

 The president’s analysis in Jaffna that ethnic nationalism was used by rival political parties to obtain electoral support to prevail at elections is an accurate one.  However, the underlying issues that the ethnic nationalist politicians utilised to come to power need to be dealt with in a way that is mutually accepted by all communities.  Sri Lanka is still in a post-war situation where there is no more war. But the causes and consequences of the war still remain unresolved in the form of missing persons, long term prisoners, land that is under military occupation and the continuing high military presence in the north and east of the country.

Sri Lanka now needs to become a post-conflict society. This requires that the issues of the war that continue to unresolved be dealt with without further delay. This is what the UNHRC resolutions in Geneva that come up time and time again are about.  There have been 16 IMF agreements in the past but not a single government could implement them to the end. It appears that the present government is determined to go the course to get Sri Lanka onto a sound economic footing. In the case of the ethnic conflict there have been many political solutions proposed to politically resolve the ethnic conflict. But no government has had the strength or conviction to take them forward and ensure sustainable national unity.   Perhaps government led by President Dissanayake will.

by Sivamohan Sumathy

Long before MIT and Jeff Bezos (the latter reluctantly referred to here) had supposedly banned PowerPoint in the classroom or at meetings, I had banned its use in my classes. I wished to live and create a moment of life, and not entice death, death by PowerPoint; a macabre slide-show of misadventure. Its hero, protagonist, or villain, deadly boredom. It is about aliens, made up of quantum particles of ominous signs, bullets and slides, circles and squares, colours that light up on command. It has taken over your mind, got under your skin, and holds you not in a choke hold (too much excitement for PowerPoint), but brings about a paralysis of the body; sleep overtakes one, one slips into another world, while the presentation washes over you. Then you are in the torture chamber, trying to keep your eyes open, in an attempt to defeat death. There is an after-life, too. A day later, one cannot remember a single slide, a single bullet point, and a single idea. And there are no notes for you to look over, jog your memory, for the harbinger of death has offered to send you their PPP which has not happened yet, and when it does, the file is lying somewhere in your overcrowded email account. It is the first file to be deleted, for you cannot remember why it is there and what it is about.

An Ally: Les Back

In this epic drama against PPP, I have begun to look for the performative features of what we generally call the academic, in the singular, as an icon, a diva, and a visionary of the collective. And I discovered Les Back’s Academic Diary (London: Goldsmith University Press, 2016). Written in a Freirean mode, on the classroom and pedagogy, and on the multiple meanings that the term academic can conjure up, Academic Diary is a measured, undogmatic, pragmatic, nevertheless deeply political treatise on the life of the scholar and the academic, the classroom and pedagogical and academic practice. His own inspirations are those of the cultural materialist tradition, Hoggart, Bourdieu, Showalter, the much-loved Stuart Hall, Berger and others: socially grounded visionaries, and for the most part, Gramscian, who take class as a pronounced force in the analysis of pedagogy.

Back’s record for 5th November in the Autumn semester is titled: Death by PowerPoint. But if my approach to pedagogy in the classroom is that of a crusader, a performative of the Gramscian theoretic of the war of position (hiding in the trenches, biding one’s time, and striking at the enemy, PPP, in this instance, in a series of calculated negotiations), Back’s words are a reflection on it. Back’s is a more conciliatory and assuredly pedagogic one. His exposition is both theoretical and experiential. On the ill-uses of PPP, he is unequivocal: it’s death itself, isn’t it? He writes:

“The increasingly digitized forms of academic performance have a downside. The worst example I’ve witnessed was a conference in America, where a Sociologist merely read the content of his talk from the large shimmering screen.” Now, is this all too familiar to one? Back continues: “The presenter addressed the screen and had his back turned toward the audience.” It was as if he was worshipping it [the new gadget] as if it were an altar of new ideas.” Later Back says, “The ‘bullet point effect’ can produce a situation where presentations seem like a long series of lists, without much exposition. Complex arguments cannot be crafted through a series of quick-fire points at the click of a mouse.”

I am fair, and want to present his views on the dreaded PPP as accurately as possible. “PowerPoint offers more options to blend words, sound and vision and it is for this, it can be a major resource.” I have to disagree.

Death by PPP: the NASA episode

Death by PowerPoint, apparently, literally happened, in our objective world of truth and falsity. And it has to do with NASA. Chuckle, chuckle. In 2016, a PPP made by NASA engineers outlined the dangers attached to the re-entry of the space shuttle Columbia, which was in orbit for 16 days, and offered a few options for actions NASA could take to save the space shuttle and its crew. NASA’s managers did not understand the extent to which the dangers facing the space shuttle on re-entry were imminent; and all because of the way PPP was laid out. A “scientific” report on how and why tragedy struck the space shuttle and its crew of seven astronauts finds that the fault on the space shuttle reentering Earth’s stratosphere was identified by NASA’s technical team, but that it was not conveyed properly to NASA’s Managers, because of the use of PPP. The report’s concluding pronouncement is that:

“The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communication at NASA.” It couldn’t get more ridiculous than that. It is like a joke spun by a stand-up comedian. But then I saw a picture of the smiling faces of the crew taken, I assume, just before the launch of the shuttle. It is no joke.

If we are to live alongside PPP and its deadly flat earth bullet points, we must also reckon with our own frailty and fragility and as Dwivedi and Mohan, in their essay on the pandemic, “The Community of the Forsaken: A response to Agamben and Nancy” say, that in the “time of the human,” we have a shared sense of the word, the notion that we are “forsaken,” and “fragile” and that we are “precious.” This is the response that can save us. Relatedly, for me it is about confronting the fear of death, ah, well, by PowerPoint or a version of it, PPP on Zoom, through a shared sense of the word, our frailty and fragility.

PPP, Technology and our Fragility

In the early days of the lockdown as we in the university struggled with the unfamiliar technology of Zoom and even more unfamiliar techniques of teaching online, we were beginning a new year and a new semester. I had to teach a beginning critical theory class online, and I did not know how to do Freire on Zoom, to a class of students I hardly knew. I assign what I call a fun writing exercise on “Freire and the [shared] word,” that has to be accompanied by an image. It was the very first theory paper the students of that cohort wrote. Here is an extract of a student’s assignment, and the accompanying email they sent me, both reproduced here with permission.

“The 23-year-old is adamant that it is not even an option, what good were these assignments if one of us [in the family] got sick, if something were to happen to you … to be this powerless I hate it. She goes to work with her father and elder sister, the emails keep coming … The students commenting and submitting their work … irrationally angry at the world and at everyone but having to appear cheerful so as not to worry anyone. The 23-year-old regrets her decision of ever joining University … she should have just found a job with a good salary … my parents could have stayed at home safe without having to work … The mental strain just keeps adding up … please issue the curfew once more at least then I will know my family would be safe. Or, put down the entire island’s network connection. Hiding the worries, she puts up a carefree, cheerful front, “Who cares about assignments I’ll just submit something I don’t care”

Later concluding her essay on “Freire and the Shared Word,” she writes,

“I did not want to alter this piece much, mostly because I think the original piece was able to better capture what I was feeling during that time. Given the fact that we had to write this with Freire’s view of the shared word I do not want to bring in other theories because in trying to incorporate them I fear I would change the course of what I tried to initially say. I would instead like to place emphasis on the evolution of my understanding of the theories discussed in this course using this piece as a starting point. I would however include an image, which in a certain sense is related to the above, where I portrayed my helplessness. It is my intention to express a very personal emotion through this image, where I am confined by my helplessness and I feel the walls closing in.” (See image)

Public Domain

Later, she sends me a link to a song with the accompanying note on email.

“Thanks Ma’am. To be honest, I’m having trouble finding a suitable image. I was hoping to capture either the idea of a home or loneliness but so far, I could not find something genuine enough. Instead I have attached a song, which as cliché as it sounds, expresses some of my own turmoil. It is called Karuppu Vellai. The music is a bit heavy, and you could say it is an acquired taste. But the meaning is quite interesting. I apologize in advance for the heavy rock music but I feel this brings out the emotions better.”

Both teacher and student struggle to co-exist within and against the civilizational threat even as we try to grapple with a shared sense of fragility, a shared sense that we are forsaken and that we are precious, in a series of negotiations that are not necessarily exploitative or authoritarian, but only just. “Word, Sound, Vision” encode each other, as Les Back says in our strategies against death, even death by PPP.

Karuppu Vellai

: https://youtu.be/4AYAcFcFu84?si=-TWbzoRcNKZEozHd

(Sivamohan Sumathy is attached to the Department of English at the University of Peradeniya)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies