Columns

The recent decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has sent shockwaves across the globe. Declaring the agency corrupt and a waste of taxpayer funds, Trump’s order has been met with a mix of approval, condemnation, and deep scrutiny. The move, executed under the supervision of his close aide Elon Musk, has sparked discussions on both the intent and the consequences of such an action. As world leaders, political analysts, and citizens deliberate on the implications, it is evident that this decision has far-reaching effects, not only in the United States but also in regions that have been long-time beneficiaries of USAID assistance.  

Global reactions and interpretations

The dismantling of USAID has been perceived in different ways by various segments of society. For some, it is an overdue correction of an agency that allegedly worked to destabilise regimes under the guise of aid. For others, it is seen as an opportunity to discredit political opponents by insinuating that they were beneficiaries of USAID’s funds.

One such reaction came from Sri Lankan politician Namal Rajapaksa, who called for the appointment of a parliamentary select committee to probe the use of USAID funds in Sri Lanka. In his statement, Rajapaksa commended Trump’s policy of non-interference and emphasised the importance of transparency in the allocation of U.S. taxpayer funds.

According to a media report Namal Rajapaksa stated: “We commend the non-interference foreign policy upheld by US President Donald Trump and his call for greater transparency in the use of taxpayer funds.” According to him he had proposed the Select Committee to investigate the use of USAID funds by both registered and unregistered NGOs in Sri Lanka, with a focus on ensuring transparency in the allocation of US taxpayer resources.

It is rather ironic that the SLPP Parliamentarian is endeavouring to ensure transparency in the allocation of US taxpayer resources when his own SLPP Government has been heavily criticised for mismanaging Sri Lankan taxpayer resources.

The irony of non-interference claims

Namal Rajapaksa’s praise for Trump’s “non-interference” policy does not take into account Trump’s actions on the global stage. Trump’s administration’s unilateral move to take over and rebuild the Gaza Strip after relocating Palestinians raises doubts about the consistency and sincerity of the so-called non-interference doctrine.

Executive power and lessons for Sri Lanka

From a Sri Lankan perspective, Trump’s unilateral decision to shut down USAID demonstrates the immense power vested in an executive presidency. The ability of a single individual to dismantle an agency with global influence underscores the dangers of concentrating excessive power in the hands of one leader. Sri Lanka itself has been grappling with the consequences of an executive presidency, which many believe should be abolished to prevent arbitrary and far-reaching decisions made without proper consultation. If USAID had indeed been working against U.S. interests for decades, it is a damning indictment of the lack of oversight inherent in the executive system of governance.

Aid and the question of national interests

The debate over USAID’s effectiveness and alignment with U.S. interests is a matter for American citizens to resolve. However, a key lesson from this episode is that recipient nations must carefully evaluate the nature of foreign assistance. Countries should not accept aid that does not align with their objectives or national values. A notable example is USAID’s initiative to train journalists in Sri Lanka in using non-binary language in LGBTQ+ matters, which sparked controversy as it clashed with the cultural and societal norms of the country. This underscores the importance of scrutinising foreign aid to ensure it aligns with national interests and values.

Elon Musk’s role and a shift in diplomacy

The involvement of Elon Musk in overseeing the dismantling of USAID, as well as his presence at high-profile meetings with Trump and global leaders like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi along with his family members raises questions about the nature of governance under the Trump administration. Musk’s manner of participation with even small children in attendance where serious matters including those of a confidential nature are discussed suggests a casual approach to governance rather than a serious structured engagement. The implications of such a relaxed approach to serious governmental affairs warrant further analysis, especially when dealing with confidential and strategic matters.

Trump’s contradictions in foreign policy

Trump’s foreign policy stance is riddled with contradictions. While he asserts that his priority is to “Make America Great Again” and avoid unnecessary foreign wars, his actions suggest otherwise. His interest in taking over Gaza and buying Greenland, along with his proposal to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America showcases a unilateral approach to international relations that contradicts his stated goal of non-intervention. These inconsistencies further complicate America’s global image and raise concerns about the true motivations behind his decisions.

Conclusion

The closure of USAID marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, with varying implications across the globe. While Trump’s decision is seen by some as a move toward greater fiscal accountability, others perceive it as a strategic manoeuvre to reshape global influence.

The response in some quarters of Sri Lanka highlights the irony of condemning foreign aid while failing to address domestic mismanagement of resources. The concentration of executive power in making such decisions also serves as a cautionary tale for nations like Sri Lanka that seek to reform their governance structures. Ultimately, the dismantling of USAID raises broader questions about the role of foreign assistance, national sovereignty, the balance of power in global governance and indeed the concentration of excessive power in one individual occupying an all powerful office, namely, the Executive Presidency.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)