Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts

17 June 2026

Umble Pie Days in Washington and Tel Aviv

 

Trees have roots. Rivers have sources. So too, phrases. Just the other day, reflecting on the before and continuing ‘after’ of the illegal, unjustified and genocidal attacks carried out against Iran by the world’s worst rogue state combo, USA-Israel, and of course the impending war-ending peace accord or at least many of the drafts circulating these days, the term ‘eat humble pie’ came to mind.

Why, though?

Well, there was a ‘status,’ let’s say, before the two-idiot-circus of Trump and Netanyahu launched attacks on Iran, in the midst of negotiations by the way. Also, by the way, this was the second time within a year that these jokers got their rocks off while talking. Now, more than three months later, the deal that might be inked soon, essentially reverts to that status quo apart from the unfreezing of Iranian assets, some rebuilding-compensation and a pledge to talk about nuclear capabilities. A defeat for the clowns, but not necessarily a victory for Iran, simply on account of the massive damage inflicted on infrastructure and the loss of thousands of lives.

One day the buffoons may be tried for genocide and other crimes against humanity, but I wouldn’t bet on it; not in a world where the big decision makers have each others’ backs.

All that is ‘aside,’ now. The moment ‘humble pie’ came to mind, I wondered where it came from? Well, in my case, I’ve heard it often enough to know what it means, but this was the first time I was curious about its origins. And I couldn’t stop laughing.

Apparently, it is sourced to a medieval dish called ‘umble pie.’ That’s so long ago that the spell-checker doesn’t know of it. I typed the word and it was auto-corrected to ‘humble.’ ‘Umble,’ ladies and gentlemen, was originally, ‘numbles,’ and that was the Middle English word for deer offal.

‘Offal,’ as we know, refers to the internal organs of a butchered animal. Such parts are considered to be inedible, but that’s a class thing which we will get to later on. That term comes from another Middle English word, ‘offall,’ i.e., ‘that which falls off during the butchering process.’

Anyway, ‘umble pie’ was considered cheap, low-class food served to and consumed by servants and peasants. The rich and the noble got the prime cuts. Class-relations are in a sense butchering processes, and the butchered, metaphorically, have to make do, typically, with the scraps, the fallen-offs, that which the butchers considered ‘inedible’ simply because they weren’t ‘prime cuts.’

So how did it bleed into ‘humble pie’? The phonetic shift, I learned, was caused by the frequently dropped ‘h’ sound. There are lots of words beginning with that letter but where the aspirate is unvoiced. It was a clever shift, then, to add the ‘h’ to ‘umble.’ And so, to eat humble pie, would mean that the high and mighty had to forgo the ribeye, tenderloin, drip steak, t-bone etc., and make do with what the lower classes could afford. In other words, internal organs and extremities such as feet and tail. A come down, certainly, although there are delicacies turned out by such body parts which, I am willing to wager, were concocted by creative culinary artists of ‘the underclasses.’

The idiom apparently was in currency by the early 19th century when the phrase was linked to (unwished for) humility. Today, it refers to the condition of being forced to admit or found to have erred or forced to back down following boats. Eating one’s words; that’s another way to put it.

Of course Donald Trump does that a lot. So often, in fact, that his words have become a veritable staple. But this is no joke. Donal Trump, agent and voice of Ugly America and the worst version of Uncle Sam, stamped his feet, screamed his lungs out, mumbled precious nothings, uttered falsehood that have added the term ‘Trumpism’ to the dictum ‘there are lies, damned lies and statistics,’ and is now gulping down loads and loads of ‘inedible’ innards.

It is a pitiful ‘sight’ and an embarrassment to the good people of the United States of America (and of course Israel) whose voices have been drowned by the media-shouts of two maniacs. Then again, perhaps this ‘noise before defeat’ is a sign of turn-around and good things to come.

Trump and Netanyahu will not recognise defeat if it hits them between their respective sets of eyes. ‘Where were you before and where are you now?’ Is a question they will not suffer to answer. They will take lower-order meat cuts, cook them up, lavishly drown them in exotic spices, and claim or at least believe, that they are consuming prime cuts.

Just imagine the likes of Donald Trump, Bibi Netanyahu, J D Vance, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard sitting at a table picking at the boiled entrails of some unfortunate animal, with pepper and salt as the only available condiments. There you have it. Umble Pie. 

08 April 2026

American civilisation and its discontents

A bit of civilization might do them good

I can’t help but think that anyone who wishes to end a civilisation has to be uncivilised and incapable of creating even the building blocks of civilisation. But then again, it is fascinating is it not that the makers of the English language or rather the inheritors of that language who elevated it to mother-tongue status are the most confused about the meaning of certain words?

Just the other day, a UK lawmaker castigated Iran for ‘being reckless.’ Reckless. Remember the word. The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (OLD) defines the word as follows: ‘an adjective describing behaviour that shows a lack of care about danger and the possible, often harmful, results of your actions. It implies acting rashly without thinking about consequences.’ A revised version of that dictionary may one day add a synonym: trump. As in ‘Donald’.

Oh yes, bibi, bibi netanyahu, benjamin netanyahu, netanyahu and zionism could work too (the lower case is deliberate and in line with standard style for abstract nouns). They can be thus elevated because what they have done, do and will probably continue to do, ironically, is not at all abstract. Not abstruse, not hypothetical, not unreal. Real. Clear.

Need we elaborate? No!

What would constitute ‘the end of (a) civilisation’? First, what constitutes ‘civilisation’? Let’s ask the OLD. OLD says, ‘a state of human society that is very developed and organised.’ OLD also offers: ‘a society, its culture and its way of life during a particular period of time or in a particular part of the world.’

So, if anyone threatens to end a civilisation as per the OLD definitions, it’s a declaration of genocidal intent. Genocidal intent rehearsed (as in pilot-project, let’s say) from Day One of the attacks on Iran by trump and bibi (yes, lower case, for we need to rehearse these abstract-nouns-to-be, although this does not strictly conform to grammar rules; but then again let’s say ‘poetic license’ and leave it at that), we must point out.

America of the United States. Is it a ‘civilisation’? It’s certainly a human society. It is developed, as per the dominant paradigm of development, one could argue. Organised, yes, although it’s organised subjugation, mind-control, land-theft, resource-extraction etc., in the USA and elsewhere. It is a society, yes. Fractured, violent, racist, exploitative and such, but yes, a society nevertheless. Its culture is perhaps more in flux than most societies, but the transformations of culture and constant remixing could, in sum, deserve the term. It has many ways of life (and death as well; think KKK, BLM and the many genocidal wars launched over the last two centuries).

It does exist in a particular part of this world. It exists, moreover, in this moment in time. Two hundred years is not ‘old’ in civilisational terms. Two hundred years of expansion by way of land theft, invasion and purchase wouldn’t make ‘civilisation’ a pretty word, but let’s be generous. It’s a civilisation. Of sorts. Let’s say.

But trump? Is he civilised? A pathological liar accused of being a pedophile and who abused the powers of his office to trip relevant investigations, this man (and his partner in many crimes, bibi) twice attacked Iran in the middle of negotiations. He bombed or sanctioned (and hurrahed) the bombing of dozens of schools, hospitals and other civilian facilities, killing over 2000 people including children, the elderly and sick because he wanted to prevent Iran from retaliating to bombing. Would that be the talk of a civilised human being or a deranged egotist?

And he wants to end a civilisation. Didn’t happen and probably will not happen, but that intent to destroy is fascinating isn’t it? Envy is a powerful motive, but he is way too full of himself to envy anyone. In fact it’s the opposite that’s true. Contempt. His speeches are full of derogatory and racist epithets.

Enough. The man is uncivilised, even though the BBC, CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera and other media outfits don’t dare say it. Maybe they should check the OLD and check whether their media practices conform to the definition offered therein for ‘civilisation,’ ‘civilised,’ ‘civil,’ ‘civility’ etc. Also, genocide, ethics, principle and other such lovely words, while they are at it.

But enough. We know this POTUS (President of the United States) well enough.

But what of the people of the USA who make that dysfunctional society that has so much potential to build a great nation or at least one that deserves to stand with the civilised world? What of them? What has all this done to their signature and its civilisational potential?

The aforementioned media outfits don’t (dare?) report on what the people of the USA have to say. Nothing of the massive and indignant protests against the bloody adventurism of their president. But those people are alive. If America of the United States is a country that aspires to civilisation, then the seeds necessary for the full flowering of all things that make that word meaningful are alive in their hearts.

They know what ‘reckless’ means. They know what ‘genocide’ means. They know what ‘civilisation’ means. They know that their country has to walk quite a distance, perhaps decades but maybe even a few centuries (or a few months), to get there.

They have one thing going for them. Trump. Think about it. He’s shedding all the frills that have hidden the proverbial ‘Ugly American.’ Disgusting. So disgusting that the beautiful people of the USA will have to do something about it.

Civilisation. A great idea for the United States of America. And Zionist Israel Let’s hope they get there one day.


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindadocs@gmail.com.


03 November 2020

Trump or Biden: the world needn't hold its breath



According to estimates based on previous patterns and polls, around 60 million citizens of the USA will go to the polls on Tuesday the 3rd of November, 2020 to help select a president of their choice. ‘Select,’ was deliberate and I will get to that later. On the eve of the election at least 92 million have already voted by post. This is approximately two-thirds of the votes counted in 2016, the large number possibly a product of the Covid-19 situation. It is estimated that the voter turnout would exceed 62%, a record for the last 50 years (the previous being the Obama-McCain race in 2008 where it was 61.65%).  

Select. Selection. Yes, not elect and election. The peculiar electoral system in the USA means that although the Democratic Party candidate, Joe Biden, is likely to win the popular vote, this doesn’t necessarily mean he would become President of the USA. A perusal of the results of major polls predict incumbent Donald Trump to obtain 38-43% of the vote whereas Biden’s numbers are between 49 and 54%.

There have been five occasions when a candidate losing the popular vote has ended up securing the presidency, the most recent being Donald Trump (over Hillary Clinton) in 2016 and George W Bush (over Al Gore) in 2000.  It’s all about who wins which states since the winner in each of them secures a certain number of ‘electors’ who, in the end, vote for president and vice president.

Truly representative democracy is something that is yet to evolve in the USA. Quite apart from the above, there are mechanisms which slant the system against non whites. Whether these flaws will work against Biden is left to be seen.

As things stand, polls indicate that Biden has a clear edge over Trump across four of the key swing states, i.e. Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Polls do tell us something, but they can’t capture everything. Voters can and have trumped predictors, no pun intended. In any case, we will know for sure once the counting is done.  

So. It’s either the re-selection of Donal Trump or the selection of Joe Biden. The question is, will it make a difference?

There’s a question I ask myself and also those who pick one candidate over another in a US presidential election: ‘What’s his/her policy on Cuba?’ That’s litmus for me. Of course, it all depends where you are and who you are, whether you are a US citizen or not, whether you live in the USA (and if so in which part of the country) or not, whether you are white or not, rich or poor, young or old, have or don’t have health insurance etc.

Racism. Now that’s a serious local issue in the USA. It is, was and is likely to remain a problem. George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, Let Me Breathe etc., are names and terms of the moment, but the ‘moment of racism’ in that country is several centuries long. It has persisted through multiple presidencies and the party of the particular leader has not made a difference.

I spent around seven years, total, in the USA. I was once assaulted by a drunk white man (who mistook me for an Indian, but whose issue clearly was that I was not white). This was in Boston. The year was 1991. That was during the George Bush (Snr) presidency. I was subjected to racial abuse twice within a matter of a few minutes on night in Ithaca, NY. The year was 2000. Bill Clinton was the President then. I’ve seen racism. I’ve read about it. I’ve spoken to victims of the racist everyday in the USA. It’s not about whether there’s a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. A West African emigrant named Amadou Diallo was shot some 44 times by decorated NYPD cops and they were all absolved of wrongdoing. It was apparently a case of mistaken identity. This was during the Clinton presidency. Non-white lives didn’t matter then either. The streets didn’t belong to the people back then either, they are and were owned by racist white cops. Same, same, if you will.

On the other hand non-whites living in the USA might perceive a difference. A Republican in the White House almost always makes racist white groups feel that some kind of perceived birthright to be bullish has been reinstated. Racist white militias become visible all of a sudden. Non-white people get dissed in public. The ‘subtle’ in racism gets pushed aside and the naked truth of intolerant, racist and violent America (of the US) shifts gears and cruises along at ‘in-your-face.’  

Healthcare and education are the other domestic issues that can come into play in a US election. They do have a tough time with xenophobia, but cutbacks during a Republican presidency invariably reminds people of what might have been. Covid-19 made people remember Obamacare, for example. There’s a reason why the aging and health-impaired demographics are shying away from Donald Trump.

What about the world? What about it, really? Remember I flagged Cuba? Well, that’s what it is. Donald Trump makes noises. He shoots his mouth. He’s a mouth-shooter unlike any US president before him, Republican or Democrat. When it comes to putting his money where his mouth is, Trump is just another ‘typical president.’ His template is more or less the same which Barack Obama used, which is what George W Bush used and before him Clinton, Bush (Snr) and Ronald Reagan. Framed by corporate and strategic interests. Driven by profit. Focused on plunder, securing and maintaining markets and trumping perceived threats (at one point the USSR, later Japan, then Russia again, now China and who knows who else later on?). What Israel and the Jewish lobby wants is also a significant factor of course.

Will a Biden presidency result in the USA withdrawing all military forces stationed in dozens of countries all over the world? Will Biden remove all sanctions imposed on Cuba? Will Biden honor WTO rules that are essentially the making of US corporate interests and lift all restrictions that Trump imposed on Chinese companies? I want to write, ‘Hell, no!’ That, however, would be conclusive prediction and I’m not into that. Highly unlikely, is what I say.

Whenever people play relative merits regarding Republicans and Democrats, I am reminded of two things. First, a lecture by Noam Chomsky at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1991 where, in the course of explaining US involvement in Central America, he spoke about ‘the entire spectrum of political opinion in the USA.’ He drew a lot of laughs when he brought his hands close to each other and caveated, ‘it’s this thin.’ What he failed to say was, ‘and that entire spectrum for the most part is on the far right.’  

Then there’s the line from the movie ‘Reds.’  Louise Bryant (played by Dianne Keaton) is at a Congressional Hearing. A senator asks her, ‘Are there any decent, god-fearing Christians among the Bolsheviks?’

Here’s her response: ‘Does one have to be god-fearing and Christian to be decent? Senator, the Bolsheviks believe that it is religion, particular Christianity that has kept the Russian people back for centuries. If any of you’ve been to Russia and seen the peasants you might think they have a point. On the subject of decency, senator, the Bolsheviks took power with the slogan of putting an end to the war. Within six months they made good their promise to the Russian people. Now the present president of the United States of America went to this country in 1916 on a no-war ticket. Within six months he’s taken us to the war and 115,000 young Americans didn’t come back. If that’s how decent, god-fearing Christians behave, give me atheists any time. By the way, Senator, in Russia women have the vote, which is more than you can say for this country.’

Former President, Jimmy Carter, put it all in a nutshell recently when he pointed out that in all of its close to 250 years of history, the USA has enjoyed only 16 years of peace., making the country ‘the most warlike nation in the history of the modern world. ‘Warlike’ is not the preserve of the Republican Party, as mentioned above. It’s the heartbeat of Washington. It’s the lifeblood of the military industrial complex that is the true edifice of US Government (the White House is the facade, the show, the lie over which people quarrel while the wheels turn elsewhere).

There’s a war in the USA. There’s fire there. It wasn’t started by Donald Trump and it will not be doused by Biden, if he is selected. That’s a long fire burnin’ but the media won’t talk about it unless the sparks start splattering on journalists, cameras, laptops and newsrooms.  The fires without are worse. Wars, all. 

A selection, this way or that, in the first week of November, won’t change things. It takes a lot more than a vote. Not worth losing any sleep over.

malindasenevi@gmail.com

17 April 2017

Presidential Candidate Malinda to Putin and Trump: The dead don't blink, boys


Malinda Seneviratne, likely presidential candidate in 2020, wrote to US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on the subject of Syria.  The following is the full text of the letter:

April 17, 2017


TO: 
President Vladimir Putin
Through
His Excellency Alexander A. Karchava
Russian Ambassador to Sri Lanka
404 Bauddhaloka Mawatha,
Colombo 7

and

TO:
President Donald Trump
Through
His Excellency Atul Keshap
US Ambassador Extraordinary to Sri Lanka
210 Galle Road,
Colombo 4


The dead don’t blink, boys



Let’s cut to the chase.  It’s not about right and wrong.  It’s not about joy and sorrow.  It’s not about the living and not about the dead either.  Syria is a stage and its players, the citizens I mean, are dispensable.  

Now there are theories about how this is a win-win situation for both your countries and in particular for the two of you, politically.  There are theories about oil and other strategic ‘interests’.  Then there’s the United Nations, the Security Council and relevant protocols.  

Let’s face it, the world is not flat.  Multilateralism is not about one country having one vote and the triumph of the numerical majority.  I need not tell you boys about the history of voting patters in the UN.  I am sure you would have heard of the speech Ernesto Che Guevara delivered on  March 25, 1964 at the plenary session of the now defunct United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) where he talked of numbers, integrity and how power works in these so-called august chambers.

We know how legitimacy is manufactured and made to stick.  We’ve heard the tunes of justification, the expressions of horror, the firm lip-lines of indignation.  They are old songs lipped ad nauseum by your predecessors.  We know what’s what in Syria.  We are not impressed, boys.  

Now let there be no illusions about the sizes of boots and the incongruent nature of alluding to David and Goliath.  The world is not flat.  And equality is a lie.  We know all this, boys.  

But let me say it as it is.  We know that you know that we know that you don’t give a damn about the people of Syria, just like your predecessors didn’t give a damn about people in countries you’ve waged proxy wars.  

We must say it nevertheless.  You can play ‘let’s see who blinks first’ until the cows come home, but this you must know that we know: the dead don’t blink; not in Syria and not anywhere else.  


Sincerely and with much compassion,


[Signed] Malinda Seneviratne


03 December 2016

Trumps and jokers, global and local

Did he say 'I'll make other countries also great (again)"?

It has been reported that the Government has asked US President Elect Donald Trump to pressure the UN Human Rights Council to drop war crimes allegations against the country’s troops. First of all, while there is references to allegations, what the UNHRC has focused on is essentially effective investigations.  It’s the modalities that have been scripted into the entire narrative on the Council’s discussion with Sri Lanka that have raised questions about infringement on sovereignty, selective application of principle etc.  

More importantly, writing to Donald Trump on this particular issue indicates a certain naĂŻvetĂ© which is scary considering how important logic, good sense, knowledge and such are in the sphere of diplomatic relations.  

The missive follows Sri Lanka, in post-Mahinda Rajapaksa euphoria perhaps and perhaps believing that the done thing was to do whatever the previous regime didn’t do, went ahead and co-sponsored what is clearly a UNHRC resolution that ran counter to the country’s interests.  Asking Trump to dump it indicates misgivings. It also indicates that the Government implicitly acknowledges that the UNHRC is Washington’s pawn.  Thirdly, it is essentially an unofficial submission of the country’s national interests to the whims and fancies of the USA.  

The Government is essentially saying ‘big brother, get the UNHRC off our back, please’.  Big brothers make rules, kid brothers submit.  Once the nature of the relationship is established (and that’s what this request does), there’s no going back.  

Now it can’t be the case that the Government realized that it had erred or that the UNHRC resolution runs against the national interest only after Donal Trump won the election.  The Government did not appeal to Obama.  So why appeal to Trump?

The obvious answer (the true answer only the Government would know) is Trump’s ‘nationalism’.  Trump’s straight talk about ‘terrorists’ and ‘terrorism’ might have also nudged the Government into believing that he would be different to Obama.  

Well, there’s nothing to say that nationalists of one country would find lots of common ground with nationalists of another country.  

To put it crudely, wars are all underwritten by nationalisms, it’s ‘nationalists’ that fight one another.  In other words the idea of ‘Making America (sic) Great Again’ is by definition about an even more prominent role globally (‘great’ makes sense only in relation to other countries, after all).  The USA does not have to worry about making anyone else great, or rather less a pariah internationally.  Washington does not operate that way.

Perhaps the Government was inspired by Trump’s ‘nationalism’ to all of a sudden think ‘nationally’ (which it hasn’t going by what the Foreign Ministry has been doing since January 2015).  Even if that were the case, the more prudent approach would be one of using relevant statements from nations that have censured Sri Lanka in the recent past and making a Sri Lankan policy statement that is clear, logical, draws from relevant contexts and consistent with the statements made by such nations.  

Assuming that Trump will ‘bail us out’ just because Trump made some nationalistic noises is plain silly.  

It would have been better for example to draw extensively from Theresa May’s positions on the subject, refer to them, and make a Sri Lankan policy statement on allegations and investigations related to ‘war crimes’.  Just say ‘we have strengthened and will continue to strengthen further the domestic mechanisms’ and be done with it.  

This of course does not mean that Theresa May is a saint.  Britain has her reasons which are clearly not of the same order of the issues Sri Lanka has to contend with.  However, if it’s word play then one needs to be smart about it.

The words to Donald Trump are weak and weakening.  Quite apart from the sophomoric nature of the letter, it shows a serious weakness.  The regime knows that it will run into trouble with the electorate due to the mishandling of things pertaining to the UNHRC.  If the previous regime floundered thanks to arrogance and other kinds of idiocy, this government is tripping on unpardonable naĂŻvetĂ© (we are being kind here). 

The Government is weak but it need not go out of its way to demonstrate the fact.   It is the same with respect to constitutional reform.  A lot of noise about power-devolution, some whimpering statements expressing misgivings mostly from proxies (the SLFP and Champika Ranawaka) but no clear stand.  This is dangerous in a context where certain elements are trying to fast-track the whole process, much in the way that J.R. Jayewardene fixed the mythical boundaries of Eelam with the 13th Amendment.  

The President has been bold enough to say that current provincial boundaries were basically drawn by the British, implying that power devolution based on such lines would be erroneous and indeed a travesty of justice.  He has stopped there without taking the argument to its logical conclusion.  


We can draw a parallel from the love note to Trump.  When one asks a favor, one is obligated.  One submits.  The one implies the other.  It’s the same with the federal idea.  It’s about two (or more) distinct political entities (usually an ethnic or religious community) contained in a geography with a considerable history voluntarily coming together.  That’s the story of the US constitution and also the Indian union.  In Sri Lanka’s case, these ‘conditions’ are far from established.  However, what is pertinent is that the fact of ‘coming together’ automatically scripts in the option of separation, regardless of rhetoric (at this point) disavowing such intent.  The Government, it seems, is well on the way to scripting in the possibility or option of separation through constitutional reform.  Sure, there will be safeguards, but there’s nothing to stop a future Amirthalingam or Chelvanayagam or Prabhakaran from pointing out the implicit acknowledgment (in such an amended article in the Constitution) of a specific, ethnic-based political entity contained/containable in a specific geography and using this to legitimate agitation and re-taking of arms.  

Both in constitutional reform and dealing with the international community, or rather those sections of it that have pushed against Sri Lanka, the Government has been lethargic and sophomoric.  It would be surprising if it changes the complexion of international relations, especially with respect to the human rights circus.  Domestically, it is a recipe for strife due to lack of clarity and statements that raised more questions that deliver answers.  One is tempted to talk of trumps.  And of course jokers.  But let’s just say ‘missed a few tricks’.  





Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. Blog: malindawords.blogspot.com.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene

17 November 2016

Getting over Trump(ed)

"Peaceful Acceptance" of "people's will" there was NOT in 2008
Kautilya, a religious bigot if ever there was one, nevertheless wrote an excellent treatise on state craft titled ‘Arthashastra’, one of the earliest works on the subject.  In Book VI, "The Source of Sovereign States", Kautilya writes, “The king who is situated anywhere immediately on the circumference of the conqueror's territory is termed the enemy. The king who is likewise situated close to the enemy, but separated from the conqueror only by the enemy, is termed the friend (of the conqueror).”

This is the earliest recorded note on the issue of friends and foes in the matter of governance.  It has subsequently been used in other contexts of course and is generally reduced to the familiar dictum ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ often attributed to Mao Zedong.  What is important to note here is that neither Kautilya nor Chairman Mao proposed it as a general theory, but rather one which could be applied to given situations.  Perhaps this is why we have that other adage which could be considered a corollary of sorts, ‘there are no permanent enemies or friends in politics”.  

The recently concluded US Presidential Election prompted animated response from Sri Lankans of different political/ideological shades both here and in the USA.   They are as divided, one might say, as the people of the USA, perhaps for reasons that are not too dissimilar, reasons that appear to be drawn from the above political observations on friendship and enmity.  It’s probably not surprising considering that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were said to be the most unpopular candidates in remembered history. 

After all, Republicans were told ‘hold your nose and vote Trump’ even as their Democratic counterparts pleaded, ‘hold your nose and vote Hillary’.  

It was a close race and one where the winner lost the popular vote.  Naturally, the Democratic camp felt cheated by the elections system or rather the system of selection in the USA.  On the other hand, if system was at fault, then the die-hard Clinton supporters can’t really complain, for they were happy when system-flaw hoofed out Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primaries.  Trump was not the first ‘winner’ who lost the popular vote, he was the fifth, following the election of John Quincy Adams (1824) which helped launch the Democratic Party, Rutherford B Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George W Bush (2000), when the Supreme Court in a split decision refused to sanction a re-count in Florida.

One can only speculate whether the Democrats or rather the anti-Trump camp (which is broader than the support base of Clinton) would have been as vociferous in their protests had it been some other Republican that had secured the White House.  As for Trump supporters who are yelling that the Clinton camp is in denial and telling them to shut up and accept the result, they are silent on the kind of denial that the most racist and bigoted of their camp demonstrated when Barack Obama won in 2008.  

As of now, it appears that a lot of people, across the so-called political divide, are trying to get on non-existent moral high horses.   


Trump came with a lot of baggage that has upset a lot of people in the USA and elsewhere.  Women and minorities, in particular, have reasons to fear a Trump administration given his brash sexism, racism and homophobia.  Trump’s victory has in fact emboldened the worst elements of Intolerant America (of the US) and promised legislation to overturn key progress on resolving grievances of women, minorities and LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer) groups could only make things worse.  

His trigger-happy brashness is certainly worrisome given that the Republicans have control of the Senate and Congress and not just for US citizens that have reservation about Washington’s foreign policy prerogatives of late.  On the other hand, there would be those who think that it is best to have the true face of US foreign policy in the top seat because it would all be straight-up without the frills, double-speak and subterfuge.  Others might just shrug shoulders and say ‘same old, same old.’   These fears, more than the issue of a President elect who lost the popular vote, appear to be the fuel for the Dump Trump protests that have mushroomed all over the USA.   We didn’t see the Obama administration being ‘progressive’ about the pipeline crossing sacred burial grounds and the Missouri, the main water source of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.  Would Hillary do better?  Is she ‘more progressive’ than Obama? These are not questions that we hear from the  Dump Trump campaign.

It must be noted, however, that although the anti-Trump protests are putting ‘Arab Spring’ to shame, but the self-righteous Western media are given them the proverbial cold shoulder, just like the human rights squads that were so gung-ho about Middle Eastern dictators not too long ago.  

The truth is that it is meaningless to think of Republicans and Democrats as Right and Left respectively.  They are so in relation to one another, but on the broad political spectrum both parties are far right, if you want to be serious about this.  

Apart from the real felt fears of the aforementioned groups within the USA, the truth is that it is meaningless to think of Republicans and Democrats as Right and Left respectively.  They are so in relation to one another, but on the broad political spectrum both parties are far right, if you want to be serious about this.  Even Bernie is not really ‘left’, but looks so in relation to Hillary and certainly in relation to Trump.   Sure, Obama ‘The Progressive’ didn’t have the cushions in Congress and Senate that Trump has, but he didn’t exactly make the world ‘safer’ did he?  The truth of the matter is whether one is Right or Left (relatively speaking), there are always operational limits imposed by the system, be in domestic or foreign policy, be it climate change or war (declared or undeclared).  In short the interests of the corporate class will be served while the interests of special groups such as the Jews will determine policy in the Middle East.  

US policy is not about resolution, but containment, or ‘management’ which is the more fashionable word.  Even domestic policy will be informed by the larger need to ensure that things do not get out of hand — neither the KKK or the anarchists in the Dump Trump efforts are likely to do as they please, subject of course to the caveat that the KKK types will probably get a pat on the back with the friendly ‘now enough’ while the anarchists, if there are any, will be roughed up.  

One might say that there could be a (dangerous) shift when it comes to environmental issues since Trump has selected a well known climate-change skeptic to head his US EPA transition team, Myron Ebell.  On the other hand, despite Obama’s rhetoric, the US conceded nothing voluntarily by way of multilateral efforts in this sphere.  The track-record, compared to other countries, is embarrassing.  With Trump, the one positive is that there’s less likelihood of spin, foot-dragging and (again) subterfuge — again not something that calls for popping the champagne.  

However, to think that a Trump Presidency would see a policy regime on Sri Lanka that is more informed, more acknowledging of contexts, fair etc., etc., is to be optimistic.  That’s not how Washington has worked. 

From this end, i.e. Sri Lanka, we had M.L. Shivajilingam of the Tamil National Alliance organizing an event to smash coconuts and light candles to bless Clinton ahead of the election.  Everyone knows that Clinton categorically stated that she did not want the LTTE defeated.  It’s hard to put any spin on that.  Why should any Sri Lankan who abhors terrorism be unhappy about a Clinton defeat under these circumstances, one can ask.  Again, it’s about friends and enemies, not in an absolute sense but at least in terms of specific contexts.   However, to think that a Trump Presidency would see a policy regime on Sri Lanka that is more informed, more acknowledging of contexts, fair etc., etc., is to be optimistic.  That’s not how Washington has worked.  To be thrilled about the result on account of justified antipathy to Clinton is certainly uncalled for.  

Kautilya was correct, but only so in a specific context determined by time and space.  Our enemies are not always our enemies and our friends are not our friends forever.  Our current enemies current enemies may in time and in different contexts become their friends.  Where would that leave us?  Ask Clinton if she’s changed her stand on Sri Lanka (vis-a-vis the LTTE) and she will cautiously skip around it but essentially end up standing against Sri Lanka.  Ask Trump and he might not know where Sri Lanka is, but if pushed, he might find himself rubbing shoulders with Hillary.  

So the USA had an election. So Donald Trump was elected or selected if you want to have it that way.  I feel for all those who feel less belonged than ever before in that country.  I am not sad that Clinton lost and I am indeed glad that I didn’t have to hold my nose and vote for either of these two.  I don’t think there’s reason to celebrate Trump’s triumph or Clinton’s defeat.  I could say ‘cheers’ for less spin on US foreign policy, but then again, going by history, I doubt I would be cheering for too long.  The truth is that the US still holds the trumps in certain global card games.  They’ve got one with a name in the White House.  Doesn’t make too much of a difference.   

See also the following reflections in a series titled 'Love Notes to Democracy' following the US Presidential Election 2004:


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene.