Global rice prices drop

Ambitious vision of transforming Bangladesh into an aviation hub centred on the third terminal at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport, Dhaka’s dream of becoming an aviation hub may remain grounded. The massive 542,000 square metres third terminal at the Airport in Dhaka—a centrepiece among their megaprojects.

The celebrated architect Rohani Baharin designed the third terminal, with construction undertaken by Mitsubishi and Fujita of Japan and Samsung of Korea.

An airline hub, or hub airport, refers to an airport that airlines use as a central point outside their headquarters. This term also signifies an airport's connectivity to other airports: the broader the reach and the more routes available, the higher its flight frequency and, consequently, its status as a hub.

But how exactly would Bangladesh join the ranks of aviation hubs, especially with heavyweights like Dubai, Singapore, Bangkok, and Hong Kong already in the game? And even if there's potential, are we really on the right runway?

The adage “first impressions are the last impressions, and often the most enduring” rings true, particularly in the context of cities and countries, where airports play a pivotal role in shaping these impressions.

Dhaka's old-fashioned Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport (HSIA), built in 1980, has not undergone any major renovations since then. Furthermore, the main gateway to the country by air does not align with the present state of the capital, especially as Bangladesh is advancing towards becoming a developing nation.

With this backdrop, the dream of constructing the iconic and spectacular third terminal at HSIA, which began in December 2019, has finally become a reality today. “It’s a dream come true. The eye-catching design and modern structure of the iconic terminal, along with world-class facilities, will redefine the passenger experience at Dhaka Airport,” said Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB) Chairman Air Vice Marshal M. Mafidur Rahman.

“To make an airport a hub, you need strategic planning,” Kazi Wahidul Alam, former board member of Biman Bangladesh Airlines and editor of Bangladesh Monitor, a travel magazine, told The Business Standard.

“We don’t even know how many planes Biman will operate next year. There’s no fleet planning; we’re buying one or two planes at a time, whenever we can, while other airlines are purchasing hundreds of aircraft,” he explained. “With this kind of growth plan, becoming a hub is a pipe dream. We’re simply not ready.”

Alam added, “We lack the quality, planning, and financial strength necessary to turn this vision into reality. A third terminal may boost passenger comfort, but it’s not enough to expand operational capabilities.”

According to Alam, there should be an “open-sky policy,” allowing any foreign airline to operate flights here. “In aviation hubs like Dubai, Singapore, Bangkok, and Kuala Lumpur, no airline faces restrictions on flights. Meanwhile, we regulate the frequency, arrivals, and departures of foreign airlines to protect our national carrier. We’re hesitant to open the doors,” he said.

Becoming an aviation hub requires years of meticulous planning and precise execution. Authorities often point to Singapore, a small nation that’s become a major aviation hub, yet there’s been little done here to follow its example.

“Countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are aviation hubs today because they’ve treated aviation as a core industry and developed it accordingly. They’ve also built up their aviation workforce—pilots, engineers, ground staff—and created a robust ecosystem,” explained former CAAB Chairman Air Vice Marshal Mahmud Hussain.

Hussain believes Bangladesh’s biggest obstacle is the shortage of skilled manpower, especially at the policy level. According to him, effective decision-making requires those in charge to have a deep understanding of aviation, something that is sorely lacking at present.

Currently, car parking is a major problem at this airport, but the new terminal will have a parking facility for around 1,230 cars.

Ground reality

A line that was often repeated by top officials was that Bangladesh would become an aviation hub due to its geographical advantage. Does Bangladesh really enjoy such advantages?

“Yes, we have a geographical advantage due to our location; we can connect east-west and north-south. However, Kolkata can do the exact same thing, and so can Myanmar. We need to be in that competition,” said aviation expert ATM Nazrul Islam.

“Another advantage we have is that many other airports are saturated with air traffic; our situation is a little better,” he added. Every day around 700-800 flights fly into Bangladeshi airspace. Out of these, about 150-200 land here. They land elsewhere. But why?

“Compared to other countries, the price of our aviation fuel is high. Our ground handling charges, and operating costs are high. We cannot bring in more foreign airlines with these expenses,” explained Islam.

Tourism could be another magnet for air traffic, yet this sector has been given lots of lip service while little has come to fruition.

“If you become a tourism hub, many people consider taking a, let’s say, 12-hour transit here. There are countries where if you take transit there you get a free hotel stay on top of a free visa. Even if the tourist spends $10, that adds to their foreign reserve,” said Nazrul.

“Meanwhile, our customs and immigration staff aren’t exactly known for their warm welcome,” he added.

The terminal

Currently, Dhaka Airport can handle eight million passengers and 500,000 tonnes of cargo per year. With the third terminal fully operational, HSIA’s passenger capacity should climb to 24 million annually, including the older terminals—but that’s only in theory.

Anticipating passenger numbers to reach 14 million by 2025 and 24.8 million by 2035, the urgent need for the construction of a world-class terminal became evident.

Serving these additional passengers will mean accommodating more flights. According to JICA, HSIA will need to manage around 200,000 flights annually by 2030. However, experts say this won’t be feasible with just one runway. To truly capitalise on the third terminal’s potential, an additional independent runway is a must.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) mandates that runways must be at least 1,034 meters apart to allow simultaneous takeoffs and landings using the Instrument Landing System (ILS). Reports indicate that if another runway were added to Dhaka Airport, the distance between the two would be only 300 meters—far below the required threshold.

“The airport should have had space for two independent runways. Not leaving the space was a big mistake,” said ATM Nazrul Islam.

Industry insiders note that planes often face 30-40 minute delays on taxiways before takeoff, with similar delays on landing due to traffic at HSIA. This bottleneck strains airlines’ schedules and increases operational costs. Concerns are mounting that the third terminal’s opening—and the rise in flight frequency—will only worsen the situation.

A plan for a second runway was set in motion by the previous government, but given the proximity issue, simultaneous takeoffs and landings won’t be possible.

Under the plan, the Japanese company would oversee terminal operations, with CAAB responsible for security. The IFC report was also expected to outline CAAB’s operating costs and profit-sharing terms with the vendor. After the government reviews the report, it will finalize the PPP agreement, enabling CAAB to start training staff and preparing for the terminal’s trial run.

The CAAB chief explained that the third terminal is built in a way that allows passengers to get a good idea of Bangladesh upon landing at the airport. All kinds of facilities will be available in this terminal.

Bangladesh’s prospects of becoming a regional aviation hub will brighten with the full operation of the third terminal, as many foreign carriers have already expressed interest in operating flights to and from Dhaka, which will also contribute to the country’s economic growth.

The third terminal will remain connected to the airport route of the MRT Line-1 project, according to MA Malek, chief engineer of the CAAB. Therefore, anyone arriving at Kamlapur Rail Station from any part of the country will be able to reach the third terminal via the underground metro rail, which spans 19.87 kilometers from Kamlapur to the Airport and includes 12 stations.

The third terminal will also be connected to the Airport Railway Station, allowing travelers to access the terminal via an underground path between the Airport Rail Station and the third terminal, as explained by an official of the third terminal project.

Moreover, pilgrims will have the option to access the terminal through an underground tunnel connected to the Ashkona Hajj Camp. Additionally, an elevated expressway will provide convenient access to the terminal.

Operating the terminal will require approximately 6,000 staff working in four shifts. For now, our journey to becoming an aviation hub remains in a holding pattern.

More headwinds

Currently, Bangladeshi airlines operate just 45 aircraft, with an optimistic addition of 15 more this year, as outlined in the fleet expansion plan. Industry experts believe that Bangladesh is significantly trailing its neighbour across all metrics. Meanwhile, our neighbour India is on the verge of significantly increasing its airport capacity to 148 from only 74 in FY 2013-14, while Bangladesh has remained unchanged with its eight operational airports over the past decade.

Bangladesh is also struggling to reopen the six domestic airports that remain closed, as the infrastructure for takeoff and landing of aeroplanes is inadequate. The airfields in Ishwardi, Shamshernagar, Thakurgaon, Bogura, Lalmonirhat, and Cumilla were built during the British era and experienced commercial operations during the Pakistan period. “There were so many airstrips built here during World War II. Where are those strips today? If we had maintained them, they would have been really helpful,” said Nazrul Islam.

Last year, the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB) made the decision to halt the construction of the Khan Jahan Ali Airport in Bagerhat, believing it would not yield profits, nearly twenty years after initiating the project.

The upgrade process for Saidpur Airport to become an international facility is currently on hold due to financial constraints, even though land acquisition has already commenced, as reported by CAAB sources.

(Sources: Business Standard, Daily Star)

London stands out uniquely as the capital city of a medium-sized state. None of the other capitals holds or has held the status of London in international politics. This perhaps reflects the preeminence of England in the growth of the West from its move to a dominant commercial position, its secure leadership of European international society towards the end of the seventeenth century, and the independence of London from formal subordination to formal political hierarchies of world historical significance. The continuing consequence is the virtual absence of any parallel use of English national greatness for other classes in society; there has been no Masaccio, no Nobel, no Bessie Smith to rail against the oppression which national greatness has imposed upon them.

Today, the rest of England is still waiting for its turn. All of these features derive substantially from the particular economic development of Europe, which sets London apart from other contemporary centers of political independence. Furthermore, they suggest that a middle-ranking status as a power in a society of many independent units is the most suitable position for a great international prize such as London to occupy. The larger the number of like units, the more powerful an international status that London is likely to be, while the less an international system depends upon any one unit, the more it values the power which independence can offer. The fundamental question is why national and city power are related. Why does London have the capability to play a larger and more successful role in international politics than its involvement in the domestic political life of the English state would seem to warrant? What is the relationship between the outward appearances of deference for the political supremacy of nation-states and the economic power of international cities in a society of sovereign states?

Global Financial Hub

London is a global financial hub. Its financial district, the City of London, is one of the largest in the world. The City handles a share of about 40% of global currency transactions. It is home to some of the world's largest banks, and the London Stock Exchange is the largest in terms of market capitalization. In addition, the influence of powerful financial companies, such as hedge funds and private equity firms, extends well beyond the geographic boundaries of the City.

However, this concentration of finance is in this case a relatively recent phenomenon. It is generally considered that the first step toward this status was initiated in 1986 with the so-called "The Big Bang," when the UK government deregulated financial markets by abolishing the separation of private banks. Since then, the United Kingdom and London have focused on intensively promoting financial business, capitalizing on the advantages of time zones, language, regulations (due in part to the absence of a single European regulator), and the quality of human capital.

Furthermore, financial companies value the ability to conduct business without interference. This is why one of London's main attractions has always been the perception of its absence of corruption and nepotism, as well as the independence of its judicial system. As a result of these decisions, London not only became a European investment center, but managed to increase its presence at the global level. The largest British banks went on corporate acquisition, expanding into other countries, in processes that were not always free from skepticism. In addition, the British government implemented several measures to attract not only financial investors but also entrepreneurs, thus creating conditions for the transfer of foreign capitals. This was not worth selling companies in sensitive areas such as defense or technological aspects, but all other sectors were subject to lenient controls.

Diplomatic Center

More than 180 foreign embassies and high commissions operate in London, more than in any other capital. No middle power can match this diplomatic presence, as many aspects of international diplomacy require a local network. More importantly, London's diplomatic role underpins the giant strength of English-language media and culture. The United States and Canada, who are represented in almost every other capital, also maintain sizable missions. They were both, after all, once part of the British Empire. American policy is based on strong direct links with individual nations and the United States vigorously pursues its global interests in London, rather than a backwater.

But the British Foreign Office, virtually created in response to the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, remains a dominant player, both in Whitehall and internationally. The Ministry of Defence and a number of under-secretaries coordinate state and defence policies, also thinking about the British role in the world. The British Government hosts the most important international institutions, such as the Commonwealth Secretariat, and charities. International corporations and NGOs include Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the International Maritime Organization and the International Transport Federation. Consultants, such as the Centre for European Reform, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the think-tanks involved with the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Spectator or The Economist, are based in the city.

London also provides a home from home for political exiles and international fugitives, including oligarchs, gangsters and convicted Pakistani politicians. It typically serves as a neutral venue and the city acts as a fine money-laundering, security and travel point. Candidates with serious illnesses, whether political, causes and voluntary, also can often find attention from the capital's leading British, European and foreign doctors.

The Role of Embassies

In London, there are 166 missions of which 130 are embassies and 170 high commissions. The latest embassies to be opened in London represent Montenegro in 2006 and Kosovo in 2008. The number of embassies in London ensures that the United Kingdom is in a very powerful position as it can strengthen its communication links with the wider world. As well as gaining an overview of conditions in other countries, the global perspective becomes more meaningful as other countries' policies and problems become clear.

The UK can also use its embassies as a means of changing the policy, economy, and society goals of other countries. The United Kingdom will have more information available on nearby states than they on the United Kingdom, which is an advantage in international politics. The United Kingdom possesses the oldest permanent diplomatic service and all its missions have a multifunctional character. The service contributes to the country's security, prosperity, and ability to protect both its citizens in other parts of the world and its own territory from terrorism and hostile countries.

Embassies gain much knowledge of the workings of other countries, especially those they are accredited to, although of course, not all missions are the same. Some function as field offices, others look after visas and trade questions and give consular advice. British embassies take on a limited role in policy coordination but consuls cannot make unlimited commitments to British residents living overseas, yet, at the same time, the staff of embassies are required to operate within an extremely tough budget. Small posts will struggle in getting to represent entirely the Government and individual embassies can focus on economic activity with trade attachés and defense staffs as well as public diplomacy and development posts that have the mandate of taking Britain forward for the global challenges of the 21st century.

Global Security and Defense Policies

As a more concrete form of Washington's influence over the military defense of the allies, could be the deployment of the Reassurance, Atlantic Resolve, and Deterrence Operation initiatives in the Eastern European region. These are carried out by the United States members, the funds are covered by the United States, and the activities are planned and executed by the United States.

This testifies that if the debate on the United States positively covered the European region in terms of the military security of the European states, Europe would still be so from the United States. As a result of the United States' initiatives, discussions are at the eastern borders today, but the greatest threat to the European continent in terms of security primarily lies in the southern and southeastern borders.

London has developed a more foreign defense policy in recent years, recognizing the increasing importance of the European Union in its international activities. In the context of its bilateral relations with foreign policy and the Member States, it recognizes the ratio of activities with the Union as a synergy. The most concrete form of its European Union policy in the military field is the development of the NATO-EU cooperation, which includes the determination of the London governments at a high level.

Britain emphasizes the development of cooperation in joint preventive diplomatic conflict management, military capacity building for the military planning processes, global military capacity building for asymmetrical threats, and in crisis management and response. By disengaging as much as possible from Europe both politically and as a matter of defense, the question is what contribution London will make in the future of European security. And in light of this approach, the question arises of whether it has become one of the countries with greater influence in global security.

The attitudes and preferences of the transit state are crucial in determining policies. The most direct way of measuring power is the capacity of coercion itself, and the lack of influence also means the lack of power. Non-state-centered studies have no place in the literature. As we set out, member states have been transcending traditional classic sovereignty attributes over the past decades and have been asymmetrically shared with a higher order. The previously relatively independent member states are effectively binding in areas that are shared with the EU, which they themselves can influence at a lower level of participation.

London has already tried to show how member states, but only in particular areas, shift power to a substantially greater level of involvement, so that the member states have the potential to manipulate the level of involvement as well. For some countries, it is possible for them to influence the agenda and ensure that their preferences are put into effect more difficult. In some way, one of the surest ways to make the right of conducting and setting the agenda stronger is institutional integration and operationality of the EU, but attention must be kept clear that this is a long-term process.

International Organizations

London, which historically played a major role in the formation of the main international organizations, continues to play an important role within them. It is home to the secretariats of the main intergovernmental organizations: the Commonwealth and the International Maritime Organization. The headquarters of Interpol is also in London. It also houses major institutions of other organizations such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, whose members include most of the leading countries in democratic Europe.

It provides important services such as the secretariat of both the International Chamber of Shipping and the International Sugar Organization. In many cases, the permanent representation in London of the various countries has acquired a certain efficiency, which is reflected in the frequency with which Britain is called on to play roles related to its membership in the European Union or to undertake special functions on behalf of delinquent countries such as relations with the relevant international organization.

London has also been a pioneer in the promotion of informal multilateral action, recognizing that, especially in fields such as international currency and economic cooperation in which the country has interests, recurrent meetings are important to take into account the changes in the economic structure and the relative powers that occur. The meetings of the financiers of the G-10 (the group of main industrialized countries) had value in the interaction and consensus between the leaders of countries such as Germany and Japan on monetary or financial policies.

London has also sometimes been the host of informal peace talks, as well as applied alternative financial solutions such as negotiations between large British banks and companies in crisis or debt conversion operations. The London approach has often influenced the activities of international organizations.

As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, London is called upon to handle a special set of issues within the Secretariat. It is the most important capital of this international body after Washington, and a large part of its diplomatic personnel deals with issues related to the organization. This is done either through the British delegation in New York or the British mission to the United Nations in Geneva. There is a permanent representation to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) situated in Vienna, and most key UN bodies have a directly engaged London embassy staff.

It was adapted to the rise of other agendas. For the better part of the post-war period, development policy formed a major part of Britain's foreign policy. London was the UN's first bureau for coordinating international aid activities, and its national aid committee formed into a permanent Department for International Development (DfID) in 1997. As the UN's unique features have become more evident since the 'performance paradox' of the 1980s, so that this 'special' relationship has passed through four stages. Within the adaptation that was involved, Britain has developed a particular role within the UN as a 'penholder' on certain issues that require UN action.

Future Prospects

London has long been associated with international diplomacy, particularly since the formation of the state-based international order in the 17th century. Its landscape is adorned with symbols of the city's claim to diplomatic legitimacy, and despite decolonization, its ties and links with scores of foreign governments probably exceed those of other world cities.

Despite the Cold War and the loss of empire, London remains a major center of international politics, a forum for diplomacy at a number of levels. Even so, the role and influence of the United Kingdom (UK) and its capital within the diplomatic range in world politics seems to be declining. Although many international organizations still provide for large expatriate communities, the cost, constraints, and competition of other cities cast some doubt over London's position in the future world diplomatic city system.

Diplomatic legitimacy and the most visible of diplomatic transactions of the modern state-based system, the bilateral mission. The early sections concentrate largely on the nature and form of diplomatic relations in the modern world city system. In effect, this represents the primary output of diplomatic activity, the place where policy is put into practice. Next, there is an account of London's place in these arrangements, based on an index drawn from the most recent entries of the Year Book of International Organizations. Finally, there is a summary of the issues raised. In particular, what dividend is gained from being a world capital housing a prominent and influential diplomatic presence, and what is its "cost" to the host country?

The head of the United Nations has expressed concern about President Donald Trump’s decision to pause foreign assistance from the United States as his administration promotes its “America First” agenda.

During a news conference on Monday, a spokesman for Antonio Guterres said the UN secretary-general had noted the policy change “with concern”.

“He calls for additional exemptions to be considered to ensure the continued delivery of critical development and humanitarian activities for the most vulnerable communities around the world,” Stephane Dujarric told reporters.
“Those lives and livelihoods depend on this support,” said Dujarric, adding that the US is “one of the largest aid providers” in the world. “We are currently mapping out what [the Trump administration’s decision] means and the impact that it would have.”

Trump signed an executive order shortly after he was sworn in for a second term on January 20, ordering all federal government agencies to enact a 90-day pause on foreign development assistance and to review existing programmes.

Experts say Trump administration’s order to halt foreign assistance will ‘cost many, many lives’.

“It is the policy of the United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States,” the order reads.

Days later, the US State Department said in a memo that it was suspending almost all new funding for foreign aid programmes, with exceptions for the country’s top Middle East allies, Israel and Egypt. The order on Friday also included an exemption for emergency food assistance and related expenses.

“President Trump stated clearly that the United States is no longer going to blindly dole out money with no return for the American people,” the department said in a statement on Sunday defending the measures. The statement also affirmed newly confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s support for the Trump-led policy.

“Reviewing and realigning foreign assistance on behalf of hardworking taxpayers is not just the right thing to do, it is a moral imperative. The Secretary is proud to protect America’s investment with a deliberate and judicious review of how we spend foreign assistance dollars overseas.”

But experts have slammed the Trump administration’s decision, saying it will have disastrous consequences for people around the world.

Michael Schiffer, who served as the assistant administrator of the US Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Asia bureau from 2022 to 2025, said stopping foreign aid — even temporarily — will have “obvious, predictable results”.

“Children will die. Our national security will erode. America’s alliances will suffer. US partners will be at risk. And America’s enemies will rejoice,” Schiffer warned in a column for the website Just Security.

Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International and an ex-USAID official under former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, also said “a global stop-work order on foreign aid will cost many, many lives if kept in place”.

Konyndyk noted that US foreign assistance goes to addressing famine in Sudan, supporting refugees in Africa and Asia, and funding HIV/AIDS treatment programmes around the world. “It is no exaggeration whatsoever to say that following through on this policy will kill a lot of people,” he wrote on social media.

“It will also shred US global credibility in much of the world, where our assistance programs are a huge share of our country partnerships.”

(Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies)

Sri Lanka has revoked a power purchase agreement with Indian conglomerate Adani Group following allegations of corruption, energy ministry sources in Colombo said Friday.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake's administration opened probes into the company's local projects after billionaire founder Gautam Adani was charged with bribery in the United States late last year.

The administration of his predecessor had in May 2024 agreed to buy electricity at US$0.0826 per kilowatt from an Adani wind power complex yet to be built in the island nation's northwest.

But a top energy ministry official said Dissanayake's cabinet decided earlier this month not to proceed with the deal.

"The government has revoked the power purchase agreement, but the project is not cancelled. A committee has been appointed to review the entire project," the source said, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity.

Several activists had challenged the agreement, arguing that smaller renewable projects were selling electricity at two-thirds the price of Adani.

The proposed construction of Adani's 484-megawatt wind power plant in the Mannar and Pooneryn coastal areas is facing a separate Supreme Court challenge over environmental concerns.

An official document seen by AFP on Friday confirmed that Sri Lanka's cabinet this month decided to appoint a panel to "re-evaluate" the project's construction. It also confirmed the withdrawal from the power purchase agreement, which the current ruling party had strongly criticised while in opposition.

Dissanayake came to power in September promising to tackle corruption and bring back stolen Sri Lankan assets said to be stashed abroad.

With a business empire spanning coal, airports, cement and media, Adani Group has been rocked in recent years by corporate fraud allegations.

Indian industrialist Gautam Adani was charged in the US on November 19, accused of paying bribes and hiding the payments from US investors, according to prosecutors in New York.

Adani was the first foreign investor to enter Sri Lanka in the wake of a 2022 financial crash that devastated the island nation's economy. His firm's proposed $442 million wind power plants were approved in February 2023 but the project has been stalled by court challenges.

Another Indian neighbor, Bangladesh's interim government, also has accused energy supplier Adani Power of breaching a multi-billion-dollar agreement by withholding tax benefits that a power plant central to the deal received from New Delhi, according to documents seen by Reuters.

In 2017, the Indian company controlled by billionaire Gautam Adani signed an agreement with Bangladesh to provide power from its coal-fired plant in eastern India. Dhaka has said it hopes to renegotiate the deal, which was awarded by then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina without a tender process and costs Bangladesh far more than its other coal power deals, according to Bangladesh power agency documents and letters between the two parties reviewed by Reuters, as well as interviews with six Bangladesh officials.

Dhaka has been behind on payments to Adani Power since supply started in July 2023. It owes several hundred million dollars for energy that has already been supplied, though the two sides dispute the exact size of the bill.

Bangladesh's de facto power minister Muhammad Fouzul Kabir Khan told Reuters the country now had enough domestic capacity to cope without the Adani supply, though not all domestic power generators were operational.

(sources: Reuters, AP, TRT World)

On the fourth day, President Donald Trump set out to impose his will on the globe. Rapt European elites watched Trump beam virtually into the Swiss alpine village of Davos Thursday, in a metaphor for a world that is taking in his testosterone-fueled return to power with fearful fascination.

The set-up was perfect for the president. On a giant screen, the ultimate outsider literally towered over his scolded audience of bankers, financiers, business titans, NGO leaders, political bigwigs and diplomats.

The appearance at the World Economic Forum was Trump’s latest hyper-confident move to reshape America’s destiny after a frenetic week of executive actions and stunning, freewheeling news conferences.

He issued his most explicit threat yet to tariff European exports, issued an all-but-unreachable target for countries’ NATO defense spending, again tried to goad Russian President Vladimir Putin into talks to end the Ukraine war and pressed home his carrot-and-stick approach to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

But the reason Thursday’s speech may go down in history is that Trump gave the Davos crowd his rawest vision yet for America’s new role in the world.

“He was elected as a disruptor,” David Miliband, a former British foreign secretary, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour from Davos.

“He promised that he would disrupt the existing way of doing things, both within the United States and internationally,” said Miliband, now the CEO of the International Rescue Committee. “He has been consistent in that all the way through the campaign, during the transition period and now in the first three days.”

Trump plans to dismantle global order

In its new “golden age,” Trump argued, the United States will pursue its singular national interests exclusively – several times referring to his country as a “sovereign” nation. This is MAGA code for the US acting alone and not through the international Bretton Woods organizations Washington set up to make the world safe for democracy and to promote prosperity for all after World War II. This approach is justified, Trump insisted, because “many things have been unfair for many years to the United States.”

From now on, he made clear, every US foreign policy act will come with a value calculation gauging how it benefits Americans. Other countries and multinationals don’t have to play ball, but if they choose not to – they will be punished, including with tariffs.

Furthermore, America is so powerful and resource rich, it doesn’t need any other nation. He said of Canada, for instance, “We don’t need them to make our cars. … We don’t need their lumber because we have our own forests, etc., etc. We don’t need their oil and gas. We have more than anybody.”

Trump reserved special ire for the European Union, bitterly complaining about regulatory practices he said crimped growth (and interfered with his personal business interests). He complained about taxes and curbs imposed on Google, Apple and Meta in Europe, and hinted he sees the firms, whose tech oligarch leaders he welcomed into his inner circle, as instruments of American power. “These are American companies, whether you like them or not. They’re American companies and they shouldn’t be doing that.”

Trump demands yet more from NATO members

Trump revealed his transactional nature in his latest salvo on NATO. He formalized his demand for members to more than double their defense spending to 5% of GDP. This is a figure that would bankrupt many Western economies or require governments to desecrate their expensive welfare states endemic to the European social democratic ethos, which his Make America Great Again movement has long disdained.

When a reporter in the Oval Office later pointed out that the US spends only about 3.4% on defense, Trump responded: “We are protecting them, they are not protecting us.” In his belligerence, Trump ignored the fact that the only time the alliance’s Article 5 mutual defense clause has ever been invoked was by allies who sent their troops to die in America’s war on terror after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

In his first few days in power, Trump has also reinforced his warnings that he sees nations like Panama, Canada and the vast Danish autonomous territory of Greenland as part of America’s sphere of interest.

In a gesture that was extraordinary coming from a US president speaking to an international audience, Trump complained about the trade deficit with Canada then renewed his call for it to join the US. “I say you can always become a state, and if you’re a state, we won’t have a deficit.” There’s no chance of Canada — a nation that defines itself against the US — becoming the 51st state. But Trump’s threatening language is such a departure because it’s the antithesis of the principle that all nations are sovereign equals that the US enshrined in the United Nations charter.

Trump’s “America First” philosophy is often described as a return to the kind of isolationism that prevailed between the two world wars. But that’s not quite accurate. He wants to stride the global stage. But he’s advocating a foreign policy where America is dominant in its own hemisphere and engages elsewhere selectively.

This was explained by new Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week. “Our job is to ensure that we have a foreign policy that advances the national interest of the United States. I expect every nation on earth to advance their national interests. … I hope there will be many — in which our national interests and theirs align.”

In other words, the US is ready to work with other nations when it suits – not through international organizations that dilute American power but individually, which means the US will have the advantage of size, wealth and military might.

This, along with Trump’s belief in great powers acting with primacy in their spheres of influence and his growing obsession with US territorial expansion, is a rather 19th-century concept. As is Trump’s determination to use tariffs to boost the American economy to fulfill his campaign promise to raise living standards and lower prices.

Trump sees tariffs as economic tool

The president warned business leaders in Davos that “if you don’t make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then, very simply, you will have to pay a tariff.” He said that the duties would “direct hundreds of billions of dollars, and even trillions of dollars into our Treasury to strengthen our economy.”

His comment was an effective declaration of a trade war against the European Union because he’s not just seeking to make imports less competitive than American products, he’s trying to lure jobs and industry across the Atlantic.

Tariffs were used for much of the country’s first 150 years. They were a particular favorite of Trump’s new favorite president, William McKinley, a Republican who like him, fashioned a political realignment in industrial states and who was an imperialist who added the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Hawaii to the US property portfolio.

Trump has mentioned McKinley, who served from 1897 until his assassination in 1901, several times in recent days and signed an executive order to restore the original name of Denali, in Alaska, to Mount McKinley.

“President McKinley made our country very rich through tariffs and through talent,” Trump said in his inaugural address on Monday.

The president’s repeated warnings of impending tariffs are challenging assumptions that he’s simply raising the threat as leverage to win concessions in the short term in trade talks with nations like Mexico, Canada and with the EU. His remarks on Thursday, however, suggested this is a more permanent tool. Still, he’s not yet acknowledged the concerns of many economic experts who believe that heavy US tariffs will raise prices for Americans and wreck the global economy.

One of the most eloquent arguments against high blanket tariffs was made by Franklin Roosevelt, in his 1932 presidential campaign. In a speech in Seattle, FDR explained that tariffs introduced by President Herbert Hoover under pressure from hardline Republicans had “the inevitable result of bringing about retaliations by the other nations of the world” and were leading the US on the “road to ruin.”

He explained that “our next-door neighbor, Canada, imposed retaliatory tariffs on your peaches, so that their tariff is now higher than the freight rates to Canada. And there is a retaliatory tariff on asparagus, and on other vegetables and other fruits, so high that practically none of your agricultural product can be sold to your logical customers, your neighbors across the border. The market for your surplus is destroyed and thereby fair prices for your whole crop are made impossible.”

FDR’s cautions offer guidance to Trump critics today. And this is apt, since many of the long-held American principles, from trade to international relations, that the 47th president is seeking to dismantle stem from the foundations of the modern, US-led global order laid down by the 32nd president.

Donald Trump, who rode back into power on a wave of voter dissatisfaction with the status quo, promised a new "golden age" for America in his inaugural address.

The speech was a mix of promises – and contradictions – that underlined some of the opportunities and challenges the new president will face in his second term in office.

He started talking a little after noon on Monday, and it seemed at times like he didn't stop talking – at ad-libbed remarks later at the Capitol, at his indoor parade rally at a downtown sports arena and at the White House executive order signing – until well into the evening.

Through it all, Trump demonstrated the kind of dramatic flair and penchant for controversy and confrontation that has energised his supporters and infuriated his critics.

During his inaugural address, Trump paid particular attention to immigration and the economy – issues that polls suggest American voters cared about most last year. He also promised to end government-promoted diversity programmes and noted that US official policy would only recognise two genders, male and female.

That last line generated an enthusiastic response at the Capitol and wild cheers from his crowd of supporters gathered at a nearby sports arena. It's a sign that cultural issues – where he drew the most vivid contrasts with Democrats in last year's election – will continue to be one of Trump's most powerful ways the new president connects with his base.

Before he outlined what this new age would entail, however, Trump painted a dark picture of the current American political climate.

As his predecessor, Joe Biden, and other Democrats sat stone-faced to one side, Trump said the government faces a "crisis of trust". He condemned the "vicious, violent and unfair weaponisation" of the US Justice Department, which had investigated and attempted to prosecute him for contesting the 2020 election results.

He claimed a mandate to reverse "horrible betrayals" and lashed out at a "radical and corrupt establishment" that he said extracted power and wealth from America's citizens.

It was the kind of populist, anti-elite rhetoric that has been a staple of Trump's speeches for a decade. Unlike when Trump first began his ascent to the pinnacles of US political power in 2015, however, Trump represents the current emerging establishment as much as any one man. And sitting behind him on the dais were a collection of some of the wealthiest, and most influential, corporate leaders in the world.

On the day of his inauguration, Trump has the attention – and the initiative. His aides have promised hundreds of executive actions – on a range of subjects, including immigration, energy, trade, education and hot-button cultural issues.

In his inaugural address, he detailed a handful of them. He pledged to declare national emergencies on energy and immigration, allowing him to put the US military on the border, drastically limit the rights of asylum-seekers and reopen large swaths of federal land to energy extraction. He repeated his pledge to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" and to take back the Panama Canal.

He made an unfounded claim that China was running the key waterway and said that US ships, including naval vessels, were paying too much in transit fees – perhaps a hint at the real objective in future negotiations with the Panamanian government.

"The US will once again consider itself a growing nation," he said, pledging to increase American wealth and expand "our territory".

That last bit might catch the ear of US allies, who have already been concerned by Trump's interest in acquiring Greenland and quips about making Canada the 51st US state.

On the campaign trail, and in this speech, Trump made a series of big promises. Now that he is president, he will be challenged to deliver – and show what the "golden age" he heralds actually means.

After Trump concluded his speech and saw Biden depart via a Marine helicopter, he gave off-the-cuff remarks at a gathering of supporters elsewhere in the Capitol. It was there that the more unscripted Trump – the one who frequently generates headlines and turns American politics on its head – reemerged.

The 2020 election was "rigged", he said. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was criminally responsible for the 6 January, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. He boasted about the size of his 2024 election victory and said he grudgingly agreed to talk about "unity" in his inaugural address.

It was just a taste of what was in store for the rest of the day – and for the next four years.

At a signing ceremony in the evening, Trump took an ordinary presidential act – rescinding orders from a previous administration of a different party – and turned it into spectacle.

After giving another winding speech – his third of the day – Trump moved to a small desk on the stage at the downtown sports arena where his indoor inaugural parade had just concluded. Then he went to work freezing new federal regulations and hiring, reversing Biden administration directives, mandating federal workers work in-office full-time and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords.

"Can you imagine Joe Biden doing this?" he asked after signing the regulation freeze – but that applied to the moment as much as the content of the orders.

He also signed more symbolic orders to end the "weaponisation of government" and instruct his administration to address the higher cost of living.

After the arena ceremony, Trump tossed the pens he used into the crowd – another Trumping flourish.

Then he went back to the White House, and executive orders continued – pardoning nearly all of the 1,600-plus supporters arrested in the 6 January Capitol riot, temporarily suspending the TikTok ban and withdrawing the US from the World Health Organisation. He also reinterpreted a key constitutional amendment and instructed his administration to cease granting citizenship to US-born children of undocumented migrants. All the while, he offered a running commentary – including proposing a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada starting on 1 February, accusing Democrats of cheating in the 2020 election and expressing doubt about the Gaza War ceasefire.

Trump returns to power with a team that has a detailed strategy for governing and an aggressive agenda to pursue. Trump himself, however, can still be as unpredictable and unfocused as ever – making remarks that could represent new policy or just a momentary distraction.

(sources: CNN, Fox News, Aljazeera)

Indian security forces have killed at least 31 suspected Maoist rebels in the forests of the central state of Chhattisgarh, police said, in its biggest encounter this year.

Two security personnel were also killed while two others sustained injuries in the gun battle in the Indravati area of Chhattisgarh on Sunday. (Reports: BBC)

Hundreds of police and paramilitary soldiers launched an operation in the forests based on intelligence that a large number of Maoist rebels had gathered there, state police Inspector General Pattilingam Sundarraj said.

He said the toll could be higher with search operations expanding. “Additional forces have been rushed to the encounter site,” he said.

Automatic weapons and grenade launchers were recovered from the scene, a police statement said.

The Maoist rebels, also known as Naxals, follow a form of communism propagated by the late Chinese leader Mao Zedong. They have waged a guerrilla-style war against the government, particularly in central and eastern India, for decades, leading to periodic clashes and casualties on both sides.

“This is a big success in the direction of achieving a Naxal-free India,” said India’s Home Minister Amit Shah, who last year said the government expected to crush the Maoist rebellion by 2026.

Sunday’s fighting is the biggest so far this year and the second major clash in less than a month in Chhattisgarh, according to police officer Jitendra Yadav.

At least 16 rebels were killed in the state’s Gariband district on January 23. According to Indian officials, the government had issued a reward for 12 of them, totaling about $345,000.

Eight rebels were also killed in a gun battle with soldiers in the Bijapur district on January 31.

New Delhi has deployed tens of thousands of soldiers in a stretch of territory known as the “Red Corridor.” The crackdown has killed some 287 rebels in the past year, most of them in Chhattisgarh, according to government data.

Indian soldiers have been battling the Maoists since 1967, when the rebels began fighting to demand more jobs, land, and wealth from natural resources for the country’s poor Indigenous communities.

Years of neglect have isolated many locals, who face a lack of jobs, schools, and clinics, making them open to overtures by the rebels. The rebels speak the same tribal languages as many villagers and have promised to fight for a better future, especially in Chhattisgarh, one of India’s poorest states despite its vast mineral riches.

The fighters have ambushed police, destroyed government offices, and abducted officials. They have also blown up train tracks, attacked prisons to free their comrades, and stolen weapons from police and paramilitary warehouses to arm themselves.

CM of Manipur Biren Singh Quits

Meanwhile, Congress's Rahul Gandhi posted a sharp comment on X on Sunday as the BJP Chief Minister of Manipur, N Biren Singh, stepped down from the top post two years after ethnic violence was unleashed in Manipur.
"The resignation of CM Biren Singh shows that mounting public pressure, the SC investigation and the no-confidence motion by the Congress have forced a reckoning," read Mr. Gandhi's post.
"For nearly two years, BJP's CM Biren Singh instigated division in Manipur. PM Modi allowed him to continue despite the violence, loss of life, and the destruction of the idea of India in Manipur."