Connect with us

Features

As Julie Chung morphs into Elizabeth K Horst…

Published

on

by Malinda Seneviratne

Ambassadorial aspirants hardly break a sweat when drafting submissions to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, not even in pre-ChatGPT days. They’ve been in the business of US diplomacy long enough to know what ‘US Foreign Policy’ is. They know what the listeners want to hear. They have templates to choose from. And therefore the opening statement made on May 9, 2024 to the Committee by Elizabeth K Horst, nominee to be the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, is more or less par for the course. A parenthesis is called for here.

(US foreign policy, broadly, is about (ab)using economic and military power to coerce governments to bend and twist to ensure that US strategic and economic interests are obtained. The US has, does and will leverage the very same power to enact global rules to serve these purposes. US rhetoric about democracy and human rights is hogwash. What Noam Chomsky wrote in 1992, ‘What Uncle Sam really wants,’ is a quick, easy and edifying read for those who want the details.)

So. Elizabeth’s foreign-speak is hardly any different from the testimony of her predecessor-to-be Julie Chung submitted to the same committee on October 20, 2021. It is a tad different from the submissions of Aliana B Teplitz, Atul Keshap and Michele J Sison but the variance was essentially over time-specific issues.

Elizabeth is as laughable as was Julie. Both are adept at tossing out platitudes. Both have trotted out notions such as justice, accountability and reconciliation. Julie spoke about ‘unimagined violence and continued ethnic and religious divisions,’ betraying a scandalous imagination-deficit. Elizabeth is as ignorant of the notion ‘charity begins at home,’ when she talks of ‘marginalized populations.’ Both are citizens of and represent a country which consistently re-writes definitions of such things or ignores them altogether.

Today it is about Israel not having crossed some “US red-line” clearly amenable to arbitrary movement, geographically and metaphorically, with regard to attacks on Rafah. White House spokesman John Kirby says, ‘The US does not believe Israel has launched a full-scale invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza.’ So, an invasion of a lesser scale is sanctioned by implication.

Kirby adds, that the US ‘[does not] support,’ and ‘won’t support a major ground operation in Rafah.’ Operations are not limited to the ground, of course and we’ve seen a lot of that.

The bottom line, drawing from Elizabeth’s laughable talk of ‘marginalized populations,’ is that the USA, throughout its history, has not only marginalized populations, but have decimated them as well. In the case of Palestinians, the US has been pretty consistent in supporting genocide; yes, long before President Biden earned himself the sobriquet ‘Genocide Joe.’

Elizabeth claims she will reiterate commitment to ‘the rules-based international order.’ What rules, though? Those of the International Criminal Court (ICC) perhaps? Well, not too long ago, the then White House National Security Advisor John Bolton threatened judges of the ICC if it moved to charge any American who served in Afghanistan with war crimes. In other words, the USA was demanding impunity, much like its client-state, Britain, which self-legislated immunity from ‘vexatious’ prosecution for war crimes with the would-be defendant deciding on what would be irksome. So much for accountability, truth, transparency and justice! Hence, the giggles over the funnies crafted by Julie and Elizabeth.

How about WTO rules? Well, in what was then a pretty much unipolar world, the USA with the support of not-so-strange ideological bedfellows or by cajoling or arm-twisting others replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994 supposedly to usher in an era sans subsidies or protectionism of any kind. Today, no nation on the planet has shown the kind of protectionism demonstrated by the USA. As for subsidies, Washington has never stopped buttressing its agriculture sector and of course the arms industry, creating or fueling conflicts all over the world and even making its own citizens cough up bucks so that the arms manufacturers reap in mega profits. Yeah, Ukraine comes to mind.

What’s all this got to do with the likes of Julie and Elizabeth? China. Simple.

Julie alluded to Sri Lank’s strategic location, flagged global maritime lanes and trading routes and slipped in the key US strategic concern: the Indo-Pacific architecture which, she vowed, she would do her best to keep ‘free and open.’ Free and open are lovely words but are not even distant relatives of deed. Where monopoly is possible, the USA never budged, but when that’s not possible, Washington talks of equal access.

When the Committee questioned Elizabeth on the possibility of urging Sri Lanka to maintain a moratorium on Chinese research vessels entering Sri Lankan waters, it is reported that she said she will discuss the moratorium issue but also ensure fair and equal access to ships from the US.

Interesting. Pushing for a moratorium means the USA does not want any Chinese research vessels in Sri Lankan waters. Equality is a word that then would be applicable to both access and its denial. In other words, Elizabeth, if she wrangles a continued moratorium would desist from any US involvement in Sri Lanka, not in the seas and not on land. No purchasing of ‘civil society’ via ‘educational programs,’ no indoctrination, no CIA/NED operations, covert or otherwise, nothing that could even vaguely be construed as ‘research.’ But, as mentioned, talk is cheap and words are for convenient manipulation of meaning, for Elizabeth, like Julie, is also planning to work with non-state actors. More ‘rules’ in the US version of a rules-based international order, one is prompted to ask? We will return to this presently.

She speaks of ‘collaborative maritime security,’ and ‘stability throughout the Indian Ocean,’ as though she envisages some kind of equal partnership between the USA and Sri Lanka, but that’s all nonsense, need one even say?

Bill Haggerty, Senator for Tennessee, is reported to have raised alarm over China’s use of debt-trap diplomacy and highlighted Sri Lanka’s leasing of both the Hambantota and Colombo ports which provided China with a “strategic foothold” in the region.’ Now aren’t strategic-footholds what US foreign policy is all about? Sauce for the goose and the gander, so to speak. As for debt-trap diplomacy, that’s an old trick — the USA employs it through the Bretton Woods institutions, China is upfront (if one were to buy the Chinese debt-trap story).

More specifically, Haggerty had noted Sri Lanka’s ‘opposition to “a renegotiation of a status of force agreement (SOFA) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact”.’ SOFAs, Elizabeth probably knows, are multilateral or bilateral agreements that establish the framework under which U.S. military personnel operate in a foreign country and how domestic laws of the foreign jurisdiction are waived with respect to U.S. personnel in that country.’ So a SOFA with Sri Lanka is essentially an inking of a ‘strategic foothold.’

What does Elizabeth say? She opines, ‘I think we can go a long way at doing more public diplomacy and engaging with all stakeholders on the ground beyond the government. With civil society, with journalists, and with those who feel affected by such projects and the future.’ But wait, if ‘equality’ is what is sought, would she applaud the idea of a Chinese SOFA?

A busybody she unabashedly is and one who doesn’t give a hoot about crossing all red lines pertaining to diplomatic protocols. In short, she is saying, ‘I will interfere, I will prod, I will poke, I will purchase, I will do what it takes to turn footprint into foothold to kick-ass as and when necessary.’

So when she talks of maritime security or about stability throughout the Indian Ocean, she’s talking of US security interests in and US control of the region. Nothing free-and-equal in any of that.

Why do US officials, in Washington and representing Washington, so easily trip when they speak? Why do they contradict themselves? Why do they toss out lofty ideals only to defecate on the same when questioned on specifics? Why has almost everything that comes out of Washington, even such a trivial matter such as confirming the appointment of a nominee to a diplomatic posting, end up being about China?

In a word, fear. China owns close to a trillion US dollars or 9.95% of foreign-owned US debt. China, according to Washington’s own narrative, has taken over the African continent. No jack-boot diplomacy there. No guns in booty out, as has been the way of the USA and her allies in Europe for centuries. Fear, perhaps, but envy too, one must wonder.

That however does not explain contradictions and incoherence, and we’ve seen shiploads of it in recent times, haven’t we? What’s come out of Washington with regard to the war in Ukraine, the genocide taking place in Gaza and of course rhetoric and legislation with regard to that linguistically flawed term ‘anti-Semitic’ has been unbelievably sophomoric. The response to events and statements have been vague at best but more typically indicative of a cornered pickpocket, frothing at the mouth and muttering incongruities. Something is said but without the realization that the statement is full of holes and that the arguments can be thrown back to call out positions taken, things done and said in similar situations.

The US is showing all the signs of an entity that has lorded over one and all and gotten away with murder for so long that when things go wrong it is simply and utterly incomprehensible. The world is no longer uni-polar. De-dollarisation is no longer an improbable country in some other universe; it’s birthing as we speak. European unity is no longer a given and neither is its status as partner or rather adjunct of the USA. Emmanuel Macron, for example, stung by reversals in Africa is strutting around in New Caledonia, perhaps to purchase some ‘feel-goodness’ having found himself in drastically reduced circumstances.

And we have the likes of Elizabeth Horst unable to sum up enough diplospeak to sound half-way coherent. Julie Chung was all strut and her excellent public relations couldn’t really hide her viceroy-like operations. We have yet to see Elizabeth Horst’s public persona. Frills aside, it would be optimistic to expect her to be any different.



Features

US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world

Published

on

An UN humanitarian mission in the Gaza. [File: Ashraf Amra/Anadolu Agency]

‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.

Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.

Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.

If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.

Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.

It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result for this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.

If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.

Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.

Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.

However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.

What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.

Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.

Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.

Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.

For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.

The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.

Continue Reading

Features

Egg white scene …

Published

on

Hi! Great to be back after my Christmas break.

Thought of starting this week with egg white.

Yes, eggs are brimming with nutrients beneficial for your overall health and wellness, but did you know that eggs, especially the whites, are excellent for your complexion?

OK, if you have no idea about how to use egg whites for your face, read on.

Egg White, Lemon, Honey:

Separate the yolk from the egg white and add about a teaspoon of freshly squeezed lemon juice and about one and a half teaspoons of organic honey. Whisk all the ingredients together until they are mixed well.

Apply this mixture to your face and allow it to rest for about 15 minutes before cleansing your face with a gentle face wash.

Don’t forget to apply your favourite moisturiser, after using this face mask, to help seal in all the goodness.

Egg White, Avocado:

In a clean mixing bowl, start by mashing the avocado, until it turns into a soft, lump-free paste, and then add the whites of one egg, a teaspoon of yoghurt and mix everything together until it looks like a creamy paste.

Apply this mixture all over your face and neck area, and leave it on for about 20 to 30 minutes before washing it off with cold water and a gentle face wash.

Egg White, Cucumber, Yoghurt:

In a bowl, add one egg white, one teaspoon each of yoghurt, fresh cucumber juice and organic honey. Mix all the ingredients together until it forms a thick paste.

Apply this paste all over your face and neck area and leave it on for at least 20 minutes and then gently rinse off this face mask with lukewarm water and immediately follow it up with a gentle and nourishing moisturiser.

Egg White, Aloe Vera, Castor Oil:

To the egg white, add about a teaspoon each of aloe vera gel and castor oil and then mix all the ingredients together and apply it all over your face and neck area in a thin, even layer.

Leave it on for about 20 minutes and wash it off with a gentle face wash and some cold water. Follow it up with your favourite moisturiser.

Continue Reading

Features

Confusion cropping up with Ne-Yo in the spotlight

Published

on

Ne-Yo: His management should clarify the last-minute cancellation

Superlatives galore were used, especially on social media, to highlight R&B singer Ne-Yo’s trip to Sri Lanka: Global superstar Ne-Yo to perform live in Colombo this December; Ne-Yo concert puts Sri Lanka back on the global entertainment map; A global music sensation is coming to Sri Lanka … and there were lots more!

At an official press conference, held at a five-star venue, in Colombo, it was indicated that the gathering marked a defining moment for Sri Lanka’s entertainment industry as international R&B powerhouse and three-time Grammy Award winner Ne-Yo prepares to take the stage in Colombo this December.

What’s more, the occasion was graced by the presence of Sunil Kumara Gamage, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs of Sri Lanka, and Professor Ruwan Ranasinghe, Deputy Minister of Tourism, alongside distinguished dignitaries, sponsors, and members of the media.

Shah Rukh Khan: Disappointed his fans in Sri Lanka

According to reports, the concert had received the official endorsement of the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, recognising it as a flagship initiative in developing the country’s concert economy by attracting fans, and media, from all over South Asia.

Nick Carter: His concert, too, was cancelled due to “Unforeseen circumstances

However, I had that strange feeling that this concert would not become a reality, keeping in mind what happened to Nick Carter’s Colombo concert – cancelled at the very last moment.

Carter issued a video message announcing he had to return to the USA due to “unforeseen circumstances” and a “family emergency”.

Though “unforeseen circumstances” was the official reason provided by Carter and the local organisers, there was speculation that low ticket sales may also have been a factor in the cancellation.

Well, “Unforeseen Circumstances” has cropped up again!

In a brief statement, via social media, the organisers of the Ne-Yo concert said the decision was taken due to “unforeseen circumstances and factors beyond their control.”

Ne-Yo, too, subsequently made an announcement, citing “Unforeseen circumstances.”

The public has a right to know what these “unforeseen circumstances” are, and who is to be blamed – the organisers or Ne-Yo!

Ne-Yo’s management certainly need to come out with the truth.

However, those who are aware of some of the happenings in the setup here put it down to poor ticket sales, mentioning that the tickets for the concert, and a meet-and-greet event, were exorbitantly high, considering that Ne-Yo is not a current mega star.

We also had a cancellation coming our way from Shah Rukh Khan, who was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka for the City of Dreams resort launch, and then this was received: “Unfortunately due to unforeseen personal reasons beyond his control, Mr. Khan is no longer able to attend.”

Referring to this kind of mess up, a leading showbiz personality said that it will only make people reluctant to buy their tickets, online.

“Tickets will go mostly at the gate and it will be very bad for the industry,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending