Features
As Julie Chung morphs into Elizabeth K Horst…
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
Silence of the majority keeps West Asian conflict raging
With no military quick-fix in sight to the ongoing, convoluted West Asian conflict it ought to be clear to the rationally inclined that there is no other way to a solution to the blood-letting other than through a negotiated one. Unfortunately, there are not many takers the world over for such an approach.
Consequently the war rages on incurring the gravest human costs to all relevant sides. Whereas it should be obvious to the Trump administration that Iran wouldn’t be backing down any time soon from its position of taking on the US frontally and with the required military competence in the Hormuz Strait and adjacent regions, the US demonstrates a stubbornness to persist with war strategies that are showing no quick, positive results on the ground.
Clearly, the virtual ‘lock down within a lock down’ situation in the Strait is not proving beneficial for either party. Instead, the spilling of civilian blood in particular continues with unsettling regularity along with an all-encompassing economic crisis that carries a staggering material toll for ordinary people all over the world.
From this viewpoint it is commendable for Pakistan to offer itself as a peace mediator and go ‘the extra mile’ to keep the principal parties engaged in some sort of negotiatory process. But its efforts need to win greater support from the world community. It is a time for peace-makers the world over to stand up and be counted.
It is also a time for straight-talking. To his glowing credit Pope Leo XIV is doing just that and he is the only religious head worldwide to do so. Very rightly he has called on President Trump to end the war through negotiations and described it as ‘unjust’ and ‘a scandal to humanity’.
May this crucial cause be taken up by more and more world leaders, is this columnist’s wish. Instead of speaking fatalistically about a ‘Third World War’, decision and policy makers and commentators, and these are found in plenty in Sri Lanka as well, would do better to help in drumming-up support for a peaceful solution and the latter is within the realms of the possible.
Incidentally, the commonplace definition of the phrase ‘World War’ is quite contentious and it would be premature to speak forebodingly about one right now. The fissures within the West on the Middle East conflict alone rule out the possibility of a ‘World War’ occurring any time soon.
Instead, it would be preferable for the international community, under the aegis of the UN, to take the ‘straight and narrow’ path to a peaceful solution. As implied, this path is no easy avenue; it is cluttered with obstacles that only doughty peace makers could take on and clear.
However, the path to a negotiated peace is worth taking and no less a power than the US should know this. After all, the US ‘bled white’ in Vietnam and had to bow out of the conflict, realizing the futility of pursuing a military solution. A similar lesson should have been learned by Russia which bled futilely in Afghanistan. It too is in an unwinnable situation in Ukraine.
The Pope’s observations to President Trump on negotiating peace have earned for him some snarls and growls of criticism but with time these critics would realize that peace could come only by peaceful means and not through ‘the barrel of a gun.’
For far too long the ‘silent majority’ of the world has allowed politicians to take the sole initiative on working towards peaceful solutions to conflicts and wars. As could be seen, the results have been disastrous. The majority of politicians speak the language of Realpolitik only and this tendency runs contrary to the ways of the selfless peace maker.
Power, which is the essence of Realpolitik, and peace are generally at loggerheads in the real world. Power and self-aggrandizement have to be shelved in the pursuit of durable peace anywhere and it is a pity that the likes of Donald Trump and his team are yet to realize this.
At this juncture the ‘peace constituency’ or the silent majority would need to take centre stage and play their rightful role as the ‘Conscience of the World’. If the latter begins to take on the cause of peace in earnest everywhere, the politicians would have no choice but to pay heed to their cause and take it up, since a contrary course would earn for them public displeasure and votes.
An immediate challenge would be for the ‘peace constituency’ to come together and act as one. Right now, such a coordinating role could be played effectively by only the UN and its agencies. Practical problems are likely to get in the way but these need to be managed insightfully and resourcefully by all stakeholders to peace.
In fact the time couldn’t be more appropriate for the backers of peace to come together and work as one. Right now, economic pressures are increasing worldwide and no less a public than that in the US is beginning to feel them in a major, crushing way.
Going ahead the US public, along with other polities, would find the economic consequences of war to be intolerable. There would be no choice but for governments and peoples to champion peace. Peace makers would need to ‘strike while the iron is hot.’
The success of the above endeavours hinges on the importance humans attach to their consciences. The danger about prolonged wars is that they deaden consciences; particularly those of politicians. The latter deaden their consciences to the extent that they prove impervious to the pain and suffering wars incur.
Thus, the ‘peace constituency’ has its work cut out; it cannot rest assured that politicians would prove sensitive to their demands. The latter would need to be constantly dinned into the hearts and minds of politicians and decision-makers if peaceful solutions to conflicts are to be arrived at.
Likewise, the publics of war-torn countries would need to demand the activation and sustaining of accountability processes with regard to those sections that are suspected of committing war crimes and like atrocities. Those publics that cease to demand accountability from powerful sections among them which are faced with war-time atrocity charges are as good as condemning themselves to lives of permanent dis-empowerment and enslavement.
Features
Don’t take the baby: In the quiet night, mother always returns

Chaminda Jayasekara
There is a particular stillness in Sri Lanka’s forests, after dusk — a kind of hushed expectancy where shadows lengthen, cicadas soften their chorus, and the night begins to breathe in its own rhythm. It is a world that does not reveal itself easily. You have to wait for it. You have to listen.
And then, suddenly, you see them — a pair of luminous, unblinking eyes suspended in the dark.
The Grey Slender Loris, or unahapuluwa, emerges, not with drama, but with quiet precision. Small, slow-moving, and almost impossibly delicate, it is one of Sri Lanka’s most enigmatic nocturnal primates — a creature that has survived millennia by mastering the art of stillness.
Yet, during these months — from late March through July — the forests hold a more tender story. It is the breeding season of the slender loris, and with it comes a scene that is often misunderstood by those who encounter it for the first time: a tiny infant, alone on a branch, barely three inches long, its fragile body silhouetted against the night.

Grey Slender Loris with twin babies
To many, it appears to be a moment of abandonment.
To nature, it is a moment of trust.
“People often act out of compassion, but without understanding what they are seeing,” explains Chaminda Jayasekara of the University of Hertfordshire. “A baby loris left alone is not necessarily in danger. In fact, it is part of a natural process that is critical for its survival.”
According to Jayasekara, when a baby loris is about a month old, the mother begins a remarkable routine. As darkness settles, she gently places her infant on a secure branch and moves off into the forest to forage. Her journey can take her hundreds of metres away — sometimes close to 800 metres — as she searches for insects and other small prey.
In those hours of solitude, the infant is not abandoned. It is learning.
Clinging to the branch, it begins to explore its immediate surroundings. Tentatively, almost hesitantly, it reaches out — testing balance, grip, and instinct. It may attempt to catch tiny insects, mimicking behaviours it will one day rely on entirely. This is its first classroom, and the forest its only teacher.
“Those early nights are crucial,” Jayasekara says. “The baby is developing motor skills, coordination, and the ability to interact with its environment. These are things that cannot be replicated in captivity.”
And yet, this is precisely where human intervention often disrupts the process.
Across rural and even semi-urban Sri Lanka, stories circulate of well-meaning individuals who come across a lone baby loris and assume the worst. Driven by concern, they pick it up, take it home, or attempt to hand-rear it — believing they are saving a life.

Grey Slender Loris
But the reality is far more complex — and far more tragic.
“When a baby is removed unnecessarily, it loses something fundamental,” Jayasekara emphasises. “It loses the chance to learn how to survive in the wild. Without that, even if it survives in the short term, its long-term prospects are extremely poor.”
The forest, after all, is not just a habitat. It is a living, evolving system of lessons — how to detect predators, how to navigate branches, how to hunt silently, how to recognise territory. These are not instincts alone; they are behaviours refined through experience.
And the mother, contrary to assumption, is rarely far away.
“If people simply waited — even for several hours — they would often see the mother return,” Jayasekara explains. “She knows exactly where she left her baby. Her absence is temporary, purposeful.”
The advice from conservationists is clear and consistent: observe, but do not interfere.
If you encounter a baby loris, watch quietly from a distance. Avoid using bright lights or making noise. Give it time — at least 10 to 12 hours — before drawing conclusions. In most cases, the situation will resolve itself, just as nature intended.

35 days old Grey Slender Loris
Only if the animal is clearly injured, or if there is strong evidence of abandonment after prolonged observation, should intervention be considered — and even then, it must be done through the proper channels, particularly the Department of Wildlife Conservation.
Attempting to care for such a delicate animal at home is not only ineffective but often fatal.
Sri Lanka is home to two species of slender loris — the Grey Slender Loris and the Red Slender Loris — each adapted to specific ecological zones across the island. Both are protected under national legislation and recognised internationally as species requiring urgent conservation attention.
Their threats are many: habitat loss, road mortality, illegal pet trade, and, increasingly, human misunderstanding.
Yet, in the midst of these challenges, there are also signs of hope.

In recent years, the slender loris has become the focus of a unique form of wildlife tourism — one that values patience over spectacle. Night walks, conducted with trained naturalists and strict ethical guidelines, offer visitors a chance to witness the loris in its natural environment without disturbing its behaviour.
At places like Jetwing Vil Uyana, this approach has been refined into a model of responsible eco-tourism. Over more than a decade, the property has developed a dedicated Loris Conservation Project, recording thousands of sightings while educating visitors and supporting local communities.
Here, the loris is not handled, chased, or exploited. It is simply observed — a quiet presence in a carefully protected landscape.
“The success of such initiatives shows that conservation and tourism do not have to be at odds,” Jayasekara reflects. “When done responsibly, tourism can actually support conservation by creating awareness and value for these species.”
There is something profoundly moving about encountering a loris in the wild. It does not roar or charge. It does not demand attention. Instead, it exists — quietly, deliberately — as it has for millions of years.
And perhaps that is why it is so easily misunderstood.

In a world that often equates visibility with importance, the loris reminds us that some of the most extraordinary lives unfold beyond the spotlight.
It also reminds us of something else — something simpler, yet harder to practice.
Restraint.
Because conservation is not always about stepping in. Sometimes, it is about stepping back. About recognising when nature does not need our help, but our patience.
So if, on some future night, you find yourself walking beneath the trees, and your light catches a tiny figure sitting alone on a branch — do not rush forward.
Pause.
Watch.
Let the moment unfold.
Because somewhere, moving silently through the darkness, guided by instinct and memory, a mother is already on her way back.
And by morning, the forest will be whole again.
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Kumar de Silva: 40 years of fame and flair
We first saw him on the small screen in January 1986 – a relatively raw, totally untrained and a very nervous 24-year-old presenting ‘Bonsoir’ on ITN.
And now, 40 years later, and as one looks back, one realises what a multi-dimensional journey Kumar de Silva has navigated across the small screen yes, from your television screens to your laptops, and iPads, tabs, and mobile phones.
Says Kumar: “It is the French language I speak that opened the world of television to me, 40 years ago. It was ‘Bonsoir’ alone, and so to my French teacher at Wesley College, Mrs. BA Fernando, to ‘Bonsoir’, and to the Embassy of France in Sri Lanka, I am eternally grateful”.

Promoting the French language, and culture, in Sri Lanka, in a big way
Kumar went on to say that on the heels of ‘Bonsoir” came ‘Fanclub’, on ITN, describing it as yet another resounding success story which saw him as a music DJ on TV.
His inherent talent saw him handle a range of contrasting programmes across ITN, TNL, Prime TV and SLRC with consummate ease – from News Reading, Business Talk Shows, Celebrity Chats, to Dhamma discussions, on Poya Days, to name a few.

Kumar – the 1986 look
Trained in Paris in television production and presentation, the Government of France, in 2012, conferred on him the title of ‘Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Arts et Lettres’ (Chevalier in the Order of Arts and Letters) in recognition of his contribution to promoting the French language, and culture, in Sri Lanka.
In celebration of his four decades on the small screen, Kumar recently launched ‘Bonsoir Katha’, the Sinhala translation (by Ciara Mendis) of his English book ‘Bonsoir Diaries’ (2013), at a gala soiree. at the Alliance Francaise de Colombo, under the distinguished patronage of the French Ambassador in Sri Lanka, Remi Lambert, and francophone President Chandrika Kumaratunga.
He’s now excited about launching the French version of this book, ‘Les Coulisses de Bonsoir’, in Paris, in autumn this year. It is currently being translated by Guilhem Beugnon, a former Deputy Director of the Alliance Francaise de Colombo. This will, co-incidentally, also be Kumar’s 30th visit to Paris.

Chief Guest French Ambassador in Sri
Lanka Remi Lambert
Says Kumar: “The word GRATITUDE means a lot to me and so I always make it a point to spend time with two very special French people every time I go to France. One is Madame Josiane Thureau, formerly of the French Foreign Ministry, who began ‘Bonsoir’ in Sri Lanka. way back in the mid-1980s. The other is Madame Aline Berengier, the lady who designed the ‘Bonsoir’ logo – the Sri Lankan elephant in the colours of the French national flag”.
Kumar is also a much-sought-after Personal Development and Corporate Etiquette Coach in Colombo’s corporate world. Over the past 15 years, tens of thousands of corporates, have been through the different modules of his interactive training sessions. There have also been thousands of school leavers and undergraduates from national and private universities, many of whom will constitute the corporates of tomorrow.

Guest of Honour francophone President Chandrika Kumaratunga at the gala soiree
at the Alliance Francaise de Colombo
The multi-talented Kumar turns 65 next year, and his journey on the small screen still continues – you see him on the (monthly) ‘Rendez-Vous with Yasmin and Kumar’ on the French Embassy’s YouTube Channel, and (every Friday) on ‘Fame Game with Rozanne and Kumar’ on Daily Mirror Online, Hi Online and The Sun Online.
There’s yet another podcast in the pipeline, he indicated, but diplomatically declined to give us details. All he said, with a glint in his eye, was, “It will hit your screens soon.”
Whatever he has in mind, one can be certain that the new programme will continue to showcase Kumar de Silva’s enduring presence in Sri Lanka’s entertainment scene.
-
News3 days agoRs 13 bn NDB fraud: Int’l forensic audit ordered
-
Business6 days agoHarnessing nature’s wisdom: Experts highlight “Resist–Align” path to resilience
-
Opinion4 days agoShutting roof top solar panels – a crime
-
News6 days agoGratiaen Trust announces longlist for the 33rd Annual Gratiaen Prize
-
News5 days agoFrom Nuwara Eliya to Dubai: Isha Holdings markets Agri products abroad
-
News6 days agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract
-
News4 days agoChurch calls for Deputy Defence Minister’s removal, establishment of Independent Prosecutor’s Office
-
News5 days ago‘Agents of the devil’ seeking to block Easter probe, Cardinal warns
