Give Ambassador Teplitz a dictionary, please!

It is not hard to understand US Ambassador Alaiana B Teplitz’ angst. China, along with Japan, owns the debt of her country, the United States of America. China, according the US narrative, has re-colonized Africa without a single shot being fired. China, again according to pro-USA narrators, created the deadly Covid19 and controlled it while the USA is being strangled by it.  The USA was essentially sleeping while China laid out its Belt and Road Initiative. When the USA (and India) got wise to the ‘String of Pearls’ things had moved so far that only damage-control was possible; hence the hastily put together ‘Quad’ comprising the USA, India, Japan and Australia with the objective of ‘stopping China’ in the Into-Pacific region.

No wonder Teplitz is upset!

It can’t be just nationalist ill-will that made Teplitz rant and rave against China in an interview with the Daily Mirror recently. She’s the local representative of the US government, a citizen of a country that operates like a global thug but is in reduced and declining circumstances, articulating country-interest. She could have been more diplomatic but sometimes when reason is trumped by emotion niceties are forgotten. She’s also upset that she hasn’t been able to get her pet project, the MCC Compact, off the ground, possibly compromising career advancement prospects). However, more than all this, what’s probably most bothersome is the fact that China’s footprint in Sri Lanka is way larger than that of the USA.

Yes, the USA itself is upset. So much so that it openly violated WTO rules (which was pushed mainly by the USA in efforts that included arm-twisting representations of countries like Sri Lanka in the infamous ‘green rooms’ way back in 1993 when the GATT was buried and the WTO birthed in its place), in imposing sanctions on Chinese companies. If Washington is pained, it is not surprising that Washington’s official mouthpiece has an articulation problem.

‘Sri Lanka should engage with China in ways that protect its sovereignty,’ she’s said. Now this is an OMG-moment. The condescension! The sheer arrogance! How viceroy-like! And to talk of sovereignty, of all things!

First of all, what Sri Lanka does with any country is Sri Lanka’s business. Many Sri Lankan governments have danced to Washington-tune and this has not pleased other countries (India for example during the J.R. Jayewardene regime), but their representatives didn’t say ‘hey, your sovereignty is at stake, dude!’ Countries do business. It’s bucks or politics or both. Profits and strategic edge. The world is not flat and it is not easy for a country like Sri Lanka to walk the slant. There’s give and take and typically more give than take. True in the case of China, true for other countries too, India and the USA included. Not a happy situation but then again we don’t live in a convenient world.  

The USA does business. Just like the British in another era. The Accelerated Mahaweli Development Project saw many Western countries offering financial assistance. The main contractors in all these projects were companies based in the relevant donor nation. Well, that’s what China is doing in Sri Lanka. Aid, whether it is a loan or called a gift, comes with conditions. The political economy of development assistance benefits donors more than the beneficiaries.

It’s like a corporate giving an unemployed person a choice: ‘you could go without an income or work for peanuts and help me make bucks; it’s a gift, dude, and I am not forcing you to take it.’  

She admits that conditions exist and defends them too, even as she cries ‘foul’ over conditions she claims have been imposed by China. ‘Preconditions are not bad things, if they secure the integrity of the transaction for all parties involved. If the lack of such preconditions creates potential infringement on Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, or otherwise mortgages its future, would it not be in the country’s best interest to ensure preconditions exist?’

Well, there are conditions that come in black and white and conditions that are whispered or interjected parenthetically. Reference to machinations internationally are not uncommon in the USA’s diplomatic moves in Sri Lanka. Reference to trade-relations is also common. It’s saying-without-saying: ‘do this or else.’ Of course mindless or sycophantic politicians and officials don’t really help Sri Lanka’s cause. Sometimes, the USA openly helps ‘friendly’ groups to power (ref: the elections in 2015). So then we would see ‘independent leaders of a sovereign nation freely contracting with the USA.’

And then we have the sovereignty-loving USA bombing sovereign countries to the middle ages. We have sovereignty-fixated USA funding, arming and training terrorists. We have democracy-drugged USA supporting monarchs, tyrants and military juntas violently and brutally suppress pro-democracy movements in countries all over the world. It’s pick and choose foreign policy where the pickings overwhelming trump the lovely rhetoric. 

The Chinese Embassy has responded, gloves off, with some unsolicited advice:

‘While it’s always not surprising to see the US interfere into a sovereign country’s internal affairs, the general public is still astonished to witness [the] despicable attempt to manipulate others’ diplomatic relations.’

China couldn’t let her rant go unanswered, obviously, and yet, China fell short in the trite response. Perhaps if the Daily Mirror interviews Teplitz’ Chinese counterpart, a more comprehensive answer could be obtained.  Perhaps Ambassador Cheng Xueyuan could tell Teplitz and the people of Sri Lanka about loans/grants offered and the relevant terms including interest rates. Perhaps he could compare and contrast.

Teplitz talks about transparency and accountability, although the USA is certainly far from transparent (remember non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) and hasn’t accounted for all the destruction wrecked on the planet through wars and business. Cheng Xueyuan can do better, can’t he? He could call out Teplitz and explain ‘China’ to her (and to Sri Lankans who may have doubts about Sino-Lanka relations).

Meanwhile Alaiana B Teplitz could check the American Heritage Dictionary (the American Center should have one) and check the meaning of ‘Sovereignty.’. And while at it, check diplomacy and duplicity, complicity, arrogance and bewilderment. ‘Angst’ too.

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Whither Gota and the SLPP?

Even the staunchest opponents of the Government would concede that the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) is more than likely to secure a clear majority at the parliamentary elections in August. A resounding victory for Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the last presidential elections less than a year ago, an Opposition in disarray and a general approval rating of the president for the way in which the Covid19 issue is being handled certainly weighs things in favor of the SLPP.

In effect we are likely to have a situation where the parliament is controlled by the same party which the president belongs to. As things stand, former president Mahinda Rajapaksa is likely to retain his prime ministerial portfolio. The 19th Amendment (flawed and anti-democratic let us not forget) does give the Prime Minister more sway than was the case before it was constituted. Whether this cramps or further empowers the president will depend on the relationship between the two brothers. That too is left to be seen.

The SLPP is seeking a two-thirds majority. Such a majority, historically, has fed power-greed to the detriment of democracy and the interests of the citizen. Let’s not forget however that Ranasinghe Premadasa and the UNP didn’t have a two-thirds majority and yet was responsible for the bloodiest period in post-independence history.

‘Fear of a two-thirds’ is obviously not reason enough for a voter to shift allegiance. Simply, one does not endorse a party/candidate that one considers less competent or downright moronic just because one’s first choice might obtain more control in government.

The numbers thrown up on August 5, 2020 will tell many stories, the possibility of cobbling a two-thirds being just one. Power tussles, imagined or real, could be analyzed thereafter. What is more important at this point is policy.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa carried out what was probably the first ever carbon neutral election campaign. By the 12th of November 2019, 26,000 trees had been planted, 6,000 above the 20,000 required to achieve carbon neutrality, accounting for average mortality rates and unexpected destruction. The campaign team maintained at the point that each tree will have a geo-tag to facilitate monitoring and that allometric equations would be used to infer the carbon content stored in these trees by using data such as height and diameter of the plants. The campaign team has not uttered a word since. Maybe it’s all good, but we have no way of knowing. Nevertheless it gave the indication that Gotabaya would be a ‘green president,’ quite in line with the campaign promise of an environment-friendly presidency.

And yet we saw a relaxing of sand-mining regulations following a cabinet decision ‘to support the construction industry.’ Environmentalists warned that the move would see a spike in illegal sand mining as such activity is detected mostly during transportation. Cabinet spokesperson Ramesh Pathirana would later admit that the liberalization of permits to transport sand was being abused and that there was indeed a spike in complaints about illegal mining.

Environmentalists are also up in arms over the decision to revisit Circular 5/2001 related to ‘Other State Lands.’ The Land Commissioner General has stated that a committee has been appointed to segregate lands into protected areas and bare lands. This was in response to objections to the cabinet decision to revoke Circular 5/2001 which would have brought such forests directly under District and Divisional Secretaries whereas previously provisions for releasing areas ‘for development’ had to adhere to numerous environmental protocols. Environmentalists claim that even existing regulations are being flouted and fear that removal of the same would make it an open season for wanton abuse.

The SLPP Government’s pledge to combat the ‘rice mafia’ has also been tested. Dismantling cooperatives of small-time rice millers clearly made a mockery of wresting ‘the right to price’ from the big players. Are they that powerful? Is the government that weak? Is it an indication of true ‘constituency’?  

The SLPP Government has, to its credit, put a lot of effort to review the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact. The Gunaruwan Committee has effectively called for dropping it. For reasons best known to the President, the report has been sent for cabinet perusal. The map of Sri Lanka in 2050 as envisioned by the MCC team-leader, Steve Dobrilovic, presented at Temple Trees in August 2018 included a nation dividing electrified railway line between Colombo and Trincomalee. Jenner Edelman, MCC Country Director sweet-talked about it all being a gift and declared that the railway line was ‘fake news.’ When confronted with the relevant slides, she is reported to have gone red in the face and mumbled ‘Steve made a mistake in giving out this map.’ The MCC stinks. Period. Why the SLPP refuses to dump it clearly raises concerns over the party’s ‘nation first’ rhetoric.

Then there’s the issue of the Eastern Terminal of the Colombo Port. Is this pay-back to India for compensating for possible ‘loss of immediate bucks’ that could come with the MCC (minus of course the nation’s sovereignty).

The SLPP Government is simply not coming clean about all this. The President portrays himself as a nationalist. The SLPP claims the same. You can’t be a nationalist and barter sovereignty. It’s best to tell the truth and be judged accordingly. Navel-gazing and thumb-twiddling will be read as capitulation, nothing less.  

The President raised a lot of hopes immediately after his election by limiting cabinet size. No mention of sticking to this after a possible victory in August. Why not? Are there plans to ‘buy over’ opposition MPs by offering portfolios and using provisions surreptitiously included in the 19th by the UNP (and endorsed by the SLFP and the then Joint Opposition led by Mahinda Rajapaksa)? A committee was appointed to receive applications to high posts. This was to minimize political interference. Well, the committee no longer exists. Loyalty outweighed competence. Is that what a future SLPP Government will also do? If not, the SLPP must tell the voter what’s what as would a ‘kiyana de karana - karana de kiyana (do what was promised, tell what’s being done)’ government.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a doer. It seems clear that he wants to do things differently. Is the SLPP with Gotabaya Rajapaksa? Will he become a creature of the party? Will the SLPP elect those who are in line with the President’s thinking or are they ok with how things were done before? Was Gotabaya Rajapaksa sincere in his promises and was he biding his time until a parliamentary majority was obtained? Will an SLPP-dominated parliament strengthen him or will it render him ineffective? Time will tell.

An SLPP victory is all but assured. That however doesn’t mean everyone, electors included, feels comfortable about endorsement being treated as a blank check. If Gotabaya and/or the SLPP believe it is a mandate for ‘do as we please,’ they would be dead wrong.

ALSO READ: Whither Sajith Premadasa and the SJB

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

The President must be clear

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa cannot look away
on the MCC Compact, the SOFA and Circular 5/2001 on 'Other State Lands'

Promises. Promises. Promises. They come in all sizes, shapes and colors during elections. Therefore, almost all manifestos and slogans can be summarized as follows: ‘We promise to do this, that or the other if you vote for us.’  There’s not much to pick in the ‘this, that and the other’ though.

So let’s take a look at the parties. There’s the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and it’s the clear frontrunner. It’s not victory that’s troubling them but the margin. The party’s presidential candidate conferred a resounding defeat on the hopeful from the United National Party (UNP), Sajith Premadasa not too long ago and there are more positives than negatives since then.

The UNP split thereafter with Premadasa now leading a coalition called Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB or United People’s Force). The two factions, ironically, both claim to be united (but separately so). That split has to work in favor of the SLPP simply because they will bag the bonus seats from the majority of districts. The efforts to combat the Covid19 pandemic are unlikely to be forgotten by the electorate. Indeed, these efforts are all the more praiseworthy considering that it was done without a functioning Parliament and in spite of a cabinet whose legitimacy derives only from Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory and certainly not on voter-confidence or competence. The SLPP, as the President’s party, naturally scores, but it will be interesting to see how the electorate behaves in terms of preferences. Same old, same old, or fresh faces known to be aligned more with Gotabaya Rajapaksa than his brother, is the question that will be answered on August 5, 2020.

The UNP and SJB are essentially in a sub-plot fight to secure the No 2 spot. It’s not a battle for control of the Parliament but of Sirikotha, the UNP’s headquarters, essentially. The SJB seems to have the edge not on account of any special attributes of the coalition or its leadership but frustration over Ranil Wickremesinghe’s inability to deliver to the loyalists a decisive and clear electoral victory in almost three decades.

Sajith Premadasa is the leader of the SJB. The man is humble. That’s an admirable and rare quality in a politician these days and as such an important attribute for someone who aspires to lead the nation one day. The problem is that he trips over his verbosity so often that perhaps he should consider spending a little bit more time thinking before he tweets. Humility that follows pomposity is not exactly something to be cheered. It could be argued that a leader who is marked ‘arrogant’ because he or she does not say ‘I’m sorry’ for erring in one out of ten statements, for example, is to be preferred to one who has to apologize at every turn.  

Premadasa promised much in November 2019. He’s promising more now. It’s a win-win situation for a party/leader doomed to end second best, at best — delivery is simply a non-issue. Whether it works is a different matter. Gotabaya Rajapaksa marketed himself as a doer. The first challenge he faced was one of unprecedented order and enormous proportion. Covid19. Whichever way you look at it, more credibility accrued to the ‘doer’ label.

That said, politics is not a rare season. Elections come and go. Fortunes rise and fall. Dark days must be suffered and the astute politician knows that conduct during hard times goes a long way in obtaining ‘better days’ politically. Sajith does have an able second-in-command in Patali Champika Ranawaka. They are both speakers who can hold a crowd, the one with a bit of wit and a few jokes and the other with lucid, concise and sharp argument. If the SJB is doomed to be in the Opposition and bests the UNP at the election, then Ranawaka might be the better choice for the post of Opposition Leader not least of all because he has a far better track record of engagement in Parliament. That’s for later, obviously.  

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) is located in an even smaller subplot. The JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake got just 3% of the vote last November. Anything more could give some modest bragging rights. Indeed the JVP could benefit from anti-SLPP voters disgusted with both the UNP and SJB for bickering and are convinced that the JVP, even with much smaller numbers, would do a better job in the Opposition. The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), more preoccupied with ideology than the party it broke away from, the JVP, will struggle to get a nose into the final parliamentary frame, but a decent performance will certainly give the JVP a headache.  

All this is about the power equation. How about policy? Neither the Government nor the SLPP has made any conclusive statement on the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact. There is also the Status of Forces Agreement’ with the USA. The East Container Terminal has also been a site of agitation. There is controversy over moves to strike off Circular 5/2001 pertaining to ‘Other State Forests’ in the name of development and land settlement, a move that would be absolutely at odds with Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ‘carbon neutral’ election campaign less than a year ago.

Since the SLPP is in power right now, clear statements need to be made on all these issues. If such is not forthcoming then the voter would be forced to read thumb-twiddling as a sign of impending action that is dead against the national interest.

‘We will handle it,’ is a promise. A weak one. ‘Handle’ can cut both ways. If the SLPP does not articulate its positions on each of the above issues as well as others that are of equal importance to the nation, it is a signal that should be read as ‘don’t trust us.’ Splendid figures regarding combating Covid19 is not a license for ‘do as we please.’ So let’s have some promises on these issues. Then it’s a mandate and a responsibility. The SLPP can capitalize on a confused and  disorganized opposition but that would be cheap politics. The SLPP is not exactly known for ‘expensive politics’ if you will, but President Gotabaya Rajapaksa must ask himself a few pertinent questions: a) will the SLPP being non-committal scar me? and b) if so, will such scarring impede me in delivering on what I promised last year?’  

Politicians will promise. Parties will promise. Promises and promising are cheap. They are words, however, and a disenchanted people who feel cheated and who are organized will throw them back effectively. Gotabaya Rajapaksa could get hurt if his party keeps things vague.

This article was first published in the DAILY MIRROR [July 9, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com.

Read more

The MCC Compact: US Embassy should stop being cagey

Maybe Mangala Samaraweera knows what happened to the USD 10 million pledged!

The committee appointed to review the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact has raised serious concerns about the draft agreement. Noting that the document as it stands is detrimental to the national interest and essentially subverts sovereignty while surrendering judicial oversight, the committee clearly recommends that the Government should not sign the document unless such sections are amended. The US Government has not indicated any willingness to alter anything.

Media statements published by the Embassy, comments of Ambassador Alaina B Teplitz and relevant tweets tell an interesting story. When asked to comment on the final report of the Review Committee, the Embassy said ‘no monies were ever transferred to or spent by the Sri Lankan Government under the proposed USD 480 million grant. Obviously ‘spending’ is out of the question if money had not been transferred, but let’s just smile and move on.

Okay. So, no money has been released so far from the grant itself. If there’s no agreement signed, then money cannot be released. Fair enough. Makes sense. The Embassy has however mentioned funds for preparatory activities in a tweet on June 26, 2020: ‘Funds for preparatory activities have been canceled or indefinitely postponed, pending the Government’s decision whether to proceed with the grant.’

Let’s take a look at the subject ‘Funds for preparatory activities.’ The Embassy, in a statement released on July 27, 2017 refers to an MCC delegation led by Fatema Z Sumar, Regional Deputy Vice President for Europe, Asia, the Pacific and Latin America. Sumar, on a visit to Sri Lanka to push the MCC compact pledged USD 7.4 million ‘to support the development of the compact.’

On June 13, 2018 the Embassy issued another statement. Caroline Nguyen, MCC’s Managing Director for the very same regions, and the Embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Hilton signed an agreement with the Ministry of Finance to provide an additional USD 2.6 ‘to finalize compact development,’ the statement claimed.

Why should there be a top-up unless funds originally allocated were insufficient? Note the word ‘finalize.’ It indicates that much of the ‘development’ (of the agreement) had been completed.

The final report of the Review Committee however claims that there is no record at the External Resources Department of the Finance Ministry regarding any payments being made for ‘preparatory work’ or ‘feasibility studies’ pertaining to the MCC.  

This raises a few questions. Why should additional monies be pledged if that which was agreed upon previously was not used? If indeed the first tranche of USD 7.4 million was used, where did it go? Could the amount have been used to pay ‘consultants’ hired by MCC? Since an agreement has already been signed shouldn’t approval for payment be obtained from the Government of Sri Lanka? If indeed approval was obtained, why is there no record of it?

There’s another serious issue. Now USD 10 million does seem stiff to write what is essentially a glorified project proposal, but let’s assume that it is a complex agreement requiring extensive research involving data collection and input from a wide range of experts.

Now let’s assume that not one cent of the funds pledged for ‘preparatory work' has been released. If someone said money is needed for preparatory work ‘to develop the compact,’ and if someone else says ‘yes, you are right and I will provide it to you,’ it means that preparation CANNOT happen if money wasn’t forthcoming. Now Teplitz and the US Embassy would have us believe that a) preparation needs bucks, and b) no bucks have been provided.

What then can be said about the draft agreement? Was it ‘developed’ without any money for relevant preparatory work? Was it a half-baked document? Was it just a copy-paste of similar agreements (for example Nepal’s MCC Compact whose ‘development’ was overseen by Teplitz, no less!)? What really happened?

It is on record that local research outfits, Verite and LIRNEasia, have been involved in compact development. Perhaps these organizations will reveal what they did, for whom, for how much and whether or not payments were made. Unless of course it was for gratis.  

The Embassy states that MCC-managed funding to support grant preparatory activities ‘was made available under the same highly transparent and accountable procedures used to enable other US development work.’  It is indeed strange therefore that there’s no evidence of ‘high transparency’ or ‘accountability’ with respect to payments and beneficiaries.

The Embassy and the Ambassador have repeatedly insisted that this was a ‘grant’ and that it’s all about ‘wanting to be a friend and partner.’ The truth is that the USA and indeed outfits such as LIRNEasia and Advocata (which are ideological pals of Washington and have championed the myth of the free market) subscribe to the neoliberal doctrine which insists ‘no free lunches.’ Why offer Sri Lanka a free lunch worth USD 480 million then? Why offer appetizers worth USD 10 million?  What’s in it for the USA? What benefits are anticipated from the ‘partnership’ (since ‘friendship’ cannot really be banked)?

Control. That’s obvious. The Review Committee has spelled out in detail the benefits that would accrue to the USA and what Sri Lanka loses on the flip side of the deal.

The Government has stated that the report would be submitted to Cabinet. Action, one way or the other, would follow, we can expect. The bottom line is that the Review Committee report clearly forbids this government from going ahead with the MCC Compact. We need the details of the process, however. The Government, having pledged to review and having been provided with a review, has to decide and make public the decision. Foot dragging will raise suspicions of ‘deals’ being discussed on the sly.  

The External Resources Department claims to be clueless. The Government, then, must immediately launch an investigation regarding the USD 7.4 million tranche. Mangala Samaraweera was the subject Minister when the Sumar and Nguyen delegations visited Sri Lanka, held talks with ministry officials and signed agreements. He can also show some love for transparency and accountability.

The Embassy and the Ambassador have been cagey over details. If, as Teplitz claims, the USA truly values ‘highly transparent and accountable procedures,’ then the truth about disbursements and recipients needs to be revealed. ‘Suspended or indefinitely postponed,’ is not a satisfactory response because it is opaque.

If the first tranche of USD 7.4 million was not used, why was a further USD 2.6 million pledged? Was money spent, yes or no? If ‘yes,’ for what was it spent and who received how much? If, as Teplitz and the US Embassy imply, no money has been released for ‘preparatory work,’ is the final draft ‘unprepared’? Why on earth would the USA expect any Government to sign a half-baked document? It can’t be difficult for Teplitz and/or the US Embassy to answer these simple questions ‘in the interest of transparency and accountability,’ right?

RELATED ARTICLES

Is the MCC 'dead and buried'?

The MCC: did the ‘going devil’ break the earthenware crock (koraha)? 

DANGER: The MCC Compact is down, but not out

Finding paths to being enslaved by the USA 

A political reading of the US Ambassador's angst

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Is the MCC ‘dead and buried’?

Perhaps the lady's career plans are at stake!

I wouldn’t blame anyone for believing that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact is dead. Indeed many thought it was effectively shot down in early November 2019 when Ven Ududumbara Kashyapa Thero ended a fast-unto-death protesting the compact upon assurances first by Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the presidential candidate of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna and then by the United National Party’s candidate Sajith Premadasa.

Rajapaksa, at the time, vowed that all agreements signed after elections were called would be reviewed. Premadasa immediately asserted the same. The two polled 94.24% of the total votes cast. While the election was not primarily fought over the MCC Compact it is obvious that the result did not demonstrate a green light for it. The sentiment probably leaned the other way, i.e. against the MCC Compact.

So, is it dead then? Well, in politics it is not unusual for people, parties and policies considered dead and buried to be resurrected. At the turn of the millennium many in the then ruling People’s Alliance and their ideological cousins in the UNP would have believed that nationalism or at least Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism was dead and buried, along with concerns over the future of the unitary state . Federalism was the future they may have believed. They would have to shed such convictions a few years later. Similarly those who thought federalism in and of itself and as stepping-stone to separatism was buried when the LTTE was defeated in May 2009 had to live with a resurrection of sorts after January 2015.

So let’s not get ahead of ourselves here, not least of all because US Ambassador Alaina B Teplitz has stated that the MCC Compact would be signed after the General Elections of August 5, 2020. For all the assurances given by the lady and MCC representatives about benefits (‘It’s a gift, not a loan, dudes,’ they’ve said) one has to wonder why the gifting party seems to be more invested in the matter than the would-be beneficiary. The answer was provided in December 2019 by Senator
Bob Menendez (D-N.J) in his opening statement at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled ‘Oversight Of The Millennium Challenge Corporation.’ Convened to question the MCC’s Chief Executive Office Sean Cairncross, Senator Menendez, the Vice Chair of the Committee made the following observations:

‘MCC’s data driven approach assesses countries’ constraints to economic growth, and their needs to ensure a maximization on investment returns each countries receives. Americans benefit from these investments as strategic partner countries experience improved regional security through improved economic security, growing trade opportunities, and the ability to resist malign external influence. MCC is an important tool in the U.S. foreign policy toolbox that requires congressional support, including robust oversight to ensure the independent agency sustains its success.’

Flag the following sections: a) ensure a maximization on investment returns, b) ability to resist (as ‘strategic partners’) malign external influence (China?), and c) important tool in the US foreign policy toolbox. So it’s not a ‘bucks needed by friends, bucks given, end of story’ as made out by outfits such as the so-called ‘independent policy think tank’ Advocata Institute which brags that its reductionist and anti-intellectual beliefs in ‘free-markets’ will deliver ‘sound policy ideas’ that are compatible with ‘a free society.’

Advocata is either ignorant of the basics of political economy or is as thick-as-thieves with the goons in this matter, for they submitted to the review committee the view that the Compact ‘should be accepted without further delay.’ Advocata need not call Menendez to figure out what’s what — a close reading of the text should have sufficed. This however would first require a suspension of both free market fixations and a preference for wide-eyed embracing of stuff dished out from Washington DC.

Back to the question. Is it dead, then? The Review Committee (on the MCC Compact) has submitted its final report to the Prime Minister. The Committee, in the Interim Report submitted in February clearly opined the following in the main: a) the Compact would have an adverse impact on the national, social and economic well-being of Sri Lanka, b) the Compact in its draft form contains sections that are at odds with Sri Lanka’s constitution and the law while implementation would be detrimental to national interest, sovereignty and national security.

Given that US Government has not indicated any willingness to amend the terms of the MCC Compact as of now, one can surmise that the Sri Lankan Government would have found it hard to sign the document if the final report does not stray significantly from the above. Apparently there’s been no such departure — Joint Cabinet Spokesperson Minister Ramesh Pathirana declared that Sri Lanka will not sign the Compact.

However, we can’t dismiss the Ambassador’s claim. She mentioned elections. Let’s consider the key players in this election. We know that the SLPP has a significant edge. We know that the Opposition is split, after the UNP’s presidential candidate Sajith Premadasa broke ranks and decided to contest in a separate coalition, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJP).

In January this year President Rajapaksa told the visiting Deputy Assitant to US President Donald Trump, Lisa Curtis, and Acting Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia, Alice G Wales, that a decision on the Compact will be taken considering the views of the people and after the expert committee which is going into it comes out with its report. The views of the people were obviously considered by the Review Committee and found expression in the Interim Report, over and above the antipathy that’s evident in the November 2019 election result. Ramesh Pathirana has articulated the Government’s position. The party, i.e. the SLPP, hasn’t said anything so far.

The UNP’s stand is clear. The Compact’s key champion was Mangala Samaraweera, a powerful minister in the UNP Government of the time. In late October, the Cabinet of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government decided to sign the agreement. Wickremesinghe claimed that this will happen before the Presidential Election. Interestingly, Sajith Premadasa, a senior minister in the same cabinet never once raised any concerns about the MCC Compact. He went along. He offered silent consent. It wasn’t until Gotabaya Rajapaksa gave the above-mentioned assurance to Ven Ududumbara Kashyapa Thero that Premadasa discovered an ‘opinion.’ He essentially copy-pasted his opponent’s position.

In December 2019, Sajith Premadasa went a step further. ‘I will provide parliamentary support if the Government decides to tear up the MCC (agreement),’ he declared. Just a few days ago, Premadasa upped the ante, ‘I am prepared to sign an affidavit pledging I would never sign the MCC agreement,’ he said, adding that the present government should give a similar assurance. Premadasa no doubt would publicize the promised affidavit in the coming days.

Is it dead, then? Let’s say, ‘buried,’ and as a note of caution add, ‘for now.’ The US is down (on multiple fronts) but it is certainly not ‘out,’ as machinations in Geneva to stop moves for a UN resolution or investigation on rights violations indicate. Moreover, this is not only about Washington’s prerogatives as clearly articulated by Menendez. It’s a pet project of the Ambassador. Ms Teplitz was in charge of making Nepal swallow the MCC pill. Perhaps it is a career-defining matter for the lady. One would have to be very naive to believe she would ‘take a knee’ (in remorse) having ‘given the knee’ (so to speak) in a diplomatic equivalent of what George Floyd had to experience.

RELATED ARTICLES

The MCC: did the ‘going devil’ break the earthenware crock (koraha)? 

DANGER: The MCC Compact is down, but not out

Finding paths to being enslaved by the USA 

A political reading of the US Ambassador's angst

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Finding paths to being enslaved by the USA

The USA is in the news. Exposed. Exposed to those who believed the balderdash about that country being the greatest success story of democracy, freedom and the good life, to be more precise. The USA markets lies very well. Whereas other nations as bad or worse are crude the USA is cute in sweetening the bitter, perfuming the foul-smelling and wall-papering over the grotesque. Used to be. That would be more correct.

The protests are ongoing. Significant numbers want that country to come to terms with its sordid history and violent present. Let there be no illusions though. The racist, violent military-industrial complex that is the United States of America is resilient. Is fighting back. Will continue to fight.

Last week we had the US Ambassador in Sri Lanka, Aliana B Teplitz saying that George Floyd’s death (yes, DEATH and not COLD-BLOODED MURDER BY RACIST POLICEMEN) would be investigated. On Tuesday, she issued a statement in which she bests her own standards of convolution. It was regarding a protest again the USA organized by the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP).

‘We welcome discussion on minority rights, equal protection under law, and security service accountability. But let’s do so in safe ways until there’s less to worry about from COVID-19.’

It takes some gall for a representative of the USA to talk about minority rights, equal protection under law and security service accountability, considering that ‘discussion’ of such things pale in relation to the stark and brutal articulation in their breach. Responsible protests is what she is calling for. That’s echoing what the UN chief on human rights said about protests in the USA where riots broke out after extreme and violent police provocation. It’s easy to indulge in equivalency-speak after the villains have done their work.

Safe ways, she said. Condescending isn’t she? And it’s not as though safety was ever a cardinal principle for the USA, domestically or internationally. Safety was not an issue in dealing with COVID-19 either. Profit was. Keeping businesses viable was. And is, even now. Not with respect to COVID-19, not with protests, not in ousting governments and leaders positioned against US interests, and not in supporting the brutal repression unleashed on peoples by governments and leaders allied with the USA.

But let’s talk ‘safety.’ In the midst of all this, an embassy employee created a fuss at the airport, refusing to take a PCR test. Diplomatic immunity was cited. The Government was caught wrong-footed, gave in and (to its credit) subsequently revised protocols for testing of diplomats. The man,  Wayne Hamrick according to reports, is apparently a part of the Embassy’s ‘Planning and Action Training Team’ which is attached, interestingly, to the office of the Defense Attaché. Nothing ‘diplomatic’ in either of these entities of course, but this is the USA, remember? A violent, war-like, liking-war nation whose governments talk down to other nations about human rights but have essentially burnt that book a long time ago.

So, Teplitz’ safety-talk and moralistic grandstanding is for those who protest against her Government but not for employees who could theoretically be a grave threat to the safety of all, COVID-19 and all that which she, not I, brought up.

It raises interesting questions. Now what if this ‘diplomat’ is in fact infected with COVID-19? What if he were to succumb to the deadly virus? What if he happened to be a Muslim? How would the US Embassy deal with death-rites? If buried, how would Muslims whose loved ones died of the virus and were duly cremated feel?  [For the record, I hope he is uninfected and if indeed he is infected I wish him speedy recovery.]

COVID-19 was not anticipated. The world is being recreated as I write on account of the pandemic. Surely Teplitz has heard of the Vienna Convention and knows that its authors and signatories did not anticipate and indeed could not have anticipated a pandemic such as this when crafting articles on diplomatic immunity? No one is immune. That’s the bottom line.

Let’s visit the protests. The police obtained a court order to stop the FSP protesting outside the embassy. The FSP shifted venue to De Soysa (Lipton) Circus, Colombo. Social distancing was maintained. It was a low-key protest. Understandable, given circumstances. A few had been near the embassy. The police intimidated these persons. That’s when things got hot. The protestors were provoked. Some fifty of them were arrested.
 

Tiplitz cites COVID-19 protocols. So does the Government. Indeed, if that was the issue a lot more people in all parts of the country should have been arrested for violating social-distance recommendations. Moreover, there are no laws as of yet regarding such issues. Then there’s also the case of crowds at Armugam Thondaman’s funeral. What happened to COVID-19 protocols? Of course if the 5-mourners rule was imposed it is likely that the champions of human rights, Teplitz included, would have cried out in horror about the government being insensitive to minorities, but that’s beside the point here.

I would love to hear the rights-brigade take issue with the government for the way in which the protestors were handled. Funded-voices, rent-a-signature petitioners, candle-light ladies, born-again-democrats and other Colombots aren’t exactly berating either the government or the US Ambassador. One wonders, indeed, what the lately retired-from-politics Mangala Samaraweera have to say?

Samaraweera has been vocal about one thing. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact.

‘Sri Lanka must fast-track the MCC grant. Worth $500 million (which is roughly equal to a 20,000 rupee grant to every household in Sri Lanka), it can kick-start the relief and recovery program,’ he says. ‘Selling or leasing these State-owned Enterprises and using the money for relief, or for settling public debt, will be an asset transfer from the state to the citizen,’ he adds.

Essentially asset-transfer to the USA is being named ‘asset transfer to citizen!’ How cute is that? Samaraweera knows that the MCC essentially ties the hand of the Sri Lankan judiciary with respect to the operations of the MCC. If the government had to navel-gaze over an arrogant US Embassy official at the airport just imagine what it would have to do if the MCC Compact was in operation!

FOR THE RECORD: As presidential candidate of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on Tuesday the 5th of November 2019, requested Venerable Ududumbara Kasyapa Thero to stop the fast launched over the MCC Compact. All agreements signed by the then  government would be reviewed and revoked if they are not in the national interest, he pledged. The candidate of the United National Party, Sajith Premadasa repeated these sentiments almost immediately. Samaraweera kept mum, for the record.

So has this Government ‘reviewed’? What’s the status of that process? Who is advising this government? Viyath Maga? The Pathfinder Foundation? What’s their agenda? What’s their ideological position with respect to the US, neoliberal economic myths and so on? When is this government going to come clean on all this?

Let’s suspend illusions. The USA is on its knees domestically. The USA, nevertheless, is not going to roll over and surrender to reason and civilization. Teplitz and the US Embassy in Sri Lanka have tasks to accomplish. Getting the MCC Compact off the ground is on top of the agenda.

This is what we have: The refusal of the US ‘diplomat’ to take a PCR test and the government agreeing to waive the requirement + government response to projects + the from-retirement please issued by Samaraweera (a US agent if ever there was one) over the MCC Compact. Need we insist, ‘do the math!’?  

This article was first published in the Daily Mirror (June 11, 2020)

 

RELATED ARTICLES

 

The MCC: did the ‘going devil’ break the earthenware crock (koraha)? 

DANGER: The MCC Compact is down, but not out

 

 

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

The USA has made a case against SOFA, so there!

US TROOPS: An idiot's choice, absolutely!

The United States of America and her agents in Colombo which include but is not restricted to people in the diplomatic mission did their best to get a highly unpopular government clearly on its way out to sign two controversial agreements: SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) and the MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Compact. In the last days of the Yahapalana Government all manner of pressure was put on the then President, Prime Minister and Cabinet to get these matters done. 

Obviously, there are no tangible benefits for Sri Lanka from the first, SOFA. The MCC Compact was pushed using two arguments. They said, ’it’s free bucks machang!’ Well, it is strange isn’t it that it is the giver and not intended receiver that is so anxious about it? They also said, sotto voce, ‘We are your main trading partner, machang.’ Saying without saying it, ‘sign it or else!’ 

It was supposed to be a Sri Lanka driven exercise. Not true. It was the US that pushed it. And the pushers they pushed operated from Temple Trees. We all know that Mangala Samaraweera, a senior minister of the Yahapalana regime, was in charge of two key subjects, foreign affairs and finance. We know also that he was and probably still is Uncle Sam’s darling.  So, yes, they could say ‘it’s a Sri Lankan baby!’ No one is being fooled though. 

What was even more interesting is that Sri Lanka, by dint of achieving Upper Middle Income Status was on the brink of becoming ineligible for the ‘grant’. If it was intended to help the ‘needy’ and if the formerly ‘needy’ are no longer in want, why on earth was the USA so determined to arm-twist Sri Lanka into signing the agreement? 

The President has appointed a Committee to review the draft agreement (which, by the way, was suspiciously kept under covers for a long, long time). Better to review than not, of course, but given the pernicious nature of the entire process and the absolutely untenable arguments for such an agreement given stated criteria he probably should have said ‘sorry dude, no can do.’ Maybe he was being diplomatic, having just assumed office and not wanting to rub anyone the wrong way from the beginning itself, but then again why waste time and money? 

The Committee has solicited public representations regarding the MCC Compact. Many probably have done so already. Some objections are in the public domain. They include a sharp piece by former Permanent Representative to the UN, Tamara Kunanayagam and a comprehensive and damning review by the Sri Lanka Geo-Political Study Circle.

It is hard to see these arguments being countered. The pro-MCC noises made by the neoliberal nati beholden and servile to US interests are in comparison sophomoric. Anyway, the Lalith Gunaruwan Committee will soon deliver a verdict of a kind. It would be interesting to see what it will be since it might end up defining the Gotabaya Rajapaksa presidency, one way or another.

SOFA. That’s what this is about. Status of Forces. Military, in other words. It would essentially give immunity from prosecution to US service personnel while on Sri Lankan soil. To put it crudely, they can and will get away with murder and of course lesser crimes. That’s just one part of it. History has shown that the US has never come in peace and has never come without intention to plunder and/or control. Just the other day, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said that his country had formally delivered a notice to terminate the Visiting Forces Agreement to the United States. That’s the Philippine version of SOFA, by the way. It took them 22 years to reach this decision. We don’t need to wait that long. We don’t have to sign it at all. Period.  

But why not?  Well, Duterte’s decision has been prompted by the US refusing visas to one of its congress members. Peeved, one supposed. Seems frivolous. Perhaps there were more compelling reasons and this refusal was a convenient excuse. Perhaps it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. We don’t know. 

But here in Sri Lanka we have the USA wanting to station troops (whose track record for decades has been genocidal, nothing less) even as that country rubbishes Sri Lanka’s Army Commander, refusing to grant him a visa. 

So, in essence, if SOFA is signed, any US military official, from Commander to foot soldier to clerk, can step into Sri Lanka without a by-your-leave, hello brother, how machang and so on, but the most senior officer of the Sri Lankan Army cannot step on US soil.

The United States of America has made it very easy for President Gotabaya Rajapakasa. This decision is too much an insult to be withdrawn as part of a deal (e.g. ‘ok, we will give Shavendra a visa, but you better get on with SOFA and MCC, dude!). The President must decide who he stands with: the Commander of his Army or some two-bit political appointee in the US State Department. 

The US has showed her ugly mug. Hard to respond with a smile, handshake, shrug of shoulders and an inking that would be an absolute act of treachery. Now the US-lovers/slaves in Colombo will no doubt talk about beggars not being able to choose. Sure, we are not rich, but neither are we destitute. Even if we were destitute, there’s pride. And if we’ve survived the wounds and scars of half a millennium of brutal colonial rule, it’s because of that very same pride. Maybe this is another opportunity to stand up rather than lay down and be walked roughshod over. 

The US was wringing hands not too long ago to get the documents signed. Why? Well, they probably believed it would be tougher to get things done their way under a Gotabaya Rajapaksa presidency. Maybe they even thought it would be impossible. 

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. This is your moment, sir. The USA has killed SOFA. Do the honors: bury it. Along with the MCC. 

This article was first published in the SUNDAY MORNING [February 16, 2020]

RELATED ARTICLES

A political reading of the US Ambassador's angst

Alice G Wells: sovereignty, shared interests, some laughs and a question

DANGER: The MCC Compact is down, but not out

The MCC: did the ‘going devil’ break the earthenware crock (koraha)?

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more