Placing American policy under the microscope

By Mano Ratwatte

This response is in reference to your great interview with the new US Ambassador to Sri Lanka. I wish her well and hope she succeeds in achieving America’s objectives without trying to harm Sri Lanka. Please allow me to share some random American thoughts as well. 

However, it must be noted, that for US State Department officials these are really conflicting and confusing times. They have to now promote and espouse policy positions that are diametrically opposite to what they had to push during Obama’s regime; and without rationale. They must be the most under pressure set of bureaucrats in the US vis-à-vis environmental policies, economic and trade policies, etc. What they preached prior to American strongman Trump’s victory is no longer true.  

First: trade. “I am a tariff man,” says American strongman Trump; for a Republican (who are usually so ostensibly pro-free trade) he espouses protectionist, almost Union worker Democrat type positions on free trade. He has now engaged in a tariff war and he is against multilateral negotiations because he feels America’s strength and ability to put pressure is best manifest in bilateral negotiations; but it seems that China is slowly going to relent because it depends on the US for its exports. A modicum (emphasis on modicum) of success was achieved when Canada and Mexico signed up for a new agreement overriding NAFTA.

The Ambassador talked about reciprocal trade with Sri Lanka when Sri Lanka has a healthy trade surplus. But what things can Sri Lanka buy at the expense of its own domestic economy from the US to help the US ease the deficit? Cars? 

Examine USTR.GOV data here: Sri Lanka is currently the US’ 70th largest goods trading partner with $ 3.2 billion in total (two-way) goods trade during 2017. Goods exports to Sri Lanka totalled $ 336 million; goods imports totalled $ 2.9 billion. The US goods trade deficit with Sri Lanka was $ 2.5 billion in 2017.   

Most of those exports are not G-to-G transactions but private sector transactions. Will Trump start targeting small nations too when he has one of his petty tantrums?

Security and climate change

Trump is really on a mission to undermine and scuttle each and every domestic regulation or international treaty that came into fruition during Obama’s regime. Take the Iran nuclear deal - the US unilaterally scuttled it when all the other signatories warned him against doing so. Who suffers the most? Small nations like Sri Lanka that depend on energy imports. He has waived the sanctions on a few select nations but Sri Lanka will suffer. 

If you examine pre-January 2017 positions espoused by US diplomats it was all ‘this pact is great for world peace’, ‘Iran is complying’, ‘the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is great’, ‘restrictions on coal plants are great’, etc. Suddenly, the diplomats have to sing the opposite and even lie on behalf of the US government (and they should as patriots).

FT Quick take

What is a small nation with no energy resources to do? It must walk a fine line. The US may use beautiful diplomatic prose but if you cross them or undermine their interests, they can harm Sri Lanka a lot as well. Remember Libya, Egypt and Ukraine or Iran in 1953. Read between the lines whenever diplomats speak

The TPP was scuttled, Trump got out of the Paris Climate Agreement. He does not believe in climate change because he is very smart and as he says, “My gut tells me otherwise,” and scoffs at all the science. 

This comes from a man the Ambassador’s previous boss, the Secretary of State, the very accomplished former CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, called a “***king moron” and also said the following which you can gather in the excerpt here which I have cut and pasted verbatim from the NY Times. 

“It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil Corporation to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, ‘Look, this is what I believe,’” Mr. Tillerson said in a discussion with Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

Mr. Trump, he added, kept pressing for action beyond his authority. 

“So often, the president would say here’s what I want to do and here’s how I want to do it and I would have to say to him, ‘Mr. President, I understand what you want to do, but you can’t do it that way,’” Mr. Tillerson said. “It violates the law.”

Tillerson’s views on the American strongman have been shared by many other insiders. How did the petty, petulant strongman Trump react? With insulting tweets calling Tillerson’s intelligence into question and stating that Tillerson was dumb as a rock. The barrage of tweets that come from the President are a real concern for every American. The President and Foreign Minister of France recently retaliated by telling Trump to mind his own business and not comment on events inside France.

The best riposte to the strongman’s childish tweets attacking Tillerson came from a former student who works at ExxonMobil. 

The following is an excerpt from him: “I’m not one to post anything that is politically charged on social media. However, when my company’s former CEO and our nation’s former Secretary of State talks openly about his experiences with our current President, it nabbed my attention. Make of it what you will, but I can tell you from my own 15 years of experience working for the same company as Mr. Tillerson, you don’t become CEO of a global corporation by being “dumb as a rock” or “lazy as hell”, and there are likely 80,000+ of my colleagues who would certainly say the same. ....and for what it’s worth, his statements regarding it being a “highly disciplined” and “process oriented” workplace couldn’t be more true. It’s at our core and feeds my anal retentiveness on a daily basis.”

‘I am a nationalist’ 

Strongman Trump is a proud nationalist as he claimed recently (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/23/trumps-embrace-fraught-term-nationalist-could-cement-dangerous-racial-divide/?utm_term=.dac1a0ca1c5b) with a strong base of about 55 million almost all white Christian voters with devotion and loyalty to him, though the 2018 mid-term elections indicated a change in electoral dynamics. 

He is also supported by Fox News, which behaves more like Pravda of the communist USSR, or like state-run TV in many nations. They will back him even if he declares martial law or arrests Hillary Clinton. That is why he refused to condemn Neo-Nazis when there were violent clashes in Virginia last year that resulted in a death. He also bragged once how he could get away with even shooting someone down Fifth Avenue. His base is reminiscent of ardent diehard followers of Mussolini, Peron and other strongmen of the world. Increasingly, a lot of nations are moving towards nationalism. Elections in Brazil, Hungary and changes in many countries show a trend towards nationalism. 

Interference 

Russian interference in US elections in 2016 and also “mucking around in 2018 (Mattis)” is cause for great concern. But the US has had a past of overthrowing democratically-elected governments and installing puppets throughout the Cold War and beyond. 

It was quite clear the US backed the UNP in 2015 for a reason - China phobia, global security and to gain access to the coveted Trincomalee harbour, as indicated through many comments from diplomats and also the increased friendly visits to Sri Lanka by US Navy fleets on almost a monthly basis. 

The USS Stennis gaining a temporary staging area is evidence of increased friendly military ties with Sri Lanka. That is ok. That is what the US does best - fostering their own interests, mostly through good relations but once in a while through other means. 

Look at what happened in Iran when Mosaddegh was overthrown (1953); Chile and Allende (1973). But let’s say those happened during the Cold War because they were locked in a mortal fight with the communist enemy. How about more recent times? Libya? By grossly exaggerating the clashes between Gaddafi and some forces, including Islamic Jihadi types, the US led a coalition to eviscerate Libya based on a hurried UN resolution opposed by China and Russia (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/06/17/russia-and-china-team-up-against-nato-libya-campaign/#1ea2cd876ff1). What was the end result? Is it a stable democracy today or a land split into tribal zones all fighting over their precious commodity?

Take Egypt: First after mass bloody protests during Obama’s time, the US withdrew support from their old ally Hosni Mubarak. Egypt had its first democratic election. Things did not go as planned or desired by the US. The Muslim Brotherhood exceeded their mandate and started violent crackdowns that led to US-supported counter protests and the military overthrew the democratically-elected regime with US approval. General Sisi took over. Then in an “election” he wins 97% of the popular vote. Think of that! That is how Saddam and the Kims in North Korea claimed elections or like how JR won the referendum. 

Not a peep from the Nobel Prize winner Obama (why he was awarded that still perplexes me because it was under him that Libya was ruined, Egypt went through troubles and Ukraine became unstable. For the record, he had not brought peace between any two nations. State Department liberals will really get themselves in a tizzy over this glaring fact) nor the US government because their interests, which include the very important challenge of keeping the peace with Israel, were met when Sisi overthrew the radicals. Egypt is the second largest recipient of US military aid after Israel. If one were to even step back to earlier times, perhaps it was George W. Bush and his completely foolhardy mission to invade Iraq which caused the Arab Spring and the fall of all the dictators in Libya, Egypt, etc.  

Ukraine: Hillary Clinton dispatched an Asst. Secy of State Victoria Nuland to the barricades to distribute bread to violent protesters. Keep this in mind, the Pro-Russian President, albeit corrupt, was evidently democratically elected. The US actively and aggressively promoted the overthrow.   

In a phone conversation you can see how much contempt the US under Hillary had for the EU’s position when the US Ambassador says, rather undiplomatically, “**ck the EU!” End result? Putin takes Crimea back and makes Eastern Ukraine, with a significant Russian population, an unstable insurgency.

What is a small nation with no energy resources to do? It must walk a fine line. The US may use beautiful diplomatic prose but if you cross them or undermine their interests, they can harm Sri Lanka a lot as well. Remember Libya, Egypt and Ukraine or Iran in 1953. Read between the lines whenever diplomats speak.

The US’ China phobia is the main reason behind its desire to access Trincomalee as a staging post. And India too is watching because India has a valid reason to be Sino-phobic since 1962. Even more than the US, India is extremely concerned about China. Sri Lanka succeeds best when it zealously safeguards its great relationships with all major world and regional powers and maintains its proud democratic traditions. Unjustified Western travel advisories are a hint of things to come; Paris is burning and there are terrorist attacks there including a terrible one in Strasbourg. Did the EU issue travel advisories?