For Senegal women's basketball team, show goes on without US visas
MEMBERS of the Senegal women's national basketball team hustled across the court in central Dakar, dribbling and pivoting as the scuffing noise of their trainers echoed across the empty arena.
Originally slated to train in the United States this week, Les Lionnes are instead practising in their home country, an abrupt change of plans highlighting the heightened frustrations for many attempting to enter America under tightened border controls.
Last week it emerged that the United States had rejected visas for 12 of Senegal's players and staff, raising eyebrows just days after the West African nation appeared on a list of countries for which America might extend its travel ban.
'I don't think it's a good look for the US right now', team captain Yacine Diop told reporters at the Dakar practice, conceding that the matter was ultimately out of Les Lionnes' control.
The basketball team's moment in the diplomatic spotlight comes as President Donald Trump's administration cracks down on immigration and US entry, with deportations and visa bans making frequent headlines.
Wearing the team's trademark green, the women spent their first morning of practice drilling and honing technique on Wednesday in Marius Ndiaye arena in central Dakar.
Trundling horse carts plied the street outside alongside taxis and other vehicles on the warm June morning.
'It didn't work out. We're here today, and we have to deal with it', assistant coach Madiene Fall told reporters.
The women were supposed to practise for 10 days in the United States with their American head coach Otis Hughley Jr ahead of the women's AfroBasket 2025 tournament in Ivory Coast next month.
Fall shrugged off the change of plans, telling reporters that the players' success was not contingent on practice location, and pointed to the team's silver medal in the 2023 tournament in Kigali after training in Senegal.
The highly successful Lionnes have finished first or second in eight of the last 10 AfroBaskets, which are held every two years.
Ultimately, team captain Diop added, the 10-day timeframe was short enough that 'it doesn't matter if we go to the US or we stay here'.
'Dunks' Washington
Senegal Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko was less measured when he defiantly announced last week that he was cancelling the team's participation in the US training in light of the visa ordeal.
Baiting the United States with high praise for its archrival China, he thanked Beijing for its continued support of Senegalese athletes.
'Sonko 'dunks' Washington and lauds Beijing', the top headline in local newspaper Sud Quotidien read the next day.
Sitting outside the stadium, real estate agent Diene Bacar Diouf said 'everyone is talking about it'.
'The United States of America is a partner for Senegal, so I don't see the reason why they are refusing visas', the 45-year-old said, adding that the matter had 'disgusted' him.
The US Embassy did not respond when asked by AFP why the visas were rejected, while the State Department said it was unable to comment on individual cases due to confidentiality.
Senegal is among 36 nations that the United States is considering adding to a 12-country travel ban barring entry to its territory, according to an internal administration memo.
For assistant coach Fall, the visa constraint simply calls for a pivot.
'There is no reason to worry', he told the reporters gathered at the arena, 'we will prepare here in Senegal and try to win the holy grail in Ivory Coast.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Exclusive-White House wants major cut in US war crimes, accountability funding, sources say
WASHINGTON/THE HAGUE (Reuters) -The White House on Wednesday recommended terminating U.S. funding for nearly two dozen programs that conduct war crimes and accountability work globally, including in Myanmar, Syria and on alleged Russian atrocities in Ukraine, according to two U.S. sources familiar with the matter and internal government documents reviewed by Reuters. The recommendation from the Office of Management and Budget, which has not been previously reported, is not the final decision to end the programs since it gives the State Department the option to appeal. But it sets up a potential back-and-forth between the OMB and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his aides, who will reply to OMB with their suggestions on which programs deserve to continue. The programs also include work in Iraq, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Gambia. The State Department and OMB did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The expectation that Rubio would argue for many of the programs to be continued is slim, according to two U.S. officials. However, the top U.S. diplomat could make a case to keep crucial programs, such as aiding potential war crimes prosecutions in Ukraine, according to one source familiar with the matter. Several of the programs earmarked for termination operate war crimes accountability projects in Ukraine, three sources familiar with the matter said, including Global Rights Compliance, which is helping to collect evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity across Ukraine, such as sexual violence and torture. Another is the Legal Action Network, a legal aid group which supports local efforts to bring cases against Russian suspects of war crimes in Ukraine, the sources said. Requests seeking comment from the groups were not immediately answered. State Department bureaus that would like to preserve any war crimes and accountability programs should send their justifications by close of business day on July 11, said an internal State Department email seen by Reuters. CHANGING PRIORITIES The administration of President Donald Trump has frozen and then cut back billions of dollars of foreign aid since taking office on January 20 to ensure American-taxpayer money funds programs that are aligned with his "America First" policies. The unprecedented cutbacks have effectively shut down its premier aid arm U.S. Agency for International Development, jeopardized the delivery of life-saving food and medical aid and thrown global humanitarian relief operations into chaos. The OMB recommendation is yet another sign that the administration is increasingly de-prioritizing advocacy for human rights and rule of law globally, an objective that previous U.S. administrations have pursued. While U.S. foreign aid freezes had already started hampering an international effort to hold Russia responsible for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, Wednesday's recommendations raise the risk of U.S. completely abandoning those efforts. Among the programs that are recommended for termination is a $18 million State Department grant for Ukraine's Prosecutor General's Office that is implemented by Georgetown University's International Criminal Justice Initiative, two sources said. While the programs do not directly impact Ukraine's frontline efforts to fend off Russia's invasion, supporters say they represent the best chance of extensively documenting reported battlefield atrocities in Europe's biggest conflict since World War Two, now grinding toward a fourth year. Ukraine has opened more than 140,000 war crime cases since Moscow's February 2022 invasion, which has killed tens of thousands, ravaged vast swathes of the country and left behind mental and physical scars from occupation. Russia consistently denies war crimes have been committed by its forces in the conflict. PATH TO APPEAL Other programs include one that does accountability work on Myanmar army's atrocities against Rohingya minorities as well as on the persecution of Christians and other minorities by Syria's ousted former president Bashar al-Assad, two sources said. While the OMB recommendations could face State Department push-back, the criteria to appeal are set very strictly. In an internal State Department email, the administration cautioned that any effort to preserve programs that were recommended to be terminated should be thoroughly argued and directly aligned with Washington's priorities. "Bureaus must clearly and succinctly identify direct alignment to administration priorities," the email, reviewed by Reuters said. (Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Anthony Deutsch; Additional reporting by Gram Slattery and Jonathan Landay; Editing by Nia Williams)
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Hope in fraught times: Trump-Xi bond could shift ties for the better, say US experts
BEIJING: US President Donald Trump's free hand domestically and open admiration for Chinese President Xi Jinping could make him the wild card capable of shifting the relationship between the world's two largest powers from rivalry to cooperation, American scholars have said. Speaking at a session developed in collaboration with The Straits Times at a World Economic Forum event in Tianjin on Thursday (June 26), Harvard professor Graham Allison pointed out that Trump is not a China hawk. 'If you look at the campaign last year, there were a thousand people running for office in the country in which 80 per cent of the people have a negative view of China,' he said, referring to the US general election in 2024. 'Only one person had positive things to say about China. This was Donald Trump.' Prof Allison noted that Trump had said to Xi that when China and the United States work together, they can solve most of the world's problems. He said he believed that Trump is determined to be a 'great deal maker' and a 'great peacemaker'. 'If he is going to succeed in that mission, the opportunity for Trump and Xi to surprise us on the upside, I think, is enough to be hopeful,' said the national security analyst who has served under former US presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Prof Allison's optimism stands out in the current climate. Since Trump began his second term in January, the US-China rivalry has intensified – most notably with the US' imposition of unprecedentedly high tariffs on Chinese goods – leading many observers to take a pessimistic view of the world's most consequential relationship. His optimism is also striking, given that he is famous for popularising the 'Thucydides Trap' – a concept that draws upon historical pattern to suggest that conflict becomes likely when an established power feels threatened by a rising power. (Clockwise from left) ST Foreign Editor Li Xueying moderating a session with Professor Graham Allison, Professor Jin Keyu, Professor Monica Toft and Professor Happymon Jacob at a World Economic Forum event in Tianjin on June 26. - Photo: World Economic Forum Another American scholar at the same session shared his optimism. Professor Monica Toft of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy said Trump has significant leeway to take a softer approach on China, given that most Americans are not interested in foreign policy and that Congress and the courts are unlikely to challenge him. 'If President Trump decided he could align US interests more closely with China – without giving away the store – he has both the prerogative and the opportunity to do that,' she said. Prof Toft noted that global politics today is shaped by two strongmen – Trump and Xi – who share a personal rapport. 'They talk to one another, they respect one another, they admire one another,' she said. 'It could be an extraordinary period for humanity if they can find a way to collaborate and coordinate on certain issues.' Speaking at the same session, Professor Jin Keyu from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology also saw bright spots in an otherwise gloomy picture of the US-China rivalry. 'I do not agree with the view that they are in a new Cold War,' she said. She said while China and the US may be politically opposite and economically competitive, there is a need for them to cooperate to provide global public goods. 'There is space to collaborate, whether it's on the risk of artificial intelligence, climate, data transparency, and so forth,' she said. At the session titled 'Geopolitics: An Unfolding Story', moderated by ST Foreign Editor Li Xueying, the panel also discussed the erosion of the 'nuclear taboo', a normative belief that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable, even in situations where it might be strategically advantageous. This concept was brought into sharp focus by recent conflicts. In June, the US and Israel attacked Iran to destroy its nuclear weapons development programme. In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, which found itself less able to defend itself because it had given up its nuclear capabilities decades ago. Professor Happymon Jacob, who teaches nuclear disarmament at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in India, pointed out that while the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons remains, the taboo against the possession of nuclear weapons appears to be collapsing. 'Ukrainians would say we made a mistake in giving up our nuclear weapons,' he said at the same panel. 'The Russians will tell you that we have nuclear weapons, thousands of them. There is no way we are going to be defeated in this war.' He noted how South Korea, faced with the threat of nuclear-armed North Korea, is also thinking about developing nuclear weapons. - The Straits Times/ANN
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Nato's Trump flattery buys time but dodges tough questions
LAVISHING praise, playing the royal card and copying his slogans — the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) pulled out all the stops to keep President Donald Trump happy and hold the alliance together at a summit in The Hague. The plan came off, although it largely avoided tough topics of vital importance to Nato such as the war in Ukraine, Russia strategy and a likely drawdown of United States troops in Europe. Sooner or later, Nato will have to deal with them, too. As Nato boss Mark Rutte had planned, the main summit outcomes were a vow by the allies to heed Trump's call to spend five per cent of gross domestic product on defence — a big increase on the current two per cent target — and a renewed US commitment to Nato's mutual defence pact. There was nothing subtle about Nato's strategy to keep Trump on board. Rutte gushed with compliments in a message to Trump, made public by the US president as he flew to The Hague. "You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done," said the former Dutch prime minister in his message, putting some of his words in capitals like Trump. "Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win." Right before the summit, in another sign of chumminess with Trump, Rutte reacted to the US president's comments berating Iran and Israel by saying that "daddy has to sometimes use strong language". Given Trump's threats to quit Nato in his first term and not to protect allies who failed to spend enough on defence, the stakes for Nato have been high. Most Nato members see Russia as an increasingly direct threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and know they would struggle badly to defend themselves against attack without their nuclear-armed superpower ally. After the summit, Trump's previously harsh rhetoric on Nato had been replaced by something very different. "I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them, protect them," As part of Nato's The Hague charm offensive, Trump was granted the rare honour of staying overnight at the ornate royal palace of Dutch King Willem-Alexander before the summit. The king hosted a three-course meal for leaders prepared by 20 chefs and served by 18 footmen in the baroque 17th century "Orange Hall" in the Huis ten Bosch palace. At the start of the summit, other Nato leaders lined up to praise Trump. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda suggested the alliance adopt the motto "Make NATO Great Again". Rutte kept the summit short and simple, minimising the risks of any blow-ups with Trump. The summit's final statement ran to just five paragraphs — compared with 38 in the text from last year's leaders' meeting in Washington. It does not explicitly describe Russia's military action in Ukraine as a war or invasion, nor does it repeat or reaffirm a previous pledge that Ukraine will one day join the alliance. By focusing on reaffirming commitments to Nato and the new spending pledge, it papered over major differences between Washington and many European allies on Russia and Ukraine. To the discomfort of many Europeans, Trump has taken a more conciliatory stance with Moscow and been less supportive of Kyiv than his predecessor Joe Biden as he seeks to end the war. While such diplomatic fudges may hold Nato together for now, it will be hard for the alliance to function effectively if there is a major long-term difference between the US and Europe on a question as fundamental as how to handle Russia. "A Nato summit that essentially ignores the war that is still raging in Ukraine should worry all of us," said Julianne Smith, who served as the US ambassador to Nato under the Biden administration. Peter Bator, Slovakia's former ambassador to Nato, said, "we have just missed an opportunity to send a strategic message to the ruler in the Kremlin. And it will cost us in our security".
