Category: International

*While the “Arab Spring” hasn’t sprung into fruition in Saudi Arabia, it’s obviously no coincidence that King Abdullah has been especially empathetic
these days. Especially to those with major reservations about autocracy, hard-line Wahhabism and corruption.

Earlier this year, the Saudi government gave (virtually) everybody a pay raise (only 10 per cent of the workforce is in the private sector) and then threw in two months of extra salary for all state workers. It will spend more than $40 million of its oil wealth on its poorer citizens, including funding for housing.

But the King didn’t stop with pre-emptive bribes. He has even upped the concession ante to include the truly touchy subject of women’s rights. Coming soon: Women will be able to vote. The monarchy, however, is still drawing a line in the sand on other gender-rights’ issues. Women will still need male consent to marry, for example, and they will still require male chaperones. And, yes, Saudi women remain the only females in the world legally prohibited from driving. In fact, it can be a lashable offense.

It certainly puts voting rights in an ironic context. Saudi women still need men to drive and accompany them to the polls.

Arguably, the “Arab Spring” still beckons.

* Some things just won’t go away. Among them: Cold War anachronisms and military-industrial complex vestiges.

We were recently reminded that Cuba isn’t the only remnant of America’s role in the Cold War. The U.S. just announced a major ($5.85 billion) arms sales package to Taiwan to upgrade its fleet of (145) F-16 fighter jets. The announcement also underscored this country’s commitment and obligation–harkening back to1979 legislation–to helping the island nation defend itself. No need, however, in the more nuanced, post-Cold War era to actually mention from whom. What Red Menace?

And that commitment would have been a lot more had certain Republican and Democratic lawmakers–as well as GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney–had their way. They want the U.S. to accede to Taiwan’s additional request for 66 new F-16s. According to the Obama Administration, that request is still under consideration. Left unsaid: There’s a lot of money, influence, jobs and political capital at stake here.

Something else that should always be under consideration is President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous farewell warning in January 1961. To wit: “…In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. …”

* All-too-familiar scenario: The U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, was attacked the other day in Beirut. He was there to talk to leaders of the Syrian opposition. His attackers were angry supporters of the regime of besieged President Bashar Assad.

The good news? They hurled tomatoes and eggs at Ford. In the Middle East, this is progress.

While the “Arab Spring” hasn’t resulted in protests–let alone an insurrection–in Saudi Arabia, it’s no coincidence that King Abdullah has been especially empathetic these days to those who might look askance at autocracy, hard-line Wahhabism and corruption. Earlier this year, his government gave (virtually) everybody a pay raise (only 10 per cent of the workforce is in the private sector) and then threw in two months of extra salary for all state workers. It will spend more than $40 billion of its oil wealth on its poorer citizens, including funding for housing.

One country’s stimulus is another one’s bribe.

And now the 87-year-old King has upped the ante on the truly touchy subject of women’s rights. This just in: Saudi women will now be able to vote. But they still need male chaperones and male consent to marry. And, alas, they are still prohibited from driving.

It certainly puts voting rights in an ironic context: Saudi women still need men to drive and accompany them to the polls.

Arguably, the “Arab Spring” still beckons.

Some things just won’t go away. Among them: Cold War anachronisms and military-industrial complex updates.

We were recently reminded that Cuba isn’t the only remnant of America’s involvement in the Cold War. The U.S. just announced a major ($5.85 billion) arms sales package to Taiwan to upgrade its fleet of (145) F-16 fighter jets. The announcement also underscored America’s commitment and obligation–harkening back to 1979 legislation–to helping the island nation defend itself. No need, of course, in the post-Cold War era to actually mention from whom. What Red menace?

And that commitment would have been a lot more had certain Republican and Democratic lawmakers–as well as GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney–had their way. They want the U.S. to accede to Taiwan’s additional request for 66 new F-16s. According to the Obama Administration, that request is still under consideration. Left unsaid: There’s a lot of money, influence and jobs at stake here.

Something else that should always be under consideration is President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous farewell warning in January 1961. To wit: “…In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous  rise of misplaced power exists and will persist….”

They seem in good health. Somebody paid their $1 million bail. And now Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer, America’s highest-profile international hikers, are back home. As Americans, we are, of course, relieved. But we would also be remiss if we didn’t put this in perspective.

Why exactly would anyone want to hike near the Iraq-Iran border? So near, in fact, that they might well have “accidentally” wandered into Iran, as they claim. Whatever the reason–from the ultimate hike to the ultimate blog–their stupidly cavalier act risked putting the U.S. into a sovereign bind with Iran. You can bet that behind State Department doors, Hillary Clinton was not pleased about any perceived geopolitical leverage accorded the Ahmadinejad regime.

So, welcome home, Josh and Shane, but try the Alps next time.

One long-overdue step forward. One frustrating half-step back. Such is “progress” along the Tampa-Cuba continuum.

To recap the most recent event of note: Direct, albeit limited, flights from Tampa to Havana have  resumed. Most Americans who would like to visit the nearby island nation still can’t, of course, but this is good news for those in the Cuban-American community. And it numbers about 80,000 in the Tampa Bay area.

But while this step was only an incremental one, it has at least upped Tampa’s profile regarding Cuba. But then what? Arguably, you would want to take advantage of such entree. Maybe expand the number of such flights and add other Cuban cities. Develop additional business relationships that have been too long deferred.

But first things first. So, how about a polite, pro forma letter from the Tampa City Council to be conveyed by a council member to a Cuban government official acknowledging the obvious? We bring greetings. We come in friendship. We pay respect to the historic ties between Tampa and Cuba. And we celebrate this reconnection via recently commenced commercial flights. Etc. Or as City Council Vice Chairman Mary Mulhern, who initiated the letter gesture, phrased it: “Basically saying hello to Cuba.”

Apparently that was the hola from hell for City Council member Mike Suarez.

Anything official from City Council, he reasoned, was inappropriate. In fact it was tantamount to messing with foreign policy. It surely was akin to a “government to government” communication. “I don’t think at this time this is the proper way for us to present our credentials or to even say hello to the people of Cuba through this letter” explained Suarez. “I just can’t support it. … our role as City Council is not to make international policy.”

¿Cómo?

Since when does Councilman Suarez, who reminds us that he has “Cuban blood,” channel a Diaz-Balart brother?  This is Tampa, where “Cuban” connotes cigar workers and Jose Marti, not Little Havana, where “Cuban” means Batista extended family and exile agenda. Too bad Suarez didn’t make clear during last November’s election that he would use protocol as a smoke screen for a counterproductive, provincial view of doing business with Cuba.

Perhaps Suarez should read–or reread–the minutes of previous meetings on this subject. Other American cities and states have taken trade missions to Cuba. Some governors have led them. Officials talk directly.

Such visits aren’t considered meddling in international affairs. It’s seen for what it is: Trying to get your state or community a piece of the action not precluded by the Cold War-era economic embargo. You also want to establish relationships. Of course you do. In any other context, this is not an issue. It’s just common sense. And good business practice. But not when it comes to too many Florida politicians and the subject of Cuba.

Objecting to a nominal City Council letter is likely seen in Havana–believe me, they know about this exercise in absurdity–as a sign of timid, parochial politics at best and as an insult at worst. You want to partner with those who can’t agree to drop you a courtesy line in gratitude and friendship?

When the embargo is lifted–and the end is near–the Cuban government will remember who was on board back when. And who was too petty or too ideological to even “risk” a formal bienvenidos, hola or gracias to an appropriate official. And who was perceived as a last-minute opportunist.

As Havana’s American soul sister, Tampa is uniquely positioned to take advantage of trade and travel opportunities between Cuba and Florida. The cultural ties date to the 19th century. But Tampa will continue to lose credibility and business to New Orleans, Houston and Galveston if it continues to be impacted and influenced by those playing the part of clueless, political rubes.

We tend to take our criminal-justice presumption-of-innocence tenet for granted until confronted with certain high-profile cases. A Casey Anthony, a Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Pre-trial publicity can skew perceptions–until reined in and balanced by legal analysis.

And then there’s Egypt’s trial of its former President Hosni Mubarak. Isn’t there something inherently incongruous about a cage and a presumption of anything but guilt?

Who could have seen this coming a half century ago?

The People’s Republic of China, that revolutionary hotbed of communist fervor and egalitarian rapture, is lashing out at the United States. Not, however, for exploitative capitalism. But for unconscionably skewed priorities represented by our “bloated social welfare costs.” Who would have thought?

It’s even more official now. The Mideast peace process is an oxymoron. The intransigence of Israel’s Netanyahu government and the alliance of terrorism-supporting Hamas and pro-West Fatah have underscored the failure of the two-year mission of U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell.

As a result, former Maine Sen. Mitchell is resigning. He was never able to approach the success he had in his previous peacemaker assignment. He is acclaimed, as we well know, for his work in helping seal the Northern Ireland peace accord.

The sobering reality: Yes, terrorism is terrorism, regardless of venue. And the frustrating, bloody, sectarian strife between Protestants and Catholics exacted an awful price over the years. But it wasn’t the Mideast.

Imagine being practically nostalgic for “The Troubles.”

From Lafayette Park across from the White House to Citizens Bank Park, the home of the Philadelphia Phillies, ad hoc celebrations of Osama bin Laden’s death broke out late Sunday night (May 1). A decade removed from the 9/11 attack that killed nearly 3,000 people, its perpetrator — the personification of evil and the world’s most notorious fugitive — was now dead. Chants of “USA! USA!” — sounding not unlike the jubilant cheers for American Olympians or World Cup players — filled the festive, high-fiving air.

Party on. The commemorative T-shirts, hats, coffee mugs and mouse pads would soon follow.

Chances are, some of you had a gut feeling — upon hearing this welcome news — similar to this: Relief. Satisfaction. A fist-clenching “Yes!” And to quote an unsmiling President Obama: “Justice has been done.” Deferred too long, but now done.

We did, indeed, learn from that botched attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages in 1980. Thank you, SEAL Team Six.

But I personally have a hard time with successful assassination as a party theme. Even of one whose demise benefits non-jihadists everywhere. “I think we can all agree this is a good day for America,” added Obama, who remained in somber mode.

Agreed. Of course.

But this wasn’t “VJ” Day. This wasn’t the triumphal end of a war. It was the end of a war’s iniquitous symbol. The war on ever-splintering terrorist networks continues, and at least in the short term, there will be some sort of retaliatory attack(s). But it was the price to be paid to take out bin Laden, who — it should be underscored again — needed taking out in the worst way. Plus, this daring, well-honed operation yielded a cache of hard drives and DVDs that could prove valuable against al-Qaida. Possibly more valuable than the death, per se, of bin Laden.

“This is a time to rejoice,” crowed The Dallas Morning News. I really can’t go there.

Of all people, I think Tampa resident and former Buccaneer quarterback Vinny Testaverde had it about right. Testaverde, a New York native, was playing for the Jets when 9/11 occurred. He was instrumental in lobbying the NFL to postpone its games the next weekend.

“What’s happened the last 24 hours has brought a lot of people satisfaction,” said Testaverde. “But it doesn’t make me happy that he’s dead. Satisfied? Yes. But I’d be happy if 9/11 had never happened. …”

But I’ll give the final words to Stephen Colbert, whose parody prism doesn’t preclude the truth. Acknowledged Colbert: “I hope I am never again this happy over someone’s death.”

When France formally banned the (generic) wearing of veils in public last week, it knew what reactions to expect. For openers, broad popularity. Most French citizens don’t wear veils in public. More to the point, many of the veil-less see the new law as a necessary step to preserve French culture and counter perceived separatist tendencies among Muslims. And some undoubtedly see themselves fighting the good fight for ostensibly subjugated women.

Those who do feature the veiled look, and it’s about 2,000 niqab-wearing Muslim women, see the ban as a cultural and religious affront.  As do many of the country’s 5 million Muslims. As do many non-French, non-Muslims who perceive anti-immigrant sentiment as the driving force.

All of which can obscure the bottom line. It’s really about security. It’s about the civilizational prism of those with a martyr complex. It’s about zero-sum, West-targeting, jihadist geopolitics that can transcend any border. Terrorists now come in both genders. They dress appropriate to the task. Burqas, alas, could be more than a cultural and religious statement.

But this cuts both ways. I’ve traveled to the Middle East. American women in my company had to accommodate to prevailing cultural norms. Yes, it was unflattering. No, they didn’t feel quite equal. But when in Rome.

Or Paris.