Category: International

Among the no-shows for Cuba’s recent 50th anniversary celebration of the Bay of Pigs triumph over CIA-backed exiles: Fidel Castro. He wasn’t up to it physically and apologized and begged forgiveness for his absence from Revolution Plaza.

But, no, there was no apology for foisting an ill-conceived, ego-driven, ruinous economic model on Cuba for the last half century.

Castro also praised his brother, President Raul Castro, for proposing term limits (two five-year terms) on all of Cuba’s politicians. Presumably both brothers missed the irony of timing.  Term limits for repressive, failed ideologues had been an obvious non-starter for the last 52 years.

This just in from the dystopian mess that continues to be Cuba. At the recent Communist Party summit (and accompanying parade to celebrate the Bay of Pigs triumph), Cuban President Raul Castro proposed term limits (two five-year stints) for the country’s politicians. It was part of a “rejuvenation” of the government, explained Castro, 79.

That means Raul, who took over from Fidel in 2008, can stay in power and preside over “rejuvenation” until 2018. When he’s 86.

Timing, of course, is everything. After 52 years of Castro-brother misrule, it’s now apparently time to rethink and reform the Cuban leadership model. Too bad there were never term limits for failed ideologues.

That photo on page two of last Monday’s Tribune–next to the accompanying headline: “Dylan Jams in Vietnam”–took me aback. Probably some of you too. For there was iconic anti-war troubadour Bob Dylan on a Ho Chi Minh City stage singing “Highway 61 Revisited” and a lot more.

Imagine, Dylan Plays VIETNAM. THAT Vietnam.

For those who missed some minutes of past meetings, the Vietnam where 58,000 American G.I.’s died and another 2,000 servicemen and civilians remain MIA’s from that ill-fated, foreign-policy nightmare of the 1960s-70s. The Vietnam where 1.5 million Vietnamese died.

But that was then, and this is not. Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam’s financial capital and one of Asia’s boomtowns. It courts foreign investors the way Dylan used to lure anti-war protestors.

It has also made a case for a revamped U.S. approach. The Cold War-era horror show is long over. What’s to be gained by maintaining an economic embargo and a diplomatic blackout?  Finally President Bill Clinton lifted the embargo and restored diplomatic relations. And, yes, some Veterans’ organizations and families of loved ones lost in the Vietnam quagmire disagreed. It was understandable. It was personal.

But personal emotion, sensibly enough, never dictated foreign policy a generation removed from the Vietnam War. We all got that, even though most of us didn’t walk in those Cold War shoes–or combat boots.  Eventually, bi-lateral trade agreements followed. The Vietnam War’s most famous prisoner-of-war, John McCain, even revisited his old “Hanoi Hilton” cell–and moved on. And now Dylan sings “A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall” in Vietnam.

And yet.

We still can’t normalize relations with Cuba. A country we haven’t been to war with. A country that doesn’t haunt our history with the blood of thousands of Americans. Jimmy Carter visits notwithstanding, the best we can do after half a century is to loosen the tightened screws applied during the George W. Bush Administration.

But not unlike those Veterans’ organizations and Vietnam-afflicted families, this also has a personal prism. Only this prism is also a prison for United States foreign-policy. The South Florida exile community, and we know all too well who they are around here, still wields outsized clout. That’s why even Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Washington insider and President Obama’s newly appointed head of the Democratic National Committee, isn’t outraged at their holding America hostage to their vendetta agenda.

And that still lingering, Little Havana political clout is the principal reason the Obama Administration’s approach has been one of timid incrementalism. Even though the status quo of non-normalization is counterproductive to the best interests of the U.S. For reasons that are more than manifest: humanitarian, geopolitical and economic.

This country has real enemies, and Cuba is not among them.

Sure, Cuba’s an economic Marxist mess. Sure, it continues to live down to its reputation for being democracy-challenged. Sure, it uses Uncle Scapegoat for domestic politics. But it won’t make any short list of the most egregious violators of human rights, most of whom–from China and Saudi Arabia to virtually any country ending in “stan”–we currently have normal diplomatic and trade relations with.

Perhaps there’s a gig awaiting Dylan some time in Havana. If so, that would make it official: “The Times They Are a-Changin.'” Ninety miles away. Finally.

What to make of this latest Koran-burning incident? More context.

First, yahoo Gainesville preacher Terry Jones and his sparse following of gun-toting, congregant cretins are at it again. He didn’t follow through on his burn-a-Koran gimmick last summer–on the anniversary of 9/11. But last month he did.

Second, the lemming-like media was an enabler last time. Print and electronic. “Press conference? We’re there.” This time, to its rare credit, the media passed on the red-meat offering.

Third, Internet-savvy jihadists and wannabes still got the word out. And Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who might be as unpopular there as here, made public note of Jones’ Koran torching. Once again, Karzai proved that he knows how to play the Uncle Scapegoat card, especially with anti-American sentiment ratcheting up.

Fourth, the net result of the burn-a-Koran hotline was the enragement of the usual suspects. But much more than effigy burnings resulted. Insurgent provocateurs, hard line mullahs and likely local Taliban stirred an eminently stir-able mob into storming a U.N. compound in Northern Afghanistan. They then hunted down and brutally murdered seven foreign U.N. workers. Not Americans, but close enough: a Swede, a Norwegian, a Romanian and four Nepalese.

Fifth, this was a loathsome, barbaric reminder of the civilizational conflict we’re embedded in. This is about religion too easily perverted and priorities too often warped. To this day, images of suicide-bomber carnage and horrific beheadings don’t bring nearly the visceral reaction of outrage as an unflattering Mohammed cartoon or a seared Koran.

And sixth, to burn a Koran is to be within the protection of the American legal system. Not unlike burning the flag. It’s an extension of one of those core, hallowed principles: the allowance of freedom of expression for the unpopular and objectionable. All that President Barack Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder can do is make the rhetorical case that they and probably every American who doesn’t belong to the Dove Outreach Center find Koran-burning repugnant and culturally insulting and worthy of condemnation.

But you can only imagine how sacrosanct First Amendment rights and rationales play in the Middle East. To not outlaw is to condone.

But as we well know, there are First Amendment limits. The classic yelling of “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Even if an Adam Sandler movie is playing. The non-right of a pro-Castro crowd to assemble and march through Little Havana. It’s clear-and-present-danger stuff. Clearly.

It’s also common sense stuff.

Too bad it doesn’t apply to Gainesville Koran burnings. As sure as there is an Internet, Muslim fanatics and Arab “street” tinderboxes, there would–we knew–be a propaganda bonanza resulting from Jones’ incendiary act. Such that it would put lives–American and others–at guaranteed risk. Such that it would result in good people dying.

“Clear and present danger”–in a clearly dangerous world–must mean more than a movie theater abstraction. The U.S. Constitution must not be an unwitting enabler of murder.

Let’s try to put this whole Koran-burning issue into context.

First, this is the unconscionably self-serving work of a Gainesville yahoo masquerading as a red neck preacher with a couple of dozen gun-toting, congregant cretins. Ultimately, Terry Jones of the Dove Outreach Center didn’t follow through on his burn-a-Koran gimmick last summer — on the anniversary of 9/11/. This time Jones and DOC did — on March 20.

Second, last time the media was an enabler. Both print and electronic. They couldn’t get enough of this blatantly self-promoting dolt. “Press conference? We’re there.” Another lemming outing that benefits no one worth benefiting.

This time, to its credit, the media passed on the red-meat offering.

Third, the American media pass became moot as agenda-driven, Internet-savvy jihadists and wannabes still got the word out. And Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who might be as unpopular there as here, made public note of it. Once again, he proved that he knows how to play the Uncle Scapegoat card, especially with anti-American sentiment ratcheting up.

Fourth, the net result of the burn-a-Koran-in-America hotline was the enragement of the usual suspects. But much more than effigy burnings and insulting signage resulted. Insurgent provocateurs easily stirred an eminently stir-able mob into storming a U.N. compound in northern Afghanistan. They then hunted down and murdered seven foreign U.N. workers. Not Americans, but close enough — including four Nepalese.

Fifth, this is a loathsome, barbaric reminder of the civilizational conflict we’re embedded in. This is about religion too easily perverted and priorities too grossly warped. To this day, images of suicide-bomber carnage and  horrific beheadings don’t bring nearly the visceral “street” reaction as an unflattering Mohammad cartoon or a torched Koran.

And sixth, to burn a Koran is to be within the protection of the American legal system. Not unlike burning the flag. It’s an extension of one of those core, if untimely, principles — allowing freedom of expression for the unpopular and objectionable. All that President Barack Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder can do is make the rhetorical case that we find Koran-burning repugnant, culturally insulting and worthy of condemnation. But we can only imagine how sacrosanct First Amendment rationales play in the Middle East: To not outlaw is to condone.

But as we well know, there are First Amendment limits. The classic yelling of “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Even if an Adam Sandler movie is playing. The right of a pro-Castro crowd to assemble and march through Little Havana. It’s clear-and-present-danger stuff. It’s also common sense stuff.

Too bad it doesn’t apply to Gainesville Koran burnings. As sure as there is an Internet, Muslim fanatics and Arab “street” tinderboxes, we knew there would be a propaganda bonanza resulting. Such that it would put lives — American and others — at risk. Such that it would result in good people dying.

“Clear and present danger” — in a clearly dangerous world — must mean more than a movie-theater abstraction. The U.S. Constitution must not be an unwitting enabler of mayhem and murder.

*Among those scurrying to pre-empt chaos and downfall: the relatively stable regime of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah. The 86-year-old monarch’s government recently announced an unprecedented economic package that will provide, among other benefits, nearly $11 billion in interest-free loans for Saudis to buy or build homes. The move addresses an 18-year waiting list for Saudis to qualify for a loan.

But we’ll know when King Abdullah is really serious: the day his government permits women to drive.

*American news media are wont to refer to the protests and armed rebellions going on in a number of Middle East countries as demands for “democracy.” Surely, that applies in some cases, but isn’t it much more accurate to refer to raucous demonstrations as “anti-dictator” rallies and riots?  “Democracy” is a semantic reach, one that implies, among other things, a civil society, a literate, informed electorate, viable political parties and vehicles for institutionalized, meaningful choices and reasoned debate. Something we obviously haven’t perfected yet in this country.

Note, for example, what the turnout was in Tuesday’s mayoral and city council races. More exercised their right to be indifferent than to be involved. And how many of those votes were more for neighbors and names than plans and proposals? We don’t need to be lecturing anybody about “democracy.”

*Some United Nations’ vetoes matter more than others. Arguably, the one the U.S. just cast in the Security Council has made the U.S. case for being an honest Middle East broker that much harder–if not impossible–for now. It’s what happens when you’re the lone vote against a resolution that passed 14-1. It called for the condemnation of “illegal” Israeli settlements and demanded an immediate halt to all settlement construction. Among those angered: a lot more than Palestinians and Arab countries.

There are overlapping bottom lines. Israel is an ally. Its sovereignty was forged from the Holocaust. It’s the only “democracy” in that part of the world. It’s also the recipient of more American foreign aid than any other country. It also has inordinate lobbying influence on American politics.

But it’s not the 51st state.

*When your Secretary of Defense buttresses his theme by quoting Gen. Douglas MacArthur, you know he’s got everybody’s attention. When he chooses the post-Korea MacArthur, you know it’s not another day at the rhetorical office. Sure enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates paraphrased the more geo-politically advanced MacArthur when he recently told cadets at West Point that “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as Gen. MacArthur so delicately put it.”

But timing, of course, is everything.

Recall that the Persian Gulf War, which included a viable coalition, was a 100-hour offensive. The secretary of defense was Dick Cheney, but the president was the seasoned George H. W. Bush, and the uber influential chairman of the joint chiefs was Gen. Colin Powell. Although he was criticized for halting the war shy of Baghdad–and the removal of Saddam Hussein–President Bush had his reasons. “We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq,” explained Bush Sr.

Too bad that reasoning didn’t prevail for Iraq, The Sequel. Surely MacArthur would have agreed that the jihad-inspiring occupation of a Muslim country–or two–was an awful idea.

It’s been apparent for a long time, of course, that China is more enamored than repelled by all things capitalistic. In fact, the long-term, master plan has been anything but inscrutable: to be a major global economic force and then beat the U.S. at its own game. Remember Red China? So “Manchurian Candidate”-dated.

Today’s China is a mega, hybrid communist state with seemingly incongruous touches of the system once officially reviled in the People’s Republic. It’s been a Long March to millionaire neo-Mandarins.

China is now America’s most formidable economic competitor, second-largest trading partner and biggest debt holder. And now this: The Olympic sports arena in Beijing has sold its naming rights. The 18,000-seat basketball facility will now be called the MasterCard Center. The parallels with Western capitalism are ironically eerie and they continue apace. In fact, we’ll know the Great Leap Forward has finally jumped beyond ideological redemption when we read of suburban Beijing’s 1-800-ASK-MAO Amphitheatre.

It’s not often that good news–worthy of handshakes and smiles all around–is associated with Iraq. But that was, indeed, the case the other day at the United Nations. That’s when the Security Council, the U.N.’s most powerful body, lifted 20-year-old (Kuwait-invasion era) sanctions that had barred Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and pursuing a civilian nuclear program. It means progress confirmed. A relic of the Hussein era officially and finally jettisoned.

The reality is that Iraq, which took nine months to form a semblance of a government after elections, is now without those sanctions. It means that Iraq, whose government is tenuously comprised of jury-rigged alliances, is now without those sanctions. And it means that Iraq, a country with virtually no democratic track record but a chronic history of sectarian warfare, is now without those sanctions.

Has progress ever felt so sobering?

There’s a lot to be disturbed about–from national-security scenarios and compromised individuals to media responsibility and hypocrisy–over that cache of confidential diplomatic cables publicly exposed by WikiLeaks.

Ironically, in the name of “exposing” big government, WikiLeaks also exposed itself. It’s not about whistle-blowing and keeping government honest. It’s a narcissistic, conscience-challenged, pseudo-revolutionary hacker outfit that cares much more about its disingenuous, headline-hunting agenda than concern over imperiling lives–directly and indirectly–and compromising sovereign relationships. 

Actually, WikiLeaks might have impressed more than just budding anarchists–and possibly done something of merit–had they had the zeal, guts, commitment and contacts to not limit themselves to the accommodating West. America, like all countries, necessarily traffics in confidential diplomatic cables. It’s fundamental to information collection. It would be betraying American interests were it not to.

But America is easily targeted; it’s the most open society in the world. Imagine if WikiLeaks had outted some nefarious agendas emanating out of Tehran, Pyongyang or Beijing. But that would require a level playing field and a purpose beyond intimidating sensationalism. That’s not the purview of terrorists.

It’s hardly surprising, alas, that major media, which gave purloined and exposed embassy cables their gravitas legs and extended exposure, have not accepted responsibility. This, after all, was an act of sabotage. But not to, among others, the self-serving New York Times. “Just doing our job,” it has, in effect, reminded those who question, “but we’re doing it very, very carefully. Sure, it’s classified information, and sure some of its revelations could blow some covers, endanger some people and unravel critically sensitive international relations, but we’ll be the judge of that, thank you.”

Perhaps the Times is still in over-reaction mode to what Judith Miller did for the Bush Administration in 2003. Miller was the one who helped make the case, as only an ambitious reporter with the high-profile, high-credibility NYT can, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and needed a good invasion and regime change.

One other point. It’s mystifying–and scary–how easily accessible this sensitive, government material has been to low-level functionaries. There are national security “loopholes”?

This much we know: The war in Iraq has been costly. Nearly $750 billion worth. More than 4,400 members of the U.S. military have died there.

This much we hope we know: America’s “combat” mission in Iraq is over. All troops will be home by the end of 2011.  

This much remains problematic: About 50,000 American troops–in a largely “advisory” role–are still there.

This much remains scary: Iraqi stability and security are inextricably linked. Six months after an inconclusive election, Iraq still has no new government.

This much remains possible: The next Yugoslavia. Eventually. At best.