A World Perspective

A World Perspective
Although I agree with Maya Angelou about the inappropriate paraphrasing of the "drum major" quotation, this quotation makes sense to me.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

More to Chew On -- and This Idea Sounds Deliciously Effective


From: http://whistlepigwhiskey.com/ , retrieved 9/15/12

The State Department’s Diplomatic Culinary Partnership: peace through deliciousness, and not a moment too soon

 2 1
 
comments (0)
White House executive chef Cris Comerford (left) and Blair House executive sous chef Kiesha Sellers at the State Department reception (Leslie Brenner)
This time last week, I was in Washington, D.C. for the Association of Food Journalists’ annual conference — a first for me, and it was stupendous. This is the first of what I hope will be several blog posts about events surrounding the conference.
Most notably from a news point of view, as a group we were invited to a reception at the State Department for the launch of its new Diplomatic Culinary Partnership Initiative. The initiative strives to “elevate the role of culinary engagement in America’s formal and public diplomacy efforts.” (If only we could use culinary diplomacy real quick to cool things down in the Middle East….)  Washington Post restaurant critic and AFJ member Tom Sietsema wrote a fine preview story about it.  All part of the American Chef Corps, an impressive retinue of chefs, was in attendance, including White House Executive Chef Cris Comerford, José Andres, Rick Bayless, Mary Sue Milliken and many more. The program aims to “foster cross-cultural exchange” by having the chefs participate in public diplomacy programs and “enhance formal diplomacy” through food and cooking to engage foreign leaders at Department of State functions. “This is a really important moment for chefs,” said Sam Kass, assistant chef and senior policy advisor for healthy food initiatives at the White House. “Besides chefs,” he added, “grandmothers are the only ones with real food knowledge in this country.” (Well, some of the members of the Association of Food Journalists might argue with that…)
The food and drink were pretty fabulous, including a wine bar that focused on vintages from  Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, New York and, yes, Texas! (McPherson Cellars “Tre-Colore”), and an impressive spread of American charcuterie and cheeses. Some of the chefs were set up in stations making plates — I loved Mary Sue Milliken’s heirloom bean, avocado and bacon tostada, anchored by a wonderful, tangy version of an old-fashioned three-bean salad. Art Smith and Wes Morton’s roasted farro salad with smoked Carolina swordfish was terrific, too.
Pigs in blankets and tobiko blankets on smoked salmon pigs (Leslie Brenner)
And the passed hors d’ouevres were adorable, like spaghetti and meatballs (a forkful of spaghetti atop each small meatball with a dollop of marinara); tiny pizzas (each in its own Diplomatic Culinary Partnership pizza box); and a verdant pasture of pigs in blankets (the old-fashioned kind) and pig-shaped smoked salmon canapes, each wearing a blanket of tobiko — cute! Also of note: an excellent 10-year old rye whiskey from Vermont called Whistlepig and a cocktail called a George Washington Rye Rickey.
Follow Leslie on Twitter@lesbren and join her on Facebook

Thursday, September 13, 2012

A Column To Chew On

Thank you to Michael Young [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2012/Sep-13/187725-america-just-cannot-be-the-loved-one.ashx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WhatsNewInPd+%28What%27s+New+in+Public+Diplomacy%29#axzz26NqNiagZ#When:20:34:33Z] and Donna Oglesby, tweeting @Winnowingfan .

America just cannot be the loved one
By Michael Young
Dozens of disappointing Pew polls later, with the United States government having earmarked vast sums of money for public diplomacy, you have to wonder whether Washington hasn’t run up a blind alley in its desire to be popular among Arabs.
An obscure Israeli-American real estate developer in California uploads a video condemning the Prophet Mohammad, and mobs storm the American consulate in Benghazi, killing an ambassador. In Cairo, demonstrators attack the fortified American Embassy building. Utterly irrelevant, evidently, is the fact that Egypt has benefited from billions of dollars in American aid for over three decades, or that the U.S. helped militarily overthrow Moammar Gadhafi last year.
However, the issue here is not the ungratefulness of the Arabs. There were doubtless quite a few Egyptians and Libyans unhappy with what took place this week. There were probably many more with no opinion whatsoever, who are neither fond of America nor the contrary, largely because America is absent from their daily life.
That doesn’t change the fact that anti-Americanism is more the norm than the exception in the Arab world, even if a vast majority of people never expresses that sentiment in violent ways. Yet who can deny that the mainstreaming of hostility toward America greatly facilitates the violence of minorities? At no time was this more obvious than after 9/11, whose 11th anniversary we commemorated this week, when initial shock soon made way for explanations, then implicit justifications, of the mass murder that had occurred.
It was 9/11, and the question posed at the time, “Why do they hate us,” that sent American officials scurrying for remedies to that hatred. Public diplomacy was given a bureaucratic face-lift, radio and television stations were opened broadcasting in Arabic, and despite the invasion of Iraq, many thought they had discovered the best therapy in the exit of President George W. Bush and his replacement by Barack Obama, who, fortuitously, had “Hussein” as a middle name.
Well, apparently not. Whether it is Obama or Bush, the American sirens calling for more love are apparently not having their effect. There are many reasons for this, but listing them would serve only to reinforce the argument that the Americans are to blame and must, therefore, reshape their conduct to please the Arabs. The Americans are indeed to blame in many ways, just as many in the Arab world are at fault, not least for their hypocrisy when it comes to America. However, the disconnect between America and the Arabs goes beyond perceptions of mutual behavior to include more systemic problems.
It’s a given that the powerful are disliked, and no country has been more powerful than the United States in recent decades. If you have the ability to change things, but no change comes, then you somehow become responsible for everything that goes wrong. The Americans were indeed the defenders of a debilitating status quo in the Middle East, but since 2011 they have been on the side of emancipatory change, despite intense uneasiness. Yet they remain perpetually disliked, with the poll figures sometimes edging up, sometimes down, but always reflecting deep ambiguity toward the superpower.
There is the Israel excuse, of course. Washington’s support for Israel is the knee-jerk pretext whenever an explanation is sought for why America is loathed by Arabs. There is a great deal to censure in Washington’s seemingly unquestioning devotion to Israel, frequently against America’s better interests, but let’s get a grip. For years numerous Arab countries have ruthlessly mistreated or manipulated the Palestinians and their cause, without provoking a discernibly negative reaction from Arab societies.
In light of this, perhaps we must seriously consider that the Arab world has so internalized its disapproval of the United States over time, integrating it perfectly into a prevailing sense of Arab misfortune and frustration, that anti-Americanism has become a constant of Arab political discourse, a crutch of sorts. That is not to say that America is blameless or the Arabs always wrong; it’s to say that the positivist belief among Americans that they can be loved simply by altering their actions and manners is naively overstated.
Being loved is not nearly as important as being respected, and in that regard the United States has been riding a roller coaster. When each post-Cold War administration has cast fundamental doubt on the Middle Eastern policies of its predecessor, holding it responsible for everything that is haywire in the region, expect Arabs to enjoy those catfights, but also to see their doubts about America reinforced. The reality is that when no clear, overriding strategy exists for America’s approach to the Middle East, administrations function more on the basis of domestic politics, calculations and rivalries, and these tend to be alien to the concerns of the Arab countries they influence.
Few Arabs held dear Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, but America fundamentally and advantageously overhauled its policy in the region during the 1970s under their stewardship, on the basis of a careful, long-term reading of Washington’s well-being. In contrast, though George W. Bush injected democracy into America’s regional perspectives, he soon recoiled on that front, before his legacy was overturned by Barack Obama, whose principal motive in the Middle East is to minimize American involvement.
The White House and the State Department would do best to save their public diplomacy funds and focus more on a redefining a lasting, bipartisan strategy toward the Middle East that can span antagonistic administrations. This has not been done in a serious way since 9/11, and it needs to be at this essential moment when Arab countries are facing momentous change. In politics, love is overrated.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.


Copyrights 2011, The Daily Star - All Rights Reserved
13/09/2012

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Don't forget to vote!



Urgent Reminder Regarding the Registration for the Lebanese Upcoming Parliamentary Elections



Citizens of Lebanon in the U.S. may cast their votes in the U.S. for the 2013 parliamentary elections of their country of origin, but only if they register before the end of this calendar year. See
http://www.lebanonembassyus.org/ .


And those of us with U.S. citizenship have no shortage of reminders that it is a presidential election year, with both candidates and their running mates traversing the country and advertising across all media platforms. Which candidate has peace as campaign promise?



Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Politics at the Olympics??? Beauty contests???

Honesty in campaigning? This article -- thank you, Stephen Walt -- illustrates why we need campaign finance reform, although not just because of policy in the Middle East.http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/30/this_year_in_jerusalem


What 'unshakeable commitment' to Israel really means

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

Pandering to special interest groups is a time-honored American political tradition, especially in an election year. The practice is hard-wired into the U.S. system of government, which gives interest groups many different ways to pressure politicians into doing their bidding. Whether we are talking about the farm lobby, the NRA, the AARP, Big Pharma, Wall Street, or various ethnic lobbies, it's inevitable that politicians running for office will say and do lots of stupid things to try to win influential groups over. Especially in a close election.

Which of course explains why Mitt Romney flew to Israel over the weekend, and proceeded to say a lot of silly things designed to show everyone what a good friend to Israel he will be if he is elected. He wasn't trying to win over Israelis or make up for his various gaffes in London; his goal was to convince Israel's supporters in America to vote for him and not for Barack Obama. Most American Jews lean left and will vote for Obama, but Romney would like to keep the percentage as low as he can, because it just might tip the balance in a critical swing state like Florida. Pandering on Israel might also alleviate evangelical Christian concerns about Romney's Mormon faith and make stalwart "Christian Zionists" more inclined to turn out for him. Of course, Romney also wants to convince wealthy supporters of Israel to give lots of money to his campaign (and not Obama's), which is why a flock of big U.S. donors, including gazillionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, accompanied Romney on his trip.

Once in Israel, Romney followed the script to the letter. He referred to Jerusalem as Israel's capital (something the U.S. government doesn't do, because Jerusalem's status is still supposed to be resolved via negotiation). He said that stopping Iran's nuclear program was "America's highest national security priority," which tells you that Romney has no idea how to rank-order national security threats. One of his aides, neoconservative Dan Senor, even gave Israel a green light to attack Iran, telling reporters that "If Israel has to take action on its own, the governor would respect that decision."

But this sort of pandering is a bipartisan activity, and it's not like Barack Obama isn't keeping up. The administration has been sending a steady stream of top advisors to Israel of late, including Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and last week Obama signed a $70 million military aid deal for Israel, in a public signing ceremony. His message: "Romney can fly around and give speeches, but I'm delivering real, tangible support."

The good news, such as it is, is that both Romney and Obama are probably lying. No matter how many times each of them talks about the "unshakeable commitment" to Israel, or even of their "love" for the country, they don't really mean it. They are simply pandering to domestic politics, which is something that all American politicians do on a host of different issues. Of course, they will still have to shape their policies with the lobby's clout in mind (as Obama's humiliating retreat on the settlement issue demonstrates), but nobody should be under the illusion that they genuinely believe all the flattering stuff that they are forced to say.

Why do I say that? Well, consider what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a July 2000 interview, conducted as part of an oral history project conducted by the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
"...Every president I worked for, at some point in his presidency, would get so pissed off at the Israelis that he couldn't speak. It didn't matter whether it was Jimmy Carter or Gerry Ford or Ronald Reagan or George Bush. Something would happen and they would just absolutely go screw themselves right into the ceiling they were so angry and they'd sort of rant and rave around the Oval Office. I think it was their frustration about knowing that there was so little they could do about it because of domestic politics and everything else that was so frustrating to them."
What was true of these presidents was also true of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and if Romney ends up getting elected, I'll bet the same thing will happen to him too. He just won't admit it publicly.

The obvious danger in this conspiracy of silence is that it prevents the foreign policy community from having an honest discussion about the whole Middle East situation, including the "special relationship." Although public discourse on this topic is more open and wide-ranging than it used to be, mostly because some journalists and academics are freer to write honestly about this topic, it is still nearly impossible for politicians or ambitious policy wonks to say what they really think. If you want to get elected, or if you want to work on a campaign and maybe serve in the U.S. government, you have to either 1) be fully committed to the "special relationship," 2) pretend to be committed by mouthing all the usual platitudes or 3) remain studiously silent about the whole subject. And I can't think of any other diplomatic relationship that is such a minefield.

This situation wouldn't be a problem if U.S. Middle East policy was filled with success stories or if Israel's own actions were beyond reproach. But no country is perfect and all governments make mistakes. The problem is that politicians and policymakers can't really have a completely open discussion of these issues here in the Land of the Free.

There's also a tragic irony in all this. In his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote that the two presidents who did the most to advance Arab-Israeli peace were Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. Carter negotiated the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and Bush 41 led the 1991 Gulf War coalition and assembled the 1992 Madrid Peace Conference. According to Ben-Ami, Carter and Bush made progress on this difficult issue because each was willing "to confront Israel head one and overlook the sensibilities of her friends in America."

In other words, each was willing to do precisely what Romney is now telling you he won't.
But what thanks did they get? In 1976, Carter received 71 percent of the Jewish vote and Gerald Ford got 27 percent, a typical result given the tendency for American Jews to favor the Democrats. In 1980, however, Carter got only 45 percent, the lowest percentage ever recorded for a Democratic candidate since World War II. Similarly, George H. W. Bush got 35 percent of the Jewish vote in 1988 (compared with 64 percent for Dukakis), but his share plummeted to only 11 percent in 1992. Their Middle East policies are not the only reason for these shifts, but these two elections are the main outliers over the past fifty years and the (false) perception that Carter and Bush were insufficiently supportive of Israel clearly cost both of them some support.

Which is what Romney is hoping for. The losers will be the American people, whose Middle East policy will continue to be dysfunctional, and Israel, which will continue down its present course towards becoming an apartheid state. And of course the Palestinians will continue to suffer the direct costs of this unhappy situation. But that's democracy at work. If you don't like it, then you'll need to convince politicians that they will pay a price at the ballot box for this sort of mindless pandering. Until they do, it would be unrealistic to expect them to behave any differently. 

Sunday, June 10, 2012

A little bit of nostalgia and a lot of hope and love...

This sentimental piece by a Lebanese American demanded a post, here. How lovely to read about this fellow's return to Lebanon after three decades away, and to the same neighborhood in West Beirut that I stayed in last year. I have similar photos, too, of the scenes at the American University of Beirut.

All the best to the author, and for our beloved Lebanon.

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2012/06/syracuse_beirut_lebanon.html

syracuse.com

From Syracuse to Beirut and back again

Published: Sunday, June 10, 2012, 5:58 AM
The Post-Standard 
Banyan tree in BeirutThe banyan tree climbed by the author as a child.
By David A. Shomar
It's been 32 years since I saw Beirut. Thirty-two years! How absurd that would have seemed on my last visit in 1980 or in 1976 when I immigrated to the United States.
I could not imagine leaving the "Paris of the Middle East" for long. I planned to finish my engineering degree at Syracuse University and head back to work.
Yet, here I am in the town of my birth, arriving with the anticipation of a child on Christmas Eve, filled with memories, emotions and questions. Did it change much? Will I see friends of old? What will it feel like? How did 16 years of civil war change the jewel of my youth?
I landed at Rafik Hariri International Airport. I expected the same old routine, landing far from the terminal, the airplane's doors opening to a greeting of Beirut air, filled with the sweet smells of jasmine and the Mediterranean Sea. But it was a modern airport, and all I saw was a long sky bridge corridor, air-conditioned and nondescript. Is this a disappointing omen? Will nothing be the same?
I re-learned quickly that Beirut never disappoints. It is a city filled with life and passion. The old mixes with the new, like a tapestry across the ages.
You still hear a multitude of languages, sometimes all in the same sentence. Eavesdropping on conversations, I thought how my wife and sons laugh when I shift languages talking with my mother or friends back home in Syracuse.
This was a business trip and after checking in to our hotel, I excused myself. I wanted to go unaccompanied by conversation on my journey back in time. I aimed to wander on a walk, but with a destination in mind: American University of Beirut (AUB) and the neighborhood where I grew up right outside its gates.
I walked to Hamra Street, the main street of West Beirut. The street that seemed so large in my memory was tiny and crowded.
New, tall buildings seem to pop up on every inch of available land. If you want to see a real estate boom or bubble, depending on whether you're an optimist or pessimist, come to Beirut.
Even so, I found old landmarks as I walked the streets. There was the Strand movie theater and Red Shoe store.
The smells! The gyro sandwich shop mixed with the fresh fruits of the famous Lebanese mountains. They kept teasing memories to life, and I felt 20 again.
I strolled past the butcher shop next to my grandmother's house; now it is a copy place just like Kinko's. The restaurant Faisal, where AUB students gathered and discussed politics, is a McDonalds. The photography store where we got our pictures taken is a Krispy Kreme.
I came to see my old hometown only to find I am back in the States.
AUB College HallAmerican University of Beirut's College Hall. Photo by David A. Shomar.

I walked past our old church where my grandfather was laid to rest. The street was so narrow. I remembered how, with so little room to maneuver, I had my first car accident.
Then, there it was: The majestic campus of American University of Beirut. I went to the main gate where the sign still claimed its place in Lebanese history, “American University of Beirut 1866.”
AUB was a Presbyterian mission, a gift from my new country to my old country. As I entered the campus, College Hall was looking at me. This was the symbol that was bombed during the civil war as an attack on foreign presence. We, the alumni, and the rest of the true Lebanese and Arabs who owe so much to that university considered it an attack on knowledge. It was rebuilt to the exact replica of its majestic self with donations that exceeded the cost of rebuilding.
The campus remained an oasis in the city. There were the green benches overlooking the Mediterranean. The same green stadium field where soccer players mixed with runners. Then, 104 steps to lower campus, there was the banyan tree that my brother and I climbed when we were young, its branches descending as roots as if to say, here the future is built on our rich past.
I passed Bliss Hall, where my mother worked at the math department. It is now the computer science department; the past giving way to the future.
But the past is stubborn here in a city that dates to 2000 B.C. Right there, next to all the technology, was the same drinking fountain that quenched my thirst during hot summers. There was West Hall and its marble steps where we sat to watch girls pass by.
I headed out of campus toward California Street where I lived for my first 20 years. As I approached our old building, I knew that it had been demolished. I braced for disappointment only to be pleasantly surprised at the attractive architecture of the new high rise in its place.
I had been walking for three hours. To quench my thirst, I went into the small convenience store at the corner. This took me right back to my childhood. It had been the grocery where we bought our food.
I approached the register to pay and struck up a conversation with the clerk. I relayed my story and remembering, to my amazement, the old grocer's name, I asked if he knew of the man. To my astonishment he replied, "He was my father." He had passed away last year.
I felt my heart skip a beat.
"I was 12 years old when my mother sent me to get a jar of jam," I told the grocer's son. "When I asked your father to get me one, he became irate and started to scold me and threatened to call my mother." Being from Palestinian origin, the word for jam in our dialect coincided with the word for unfiltered cigarettes in Lebanese slang. He was watching out for me. Now that is a good man who cared about his community and not only his bottom line.
The son and I hugged, and I left feeling right back at home.
The next few days were filled with old friends, family and fantastic meals.
On Sunday we headed to church where my mother's cousin is the priest. His church is in the downtown area that was completely rebuilt after the war by Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated while bringing Lebanon back to life.
The rebuilding of downtown Beirut is a story in itself. The utterly devastated buildings were rebuilt with care to reflect the city’s history and culture, using the Arab and French architecture that gave Beirut its style. In the process of excavating, ruins from as far back as the Hellenistic era were uncovered and turned into living museums. Business is business, but it takes vision and passion to save a culture at the expense of another dollar profit.
At Mass, I was moved by the piety of the assembled. Their belief was genuine without being arrogant. I noticed the piety of the Muslim Lebanese as well who attended prayers in the new Hariri mosque with its four minarets reaching to the sky. Not far away, the Lebanese Jewish temple has been rebuilt.
David ShomarDavid A. Shomar

Yes, there are Jewish Lebanese and they remain Lebanese. That is a side of Lebanon that should give us all hope.
Differences divide us in Lebanon, in the United States and elsewhere in the world, but this beautiful country can also show us the path toward coexistence. I long for the day when my fellow Lebanese will use their common piety to see how similar they are in their journey. If they could look past the petty to their common history and culture, they would see what they have achieved. This would be the greatest gift they can bestow on the human race.
I am lucky to have two hometowns to be proud of. From Syracuse to Beirut and back again. Lebanon perseveres, and my hope is that it can show the world the gift of coexistence and lead us to a more perfect union.
David A. Shomar is Regional Director of Middle East Operations at Saab Sensis. He lives in Manlius with his wife and two sons. He can be reached at dshomar@gmail.com.
© 2012 syracuse.com. All rights reserved.