UNESCO's bold stance or sacrifice?

If the United Nations wanted to keep the muddy waters calm, it just did the opposite. There is Israel and Palestine at the center of the stalled Middle East peace process, an impasse that may take another generation to fully resolve. Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you may recall the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas taking its case to the United Nation, seeking recognition not as a country per se, but a bid for full membership to gain certain rights that will give them some stronger leverage at the bargaining table.

It was a complex bait, and sooner or later someone was going to bite.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) did just that, by a majority two thirds vote. For the sake of clarification, this vote and inclusion is an entirely different conversation from the Palestinian bid [full membership] at the UN.

In principle however, there is no difference [if you ask me]. The U.N. Security Council is still grappling with the intricacies, and that in itself underscores the tough road ahead for the international community to find a lasting solution.

Any action will have its consequences, and UNESCO knew very well going in that if its agenda crossed hairs with a major donor nation’s agenda, it will be stuck with a financial bill it couldn’t pay. That is the problem for any entity, not just the UNESCO, that is dependent on donations. On one hand it might want to an impartial arbiter of events, but on the other hand must be cognizant of not ruffling any feathers. That is a tough spot for any entity to be in, and unless another country decides to step up with a boatload of cash, the U.N. agency just said bye-bye to more than 1/5 of its budget.

For the sake of clarification, UNESCO promotes peace through educational, scientific and cultural collaboration among countries. In the real sense, its decision should mean much. Except that it is a key arm of the UN, and what it does in some cases reflects the action of the UN as a whole.

The logic here is that, "a recognition of Palestine as a Member State would jeopardize the hope for a resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations”, according to some insiders close to the story.

For now, the rest of the world will be watching at every turn because the drama just got a little more complex. Of course, no one on the Palestinian side will be sobbing at this symbolic victory, which many will see as a crucial step towards achieving the much bigger objective. Israel on the other hand, sees this as another indication of a world increasingly reconsidering its position on the quagmire, and inadvertently forcing it to come to the table much sooner and with fewer concessions than it would like.

If the U.N. Security Council intended on dragging this Palestinian membership debate along, and hopes the problem goes away miraculously, UNESCO just gave it a blindside punch in the jaw to make tough choices. Something tells me the next few weeks will be tense in New York, because this has every potential of rewriting the fundamental framework of the United Nations agenda as a whole.

Therein lays the real complexity.

Guess what? You could be King of England too. .

Well not exactly anyone.

The Brits are rewriting the rules on the monarchy to give equal rights to the girls; at least they can also get their fair share of the throne rather than wait for a brother to inherit the gig [even if he is almost a nutcase]. Makes sense, if you ask me, - although I have absolutely no say whatsoever on who becomes King of England [not even a butler in Buckingham Palace].

Most people like me [and there is a bunch of people] will be quick to wonder, who cares? Besides that one day in a decade where a highly publicized wedding ceremony takes center stage in the streets of London, not many people care who is King of England, except the royal family themselves.  So, this law change is no different from changing banking hours so that rich people can have access to their money any time they wish. What good will that be to the broke guy who owes Chase Bank $35 in overdraft fees? Nada.

I admit, I have always been fascinated with the British monarchy. Perhaps it comes from my connections win the Commonwealth, or maybe I never lost faith in marrying a princess [or a princess-look-alike]. The fact is, following the Royal Family is a bit like following the Kardashians [America’s version of the Royal family], it at least entertaining than following Kim Jon Il’s next move in North Korea.

Call me a dweeb, but I still think it is a fine tradition. Having the power to dissolve the British parliament, connections, being the Head of the Church of England, and the rest of the world rolling at your feet, - all for doing nothing. [OMG that’s a pretty sweet deal]. 
To date, the best salutation I have managed to get from these ungrateful commoners [neighbors in my case] is “Eric from down the street”.  I can imagine walking into Wal-Mart and seeing a “commoner” address me as “Eric of York”, or at least “His Royal Highness” instead of “what’s up.” How cool will that be? But on second thought, what will I be doing in Wal-Mart? [I digressed]

According to the recent changes, a first-born girl would take the throne ahead of a younger brother. Also, a future British monarch would be allowed to marry a Catholic. A little research traces this twist to the Act of Settlement, a law passed in 1701 which banned the UK monarch from marrying a Catholic, “to ensure that Protestants held the throne and remained head of the Church of England.” 
The point of this exercise therefore [my guess] is to avoid any vacancies on the throne in any event there are more eligible women than men to take the gig.

Some will argue that the British monarchy is doing all it can to stay relevant in contemporary society. I agree. If that assertion has any truth in it, it’s only a matter of time before they summon X-Factor producer Simon Cowell into the King’s chambers to bestow upon him the duty to produce a new reality show for Buckingham Palace. When that happens, call me a genius.

On second thought, just crown me King of England.

Avoiding the Greek Domino

Economic reforms surely are not all created equal.  
At least now we know.

For now, there is jubilation across Europe for what may be the long awaited answer for a problem that was on its way to wipe out the modest economic recovery that global economies were scrounging together since the 2008crisis.

Almost a decade ago, Greece decided to embark on an adventurous economic journey when it ditched the drachma currency. They signed up for the euro, but I have to emphasize here, that [and this is my own opinion] the trouble had nothing to do with the currency change, but rather the country’s lavish spending bill once it unlocked the secret to cheap debt. 

Sooner or later, Greece learned that there was nothing like “free money” and sooner or later someone had to pay the piper. 

To show how deep the problem had become, this is the same country that went asking for $155 billion a few months ago; one year after the same Eurozone and IMF dumped a similar amount in its lap to save the country from its economic mess.

From the outside looking in, it appears our friends in Athens either didn’t get the memo, or simply didn’t care. Austerity measures kicked in when the government was forced to cut public sector benefits, and increase taxes to slow down the inevitable. The IMF and European Union came to its rescue, but there is so much any institution can do before it starts asking the tough questions [or ran out of cash also].

I am sure the Economist magazine will devote ample articles to Greece [free advertising for Economist here], so I’ll save you the analysis. Let’s just say, global markets can breathe again, because any solution offered by the European Central Bank and IMF saves the rest of us from bearing the brunt of a debt crisis we had no business creating.  

No one can say for certain if this plan will work. What we know is that private banks agreed to revalue Greek debt by as much as 50% [down from the21%], European banks will have to reconfigure their revenue streams and create their own buffer systems, as well as European leaders adding more “rainy day” cash to the European Financial Stability Fund without making taxpayers fund any future bailouts. 

All that sounds nice and spiffy, but the best strategy of all remains the tried and tested economic policy; - live within your means.

The Greeks gave the world a lot of history, art and culture, and of course the 2004 Athens Olympics which it spent borrowed money to showcase. That’s neither here nor there. Now, thanks to them, the world has a blueprint for pushing a national economy over the edge. The real question is which country will be next to repeat the same fiasco?

I have lived long enough to know that it’s only a matter of time.  I hope I am wrong.

A Long Kiss Goodbye

More than 4,000 Americans lost in the Iraq war over the past decade. The price tag sits in the trillions of dollars. Those two facts alone are enough to make anyone rethink any cynical criticism to President Obama’s decision last week to exit Iraq. Gotta go buddy!

Of course the very thought of leaving the streets of Baghdad seems to insinuate [at least for some] that the United States are either giving up on its cause, licking its wounds, or proclaiming “mission accomplished.” Perhaps the answer is all of the above. According to reports, Iraqi officials want 5,000 US troops to remain in a training capacity, but refused to give them immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. That is not a deal you can even convince a 5 year old to sign up for, let alone a country with so much vested interested in Iraqi welfare. Thanks but no thanks.

This was bound to happen, and simply because no one expects the US to take permanent residence in Iraq, in the interest of helping the country gain [and maintain] its freedom. Sooner or later the Iraqi’s will have to manage its own destiny. Case in point: - Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. Furthermore, lest we forget, the Iraqi’s got a great head start and luxury that these other countries that emerge from the Arab Spring didn’t have.-somebody else doing the heavy lifting for them.

There are arguments to support the fact that successful operations in Iraq [and Afghanistan] pushed Al-Qaida and the Taliban beyond its comfort zone, with Osama Bin laden taken refuge in Pakistan, leading to his eventual death. Of course there is a country story that will swear that the mission is unaccomplished, and that leaving Baghdad will inadvertently give Iran a clear mandate to occupy the country [if it so wishes].

Either argument may have a leg to stand on, but any objective person will point out that the United States cannot afford to be in Iraq forever, regardless of how idealistic any interventionist policy may appear, even if it was guaranteed a full reimbursement of any costs incurred.

Sure, the US has invested mucho dinero in Iraq. No denying that. The truth is that staying another day past December 31st will incur additional costs that a country on economic life support can’t sustain. Perhaps there is a political strategy at play here, but most people will support it because it makes sense on many levels. If this effort was a joint effort though NATO for example [as in Libya] and the rest of the world split the bill, a fair argument could be made against Obama’s decision.

Nuri al-Maliki and his counterparts will have to take a stand for their own country, and Iraqi’s themselves will have to decide their fate, without international babysitters urging them to push out any strand of terrorist activities lurking in its borders. That is a decision the Iraqi’s themselves will have to make, because for now, the United States have made their; - and it’s a long kiss goodbye.

Death and Dishonor

For months, Muammar Gaddafi was the target of NATO bombs. Many people wanted him gone, and the least concern by anti- Gaddafi contingent around the world was how he went out. One may argue that the past few months and the Arab Spring gave him ample opportunity to make amends and to walk away from a fragile country, on the verge of crumbling at his feet. For some strange reason, the question in some circles of international press agencies is how Gaddafi died. Seriously?

I have to agree [as I did after Bin laden’s death] that there is certain decorum and basic respect to be given to the dead; and that is a personal opinion, based on nothing. In that same vein however, I do not pass judgment at people who do not share this opinion, and especially when the dead person in question didn’t have any mercy or decorum for those he massacred while he lived. Of course there is a fine line between civility and graciousness, and no one is suggesting that OBL, and now Gaddafi deserved a 21-gun salute.

Ask anyone in Tripoli today and they will be quick to let you know that no one cares. But should the care? Whether or not rebel fighters executed Gaddafi or he died from injury when his convoy was attacked, my best guess will be that, such a debate may be an almost pointless exercise. Oddly enough, that might be a graphic memo that other ambitious politicians and military leaders in Libya can remember, and know that their fate might very well be the same if they dared to pursue a similar course. [But I digressed]

If indeed the world is a better place with Muammar Gaddafi’s exit, any talk of violating international rules of war may be a non-issue to Libyans. Of course, the country’s new leadership has their work cut out for them, and their first act in power  [as seen by many] was how they handed over Gaddafi as democratic institutions usually do,  or if they executed him as they see fit [as is the case in most lawless societies]. 

The logic here is that such an act may be setting the stage for the rule of law and human rights in the “new” Libya.

Fair point, but if I had any energy to invest in the new Libya at this juncture, it will be urging the leadership to move with deliberate speed to reconstruct their country before the momentum disintegrates into chaos. Furthermore, while the world is watching, the National Transitional Council (NTC) may want to focus its attention to viable political and economic infrastructures upon which the country’s survival will rest. The sympathy and spotlight won’t last; and if they want proof, see Haiti.

My point? There is more work to be done in Libya, less bandwidth to achieve every critical milestone over the all-important next three months, all of which are more pressing and more vital than an investigation into how Muammar Gaddafi died.

But what do I know?

The Vatican on Your Side

The embryonic stem cell research is as contentious as debates get.
And for good reasons.

For people who argue that life begins at conception, there is nothing to persuade their thought process otherwise. And why should it?  The same is true for ardent proponents of the flip-side.

So when the Vatican [Catholic Church], an entity that opposes embryonic stem cell research, decides to pump $1 million into biopharmaceutical company NeoStem, [a New York adult stem cell firm], this probably ought to raise more eyebrows than it already had. Perhaps [and this is my overly optimistic outlook on life] the contentious debate is on the cusp of finding a quasi-middle ground instead of the entrenched ideological and  philosophical biases we all bring to the table on this subject.

Father Tomasz Trafny, the head of the Vatican's science and theology may [or may not] represent a cross section of anti-stem cell research who despite their staunch ethical beliefs, are still conscientious of the benefits of such research assuming it is undertaken without “killing” innocent lives. The quagmire around the world has rested on the definition of “life”, and I don’t foresee that changing anytime soon. This proposition for adult stem cells inadvertently designed to appease both sides of the aisle may be somewhat tricky. Why? I can bet that opponents will remind you that any endorsement will likely open the door of further encroachment on embryos.

For years, the argument has hovered around the identity of the single-celled zygote formed at the moment of conception, and the extent to which a society is willing to push the envelope in the interest of saving “other” lives. A prime example: US politicians spend eternity pulling punches over whose ideology should hold serve, and every four years, becomes just another campaign talking point.

There are countless examples of restoring sights to blind people, and restoring spinal cord function [among others] by insertion of human embryonic stem cells. Then there are the potential applications in treating heart disease, brain damage, deafness, diabetes, leukemia, and an obvious long list. No one denies those groundbreaking researches. What people have a may have a hard time dealing with is the notion that the only solution to the success stories above is through embryos [whether at conception or near birth].Thus far, the argument boil down to a “life swap”, - save a life at conception or save a life already roaming the planet,- take your pick.

That is probably the reason why the NeoStem approach derived from adult human cells rather than human embryos might change the dynamic of the conversation into a less contentious one. Keyword here is “might.”

Stem cell research cuts across medical, religious, ethical, economic and political lines, but maybe the latest Vatican move eliminates both the seemingly simplistic and deeply ideological stance, into honest conversations on where to draw the line. Or should there be a line?

Occupy Wall Street: America’s "Arab Spring"?

For obvious reasons, anytime a group of people converge on any street, the first thought that rolls to mind is the Arab Spring. 

Sure, it will find its place in the history books as those months in the year 2011 that unraveled some the most entrenched leaders in the Arab world, and forced the rest of the conservative and ideologically unyielding politicians to rethink social reforms. But that was in North Africa.

A month ago, several hundreds of people took on Wall Street with the same commitment to civil disobedience and dissatisfaction with the status quo. “Occupy Wall Street”, the self-explanatory name that it took on suggests dissatisfaction with Wall Street [a representative of fraudulent big banks and supposedly sinister corporations squeezing the “common man” dry], and the “fat cats” who bet on global economic systems to the detriment of the rest of the world. 
At least the emails that have found its way to my inbox tells me that I am one of the 99%, and that I ought to join forces to topple the 1%.

Trouble is, this 1% have no face, and unlike the Arab Spring, the protests seems to have a wide array of reasons for the discontent. Big banks are evil, abolish capitalism, socialism for all, fire Congress, impeach Obama, repeal DADT, boycott Chinese products, protect Unions,. . . and the list goes on and on.

Of course there are two sides to the story, and neither side is any less relevant, and both sides willing to make their point unequivocally clear on television, blogs, and to just about anyone who will listen. Any objective onlooker or participant will tell you that although it may have the semblance of the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street may not have enough momentum to become a true “American Fall.”

Sure, the protest has gained a global following, but unlike the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street have hundreds and thousands of sympathizers with very different motivators. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak was the target, and in Tunisia Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was the direct beneficiary of the collective anger. Libya was a bit tricky, with NATO forces doing the heavy lifting to oust Ghaddafi, perhaps because the Libyans themselves were far from unanimous opposition to Muammar Ghaddafi. My point? Occupy Wall Street’s lack of a leader and clear-cut end game makes it more of a platform for politicians eager to score a point in election polls than to become a catalyst for lasting economic reforms.

Truth is, when any group of people feels disenfranchised, marginalized, unfairly treated, bamboozled, or economically hoodwinked; they will sooner or later take to the streets. That’s not an Arab “thing”, that’s a human “thing”. What is important is to acknowledge the fundamental drama that brought the country to this point, petty bickering in America’s Congress, and politicians faithfully tracking opinion polls like contestants scrambling for votes on American Idol.

If Occupy Wall Street seeks to raise awareness about the role financial institutions played in the continued economic downturn of the global economy, it may have made its point. The tricky part is that unlike the Arab Spring, Americans have a fairly short memories and very personal interests.

There are some protesters who seek an egalitarian society, and want the wealth equally distributed. That in itself I a loaded statement, with many subjective meanings embedded into it, and unless protesters, government, sympathizers, politicians and onlookers can clearly define a feasible, attainable and fair end game, Occupy Wall Street will be nothing more than a forged replica of the Arab Spring without any of the lasting results.

Just a thought.

Making a Case against Protectionism

No one is suggesting that the answer to any national economic quagmire is Free Trade Agreements. But can it help? Of course, it can. But the upside of any such globalization initiative will be undermined by any adverse impact in the national economy (GDP), as is the case for a struggling United States economy. 
So it’s only a natural reaction for most to lick their wounds and go in “defense mode.”

President Obama took his fair share of lashing and back lashing for restricting trade with neighboring countries, some of which may provide an opportunity for additional exports, and potentially create more jobs. That is assuming all other economic factors remain the same, but as it is with any aggressive government strategy, if it works, it works well; but if it backfires, God help us all.

Building economic bridges to South Korea, Colombia and Panama is the product of the long-stalled U.S. initiative to increase exports, and take advantage of products made in the US of A. Of course that begs the question, if it was so brilliant an idea, why now?
The short answer is that for a while United States have been busy doing everything else but manufacturing for a global audience. The longer answer is that US politicians have spent eternity debating ideology and political differences, rather than sound economic policies.

Blame it on the capitalist mindset if you will like, but everyone [and every company] seeks the most opportune strategy to make a buck, and sometimes outsourcing and off-shoring are the best ideas, for a company’s bottom-line at least. Except that an increased margin in a company’s bottom line often translates into high unemployment due to automation of processes, and outsourcing non-essential functions of a company’s activity.

Just in case you needed Economics 101: - A Free Trade Agreements (FTA) is a trade bloc whose member countries have signed a mutual agreement to eliminate tariffs, import quotas, and preferences on most products and services traded between them. Simply put, - eliminate the barriers, or at least make the process smoother to foster trade. With what I know, there is not intent to turn this agreement into an open border initiative and allow the unconditional free flow of human resource that precedes some form of economic integration. That will never happen, if you ask me.

 Most people swear that Free Trade Agreements have proved to be one of the best ways to open up foreign markets to U.S. exporters. At first glance, it makes sense and is unmistakably logical. Unless there are some fineprints.

This deal “removes duties on almost two-thirds of American farm exports, and phases out tariffs on more than 95 percent of industrial and consumer exports within five years.”With unemployment hovering near double digits, there were expectations that the US may turn to protectionist strategies to save what’s left in its coffers.
To use a football analogy, this is when a team is tied in an elimination game and instead of protecting the tie score, goes to for a win.  Hence my earlier point that, if the FTA works well, that will show a commitment to play hard, and the courage to win. For now, the game is still on, so we live to see.

There are two sides to this story [no surprise there], so it will be important to track the value added by the FTA in creating jobs, and jump-starting an ailing economy. Maybe this is becomes the blueprint for Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, as they too are desperately seeking long-term sustainable economic solutions for the European Union currently on life support.

No one is suggesting that Free Trade Agreements are the panacea for the post-recession economic landscape, but protectionism is hardly an answer at a time when the rest of the world is feeling the same pinch, and struggling to save what time it has left on its side.