Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for December, 2011

There’s no easy way to say this. Lebanese women are exhibitionists. And I love them for it.

At a recent electoral law reform conference, a female panelist went out of her way to argue that the general public, or perhaps the male public, unfairly accuses Lebanese women of “exhibitionism” and “an obsession with appearances.” She then went on to stress that the attributes of “beauty” and “elegance” are not incompatible with “active social and political roles for women.” (True. But that statement opens the door for comment on aesthetics and society.)

I’m not especially ashamed to admit that I laughed, much to the dismay of a reserved policy analyst who had invited me to the event. I apologized to those around me, but it was just too much to handle.

First of all, there was enough Botox in that room to replicate the Millennium Dome. And, of course, the women were dressed in their best Mediterranean chic attire, consisting of tight jeans, fiercely sexy boots, and an assortment of silk, leather, and fur accessories. (For the record, let me congratulate the event’s organizers for their foresight. Handing out pamphlets and brochures was a smart move. I was distracted, to say the least. I’m now reading up on the merits and faults of proposed reforms.)

What’s more, in some ways augmenting and in other ways obscuring her natural beauty, the young lady had clearly nipped and tucked a few things herself (nose, lips, possibly the rear-end). She had probably spent about three hours meticulously applying eye-liner, mascara, lipstick, blush, hair extensions, and nail polish. With that time, she could have held eight meetings, appeared on a couple television shows, drafted a few policy briefs, had a business lunch, or done some valuable reading. Hell, she could have put together another, more accessible policy event across town. Or she could have taken me out for dinner. Just a thought.

Now, let’s get a few things out of the way. To one extent or another, and regardless of what they tell you, most people are concerned with appearances. That’s what “style,” or what in America passes for “style,” is about. In Lebanon, additionally, that concern explains regal dinners, flashy cars, garish watches and other such phenomena.

Anyways, aside from how commonplace the practices are, there’s nothing wrong with maintenance or enhancement per se. For instance, believe it or not, I brush my teeth, shave my head, and occasionally hit the gym. I shave my beard too. (That’s a losing battle if there ever was one. David Petraeus was tasked with devising a Counter-Permanent-Five-O’clock-Shadow strategy. He chose to tackle Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Central Intelligence Agency instead.) I pluck away my unibrow-in-waiting. I carefully select my suits. I do NOT wax my chest hair–damn prairie flowers – but the point is that the desire to modify one’s appearance is normal.

That said, and though people should have the right to do a great many things to their own bodies, it’s clear that many folks get carried away. The lady in the seat next to me, who I’ll later talk about more, was pushing sixty. Her skin was so tight you could play a drum on it and her nose looked like a coke addict had tried to fix a deviated septum with a Napoleonic Era bayonet. My friend pointed out another woman, also above fifty, who was rocking spandex pants, stilettos, and powdering her face.

I didn’t know what to think. Initially, the Catholic guilt, a remnant of early schooling, set in: I was angry at Lebanese men, including myself, for constantly seeking out shallow Mediterranean vixens and then being surprised at what our incentive structure hath wrought. Another part of me reminded the guilty part that “self-esteem” is, as one comedian put it, short-hand for “esteem of self.” And yet another part of me was happy to just gaze at the pretty ladies.

All things considered, there seems to be a difference between plucking a few hairs and employing a shady Eastern European plastic surgeon who’s previous work experiences include a stint with the Italian mafia and the Terrorist International. Is there a hard line or a looser demarcation zone between acceptable modifications and dehumanizing alterations? If so, where does it fall? Tucking away a few pounds, lifting away a few wrinkles, augmenting a few curves or muscles… And does any of that even matter?

I take the point that the lady was trying to make. It’s possible to look good, or think you look good, and raise a family, pursue a career, and/or contribute to your society. She can’t be faulted for her opinion; she’s a living example that it’s possible, indeed desirable, for women and men to excel in substance and in style.

Even so, facts often distort what’s true in theory. And what’s true for those with dedication is not necessarily true for paper revolutionaries.

As the lady explained the various mechanisms for increasing women’s representation in government, the two girls in the next row were checking each other’s make-up. (Never mind how I was privy to that information.) The older woman next to me, who was one of the sharpest people I’ve ever met, kept caressing the fur lining of her jacket and texting her friend “Clarissa” about another lady’s outfit, obviously not listening to the presentation. Most distressingly, a lady two rows from the front kept disturbing events by strutting around in 12-inch heels, tipping and tapping the speaker’s words into oblivion.

“That’s why I’ve stopped going to these events,” said one earnest friend, who edits a news website. “Civil society events have always been a little annoying here. And now [the events] are basically another social gathering for people to dress up and show-off.” She was overstating things, as I’m prone to do as well, but is definitely on to something. 

Time and money. They reveal what matters to people. Time spent primping, shopping, partying, and chasing diaspora doctors is time not spent on thinking, reading, writing, or building. Money spent on plastic surgery, flashy trinkets, and gargantuan New Year’s Eve parties is money not spent on research, materials, coalition-building, and advocacy. Opportunity costs are a bitch, no pun intended.

For most people, these questions may not matter so much – nor must they. To do what one pleases is, in an important way, a rather natural understanding of liberty. But it’s also a luxury of private life. (For now, let’s set aside the question of balance. To each his own. To each her own?) Here, the very people seeking to shape public affairs are blissfully unaware that they’re part of the problem – or, at least, not contributing much to the solution.

Empty-nesters, elite socialites, divorcees, and younger ladies with time on their hands are a great reservoir for activism. That’s a fact. But they won’t be an effective spearhead, as they’re very capable of becoming, until they prioritize more effectively. If you’re in the business of public causes – such as correcting Lebanon’s deplorable human rights regime, including a deficient women’s rights framework – then spend more time actually doing something. (Just, please, don’t cut us off. That would be blatantly disproportionate.)

As the lady said, with your beauty, intelligence, and talents, the rest will fall into place.

Read Full Post »

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad keeps making all the wrong moves. In a recent interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters, the former doctor sounded more like a butcher – and a heartless one at that. He lied and deflected questions. He made light of a dire situation. He rejected international conventions and global standards on news reporting, fact verification, human rights baselines, and political legitimacy. He refused to accept responsibility for any of the bloodshed, citing a lack of control over the military and other state institutions, but inconsistently claimed that his stewardship would be an indispensable part of tomorrow’s Syria.

At one point, with a slip of the tongue, Assad told the truth. That was his greatest blunder of all.

“It’s just a game we play,” Assad said, trying to explain why Syria participates in the United Nations when his regime believes the organization lacks credibility. Assad unwittingly revealed much more: the duplicity that is – and always has been – at the heart of his fragile regime’s world-view.

Of course, all policy involves some level of duplicity (certainly at the United Nations). Leaders around the world use misinformation, diplomatic gymnastics, rhetorical techniques, and outright lies. In theory, duplicity is a tool that sometimes allows leaders to pursue broader, ostensibly noble, objectives. For example, a leader might lie or conceal truths while preventing a terrorist attack, deploying armed forces, or preserving the integrity of the financial system or banking sector. When the livelihood of millions hangs in the balance, and regardless of policy choices, duplicity may be necessary.

In Assad’s Syria, however, duplicity is the essential – and, sometimes, only – aspect of an insular cabal’s survival strategy. The ends are not noble; the means are not varied. Time and again, in various settings, the Assad regime’s games have had destructive consequences for millions of people, not least of all in Syria itself.

Most tragically, the Assad regime has duped its own people and “informed observers” by portraying Bashar as a young reformer held hostage by a corrupt and stifling old system. How absurd. The man inherited an entire country and has killed thousands to keep it. He rose through the ranks because of nepotism, maintained a support base because of corruption and an unseemly marriage of political and business interests, and trumpeted secularism as a cloak for Alawite rule.

Glaringly, for a regime that sells itself as a laboratory of Arab nationalism, military resistance, and rejectionism, Syrian duplicity has resulted in a peculiar relationship with Israel. In Syria’s parliament and in front of the domestic press, Assad has routinely blasted the “Zionist entity,” touted outdated notions of “strategic parity,” and proclaimed his country’s desire to liberate the Golan Heights “by force if necessary.” All the while, of course, Syria has engaged in peace talks with the Israelis, knowing full well that diplomacy is the only path forward.

In short, Assad is unable to confront Israel and unwilling to commit to peace. Why? Because war would expose Syria’s weakness abroad and peace would expose its weakness at home. In truth, the Assad regime has benefited greatly from Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights. With nothing to offer in terms of innovation, economic development, or political reform, the regime has cultivated fear of an Israeli bogeyman, made periodic noises about the Golan, and staved off dissent under the banner of resistance.

Syria has been especially duplicitous with its neighbors, Lebanon and Iraq. In Lebanon, the Assad regime used assassinations, beatings, jailings, and “disappearances” to intimidate the Lebanese people. With tens of thousands of troops and intelligence operatives in the country, the regime monopolized Lebanese foreign policy, exploited lucrative real estate, banking, and “semi-formal” sectors, and put a lid on political pluralism that it viewed as a potential source of dissent in Damascus.

After of decades of occupying the place, Syria was forced out of Lebanon in 2005. Since then, while promising to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty, the Assad regime has continued to facilitate Iran’s arming of Hizbullah, refused to delineate any borders, interfered in local politics as a matter of right, and done nothing to reassure the Lebanese that it no longer views their country as “the alleged entity.”

The Assad “games” in Iraq have been just as harmful. This is not to ignore the devastating consequences of the U.S. invasion of 2003, but to say that the Syrian response was disingenuous and equally damaging. Professing a desire to cooperate on borders, insurgents, and the Lebanon file, the Assad regime actively derailed progress on those issues. The regime blatantly did nothing to secure any of its borders, may have allowed guerillas and terrorists to train in Syria, and certainly granted insurgents passage through the country to Iraq. (Conveniently, Iraq and northern Lebanon provided Syria with avenues to rid itself of many Islamists it saw as threatening to the regime.)

On the international stage, as Assad basically admitted, Syria has been thoroughly two-faced. Trumpeting its participation in international organizations, the Assad regime has disrupted and dodged two ongoing probes into suspected behavior in clear violation of established international law. First, the Assad regime has repeatedly stiff-armed a judicial investigation into its suspected involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. (Hizbullah, too, may be involved.) Second, the Syrians have dragged their feet on an International Atomic Energy Agency investigation of a covert nuclear reactor project in northern Syria. (Incidentally, the Israelis bombed the facility, which they allege was a nuclear reactor, without so much as a peep from the Assad regime.)

At present, the regime must contend with the reality that most Syrians have rejected the status quo. To be sure, the Assad regime may cling to power for a while by crushing the opposition, persisting amid local and regional challenges, or emerging as a key actor after a protracted conflict. Be that as it may, the illusions are gone.

After decades of playing with house money, the regime appears to be losing. But at what price?

Read Full Post »

The Middle East is not supposed to look this way. Organized city grids, pre-planned mixed-use neighborhoods, green highway medians, strip malls, and a street lamp on every corner. Don’t forget elegant, if empty, steel buildings and roads so smooth that you feel guilty driving on them.

From the skies, in one of Etihad’s plush planes, Abu Dhabi seems like a pristine grid that, as one passenger put it, “looks like it was built from scratch.” That’s because it was. All that hardware – a bizarre mix of European urban planning, American comfort, and futurism – is perfect.

But the software – that is, the social fabric – is still coming together.

Cosmopolitanism has its tensions, particularly when achieved almost overnight in an interconnected world that allows diaspora communities to plug into their respective motherlands. The Western expats seem distant, concerned with their immediate circle of friends and preoccupied with their precarious lives of luxury. Ubiquitous South Asian labor keeps the malls stocked, the cabs running, the resorts secure, and the construction sector growing. Neither pattern is unique to this city, but both stand out like a pair of sore thumbs.

(As an aside, the Lebanese have dotted Abu Dhabi with “grills,” “resto-lounges,” and “plubs” [short for pub-club. What a dumb word.)

Meanwhile, the locals sit – or think they sit – on top of the social pyramid. Absent from many everyday spaces of social interaction, they appear at the mall, filling their empty lives with consumer goods imported from every corner of the globe, as well as on their jet-skies, in their extravagant cars, and at their unbelievably nice restaurants and cafes. It’s almost as bad as Beirut, though people in Abu Dhabi can in fact afford these toys and, in contrast to their hustling Levantine cousins, owe this success to legal enterprises.

To fairly examine this place, though, it’s important to check bitterness at the door. To be sure, the Arab Gulf has gotten lucky with oil. Anyone who argues otherwise is just drinking Kool-Aid from a diamond-encrusted chalice. On the other hand, the Arab Gulf is not the first place that fortune has blessed with geography or resources. Empires have been built on rice, sugar, spices, timber, gold, and iron. Oil rules today.

At a deeper level, leaders here seem to be investing in the future, positioning the area as a transport and logistics hub, regional financial center, flashy holiday destination, and potential corporate paradise. Luck has nothing to do with the pivotal decision to open the country up to Westerners, Levantines, and South Asians. Overcoming deep cultural insecurities, which are apparent and permeate the socio-legal environment, was not easy. It was necessary. And, sometimes, it takes vision and courage to do what’s necessary and engage the world.

Development is where this openness ends. Restrictive property laws and tight rules on citizenship don’t bother me as much, because changes on this front would risk marginalizing the indigenous population. Wealth aside, people feel an attachment to their home, their land, and their immediate environs – especially in this part of the world. Setting aside the perverse reality that Emiratis openly benefit from open property regimes in the West, particularly the U.K., it makes sense for a small country to shield itself from foreign buyers and speculators.

More problematic, at a personal though perhaps not principled level, is the conservatism – some religious, some broadly social – imposed by the government on its population, most of which actually has no say in how the country is run.

Decades after the UAE began its upward surge, people are still cautious when talking about the leadership, Emiratis, and prevailing social norms. The word repression is too harsh, and neglects the many liberties people do enjoy. There is, however, a quietly stifling sensation here – and it’s not the desert heat.

For instance, it is still technically illegal for Muslims to drink, though other people may do so freely in certain places. Of course, many Muslims drink openly too, but the letter of the law stands against that practice. Sometimes, during an argument or an accident, Muslims may flee the scene to avoid being caught with alcohol in their systems. This isn’t a public safety concern, epitomized by drunk driving laws. Rather, the state systematically differentiates between people of different religious affiliations in a manner that rivals anything seen in communalistic Lebanon.

Swearing in public could bring attention from law enforcement (depending on their mood). According to two sources, saying the word “fuck” in public is now illegal in Abu Dhabi. Apparently, the government has deemed a campaign against “potty mouths” more important than ensuring locals and Western expats don’t tread all over the South Asian labor that keeps this place buzzing.

To be fair, I’ve been unable to verify whether the word “fuck” is illegal, but the fact that most people I’ve asked believe that such a law is plausible – and the fact that one restaurant owner already used the ostensible law to silence an acquaintance of mine – is cause for concern. If true, the logic behind the ban is evident. First, linearly, “fuck this food” soon becomes “fuck this heat” which soon becomes “fuck this place” which soon becomes “fuck the government.” And then the UAE risks becoming like Egypt, where “FUCK SCAF” is plastered all over downtown Cairo. Second, less so in the Middle East, “fuck” may refer to a physical act of great enjoyment, intimacy, and social interaction. It’s an utterly liberating concept.  

On that note, many internet sites – including pornographic sites and political blogs – are blocked by the state. It is, however, rather easy to download music, movies, and publications in violation of intellectual property law.

Porn, alcohol, and profanity aren’t popular heroes, at least not when people sit at a table together. Be that as it may, they are proxies of openness. Their relegation to backrooms, hotel lobbies, and enclaves is quite telling.

(At the end of the day, however, people choose to come here. So maybe, as a person very dear to me says, it’s better not to “pick cherries.” Fair enough. It’s a package deal, but at some point the people who’ve helped build this place probably have the right to complain a little bit, if not join the body politic.)

All of this says that consumerism is fine, exhibitionism is standard, and material gratification is encouraged. And that is truly a great thing. Most people in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, can only imagine building such a place. The hardware here is absolutely mind-blowing. More important, the city-states of the Gulf provide a new space of opportunity for people from around the world, which is why recent successes here should last.

As for the software? They’re still working out the bugs.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 132 other followers

%d bloggers like this: