The Israeli recklessness

Two Israeli attacks on Syria in less than 48 hours mean, at least unofficially, the entrance of the West in the Arab conflict. Israeli incursions have not only complicated a conflict already very convulsed. And as it happens with everything the Jewish state does, the consequences of these actions will resound beyond its borders.

The attacks came from outside Syrian airspace. According to both Reuters and AP, Israeli aircrafts entered Lebanon from the south and from within Lebanese territory, they released their weapons.

This fact highlights the impunity of Israel in the region. It's not the first time that Israel targets military objectives beyond its borders invading foreign airspace, nor the first time it does it with Syria. It is not even the first time that Syria is the target since the beginning of its bloody civil war.

Both Turkey and the Arab League have strongly condemned the attack. On the other hand, the vulnerability of Hezbollah and Syria has been highlighted. Again. Little or nothing can they do against the technological superiority of Israel.

Tel Aviv in the meantime neither confirms nor denies the news. All the information on the press was leaked through anonymous sources, faceless informants and unidentified spokespersons. The official stance is to deny the attack and to insist that there is no interest in entering the Syrian conflict.

That last part may be true. Assad, although an uncomfortable neighbor, is not a belligerent one. And without doubt, the government of Bashar al-Assad is better than some of the alternatives among the rebels, such as al-Nusra’s Islamists, who have been linked to al-Qaeda.

Photo: IAF

No one in Tel Aviv wants another Islamist government in the region after the experience with Egypt. In contrast, Syria's Assad is a controllable and controlled danger. The Syrian government has limited itself to be an intermediary between Iran and Hezbollah. And this is probably what has led to these attacks.

In fact, most analysts agree in stating that this attack is against Iran and Hezbollah and not against Syria. The targets of the bombs would have been, again according to anonymous sources, shipments of Iran-made Fateh-110 missiles to the Lebanese militia.

Israel's red lines in this case are different to those for Obama. The United States does not want to get involved in Syria and puts the limit in the use of chemical weapons, but deliberately does not specify how or how much is too much.

For Israel, the red line is the transfer of advanced military equipment to Hezbollah, and it does not mind getting into Syria as it has done for years. In Wired, Noah Shachtman speculates that the danger comes not from the type of missiles held by the Lebanese militia, but their numbers.

Currently Israel is able to defend themselves from the threats in possession of Hamas with the Iron Dome missile defense system. For the Fateh-110 Israel has another system, the Arrow-2, but unlike the Iron Dome, it has not been tested in combat.

This is aggravated by the fact that these systems are not foolproof and all they can achieve is minimizing the impacts. They will never be able to avoid them altogether, that’s something completely out of reach.

If Israel allows arming Hezbollah with substantial amounts of Fateh-110 (which can also carry chemical weapons), this further reduces interception rates. And it is enough for one of the missiles to impact in an Israeli city to destabilize the whole region.

That may be the main reason for Israel to get into the conflict. However, it is an extremely selfish reason and their actions have consequences for more people than those in the Jewish state.

To begin with, the Assad regime has now the perfect excuse to demonize the rebels. According to a spokesman of the regime, the rebels are "friends of Israel" and the attack was made in a coordinated manner.

The UN has helped to this extent, albeit involuntarily, by saying through Carla del Ponte that chemicals attacks recently detected in Syria may actually have been the work of rebel militias. They later announced in a separate statement that there are no definitive conclusions yet.

Beyond Syria’s and Israel’s borders, these attacks push the West into a war that it doesn’t want. According to Robert Fisk, if there is no condemnation of the bombing means the de facto U.S. and European support for Israel's actions.

Obviously Washington is not going to condemn the attacks. In fact Obama has already said that Israel has the right to defend itself, without specifying further. Surely his government is upset that Netanyahu did not inform in advance of the incursions, but that will not change its official position.

The Israeli attack has also polarized the Arab public. Except for Jordan, no other country in the area wants Europe and America to send aid in the form of weapons and military equipment to the rebels. Let alone to have a Western military intervention in Syria.

On the other side of the world, the recent visit of Israeli Prime Minister to China has been the perfect excuse for the Asian giant to begin the rehearsal of his role as a global superpower. Meanwhile, the two former superpowers -the United States and Russia- continue to disagree in almost everything.

Read more »

The real price of your clothes

The recent tragedy in Bangladesh, where a collapsed building left behind 1000 people dead, has oulined that our cheap clothing is at the expense of human rights.

Thousands of people were working at several factories in a building without sufficient security measures and poorly preserved. The conditions for the workers were extremely precarious.

All this would have been overlooked if the Rana Plaza had not collapsed. But the magnitude of the tragedy (1000 dead and counting) and the massive demonstrations on May Day in Bangladesh, have made it impossible to ignore the fact any longer.

Big retail names like Zara, H&M, Benetton and Wal Mart have been involved. As happened with Apple and its factories in China, fashion giants outsource to other companies in Asia to make the clothes that they then sell across the world.

It is one of the effects of globalization. Today, it is cheaper to send raw materials and finished products to go around the world several times than to make them in factories in Europe or America.

Competition is also fierce. A few years ago China was the main recipient of these contracts. But since the standard of living of the Chinese has increased, their wage demands have risen in line with it. Chinese wages are growing around 10% per year and this increase means lower profit margins for textile giants.

That's where, since the beginning of the credit crunch crisis, other countries like Bangladesh have entered in the race. Without as many legal obstacles and with wages of around a dollar a day, these countries are a much more appealing destination for large retail companies.

The way of doing things, however, does not change. They hire contractors and subcontractors. Sometimes the subcontractors hire even more subcontractors. In fact New Wave Style, one of the companies involved in the Rana Plaza disaster, got its first big contract when a contractor for the Canadian company Loblaws could not cope with an order and appealed to them. From there, everything grew until disaster struck.

The chain of contractors and subcontractors is dark. And the more you go down the chain, the less control you have over what happens. Companies such as Primark claim to have under control the companies they hire. But the truth is that it is impossible to be aware of the whole process when it is so complex and confusing.

The conditions are extremely precarious for the workers. Overtime is common to be able to meet deadlines, but it is rarely paid. The workplaces are often poorly conditioned. Too much heat, little ventilation and buildings without sufficient security measures are the norm.

The unions tried to improve those conditions imposing independently controlled safety plans, but the big brands rejected the plan. They needed a plan outside of the corruption circle between factory owners and the government. But it was too expensive and complex and retail companies said no.

It is not the first time a disaster strikes the industry. In fact fashion giants have a long history full of stains. From the use of child labor for sports brands manufacturers to the recent fire in another factory (also in Bangladesh), scandals are many.

That’s why crisis management teams in brands like Loblaws and Primark have been so quick to tackle the tragedy. Immediately, they announced that they will compensate the victims. Others like Benetton have reacted slower. Even the EU has jumped into the wagon.

Zara in turn, has increased its positive presence in various media, with stories that illustrate, for example, how it employs young people in Spain, a country battered by youth unemployment.

The general trend of the industry has been a PR offensive. Big brands know that their main battle is being fought in the streets of Paris, London or New York, with the public opinion at home. After all, they are also to blame in part for wanting cheap clothes. They are the ones who buy the clothes and they are the ones they need to convince to bury all this in the past –until the next tragedy.

Governments and workers in Bangladesh, on the other hand, are too afraid they may lose all they got. The wages of workers in these factories, despite being extremely low, are sometimes the best that can be dreamed of in these countries.

Meanwhile, export remittances provide a generous source of revenue to governments. So much so, that the government of Bangladesh has asked the EU not to impose sanctions or regulations on his country. They fear that, like it happened in China, the factories will relocate to a less problematic country.

However, Bangladesh would probably be better off looking towards Vietnam. The communist country has shown that it is possible to get the production for multinational brands and improve the living conditions of workers all at the same time. But that demands change and courage to do it.

And probably as well, less profit margins and more expensive clothes. But not much. With as little as a 25cents increase in the price of our clothes, we could pay for better working conditions in Bangladesh. Will it happen?

Read more »

Why the conservatives have regained Iceland?

Much has been said in the media about the victory of the conservatives in the latest election in Iceland. However, while it is true that the leftist coalition has suffered a debacle, there are many more factors to consider in the equation.

For starters, as in Italy, Greece and Spain, many small parties have raised their percentage in votes. Some have been on the verge of parliamentary representation. Others, like the pirate party, are full on with strength.

Overall, the Parliamentary cake was previously divided between two or three forces. Nowadays a quarter of those votes have been grabbed by minority parties. However, half of them will have no parliamentary representation because they did not meet the minimum percentage required. That percentage has gone on to benefit other parties.

This fragmentation has hurt the left. But they also have been punished for the policies undertaken under their rule.

Despite being held up as examples to what the left should do in countries like Spain, Ireland or Italy, the reality is that the coalition has not deployed a policy different from that carried out in the German modeled EU.

Budget cuts, controlling the deficit and austerity measures have been the norm. This was completed with the insult that represented having to go to the EU for help, losing independence in the process.

The main winner of these elections, the ultranationalist party Progressive Party, has made a good use of the prospect of losing autonomy and is a strong anti-EU advocate.

Meanwhile, contrary to the general idea held outside Iceland that the country has been prosecuting its bankers, it is very little what really has been done about it. The people behind the credit crunch crisis in Iceland have been left mostly untouched, as in Spain, Italy, Greece or Ireland. In fact, Germany has opened more cases against bankers than Iceland.

The Icelandic popular revolution, once admired outside, had many people disappointed inside the country. Living standards, partly due to the devaluation of the Krona, were down at least 30%. To this we must add a high inflation (an increase of 75% since 2005) and the ruin of the housing market.

Although the houses were now worth between 30 and 40% less, many mortgages had been signed in Euros. This was a horrible combination. The houses were less valued, but the owners’ debts had increased. The gap was too big to overcome for many families.

The situation was so desperate that the coalition government wrote off any mortgage debt above 110%, but that still left a lot of people deeply in debt. Unable to afford their homes’ mortgages and with commodity prices skyrocketing, the situation was complicated.

One of the promises of the Progressive Party in this election has been to eliminate up to 20% of all the household debt. Looking at the results from the polls, the strategy worked. They have not won, and they are not likely to carry it forward, but they have increased in number of votes and seats in the Parliament.

In the end, what has made people decide to punish the left has been mostly disappointment. Many thought that a leftist government would end the austerity policies, imprison bankers and remain independent.

The reality is that despite their intentions, in the end the leftist coalition did not know or could not remain true to their ideals. The disenchantment among voters caused many to stay home and not go to vote.

That along with the reasons given above, explains the collapse of the revolution envisioned by many in Europe. A revolution that just maybe, it was just all façade and had no foundations.

Read more »

Boston conspiracies or the triumph of human stupidity

Sooner or later it always happens. After any tragedy -or feat- created by man there is always a group of people waiting to jump to talk about conspiracies. It happened and happens whether with 9-11 or the Moon landing. The Boston bombings weren’t going to be less and in the Internet age, just in a week we have all kind of theories.

Personally, I am very skeptical of the skeptics. For others, it is easier to see conspiracies.

A website has compiled “evidence” that, according to the author, shows that everything that happened in Boston was orchestrated. There are some that are based on physical similarities, such as arguing that Jeff Bauman is actually a double amputee Iraq veteran named Nick Vogt. However, beyond a certain physical resemblance, they are two clearly different individuals.

Others say that the Chechen eldest brother was alive when arrested. As proof, they show a video posted online in which they say the naked person being escorted by police is the oldest of the Tsarnaev.

This however conflicts with the testimony of dozens of neighbors. And a very obvious fact: Tamerlan Tsarnaev had a hairy chest (seen both in old photos and in post-mortem pics distributed by the police), while the guy in the video is shaved.

Other theory suggests that a private security company (Craft International) is the one that planted the backpack-bombs. Some even claim that the same three individuals of that company who were in Boston were also in Sandy Hook after the shooting that killed several children and adults in a local school.

If so, these three men would be doing a lot of overtime. It is hard to believe that a security firm has only three men in charge of doing all the dirty work of conspiracies.

On the other hand, is not so hard to believe that just as in the case of Bauman-Vogt it is just a physical resemblance. Nor is it hard to believe that in the birthplace of capitalism it is normal to hire external companies to do the work of the police and take over part of the security of a public event.

Quite another thing is to think that there are private security companies that want to cash in the misfortune of others. That's not a conspiracy; it's as real as life itself. Vultures are everywhere, but taking advantage of disasters does not mean they want to nor have the ability to provoke them.

There are many more theories. Like the one that puts a wounded Saudi citizen as a terrorist involved in the attack who spoke to Michelle Obama at the hospital, implying it was all a Government plot and a false flag attack.

Conspiracists forget to mention that the First Lady also visited many more people wounded in the attack in the same hospital as part of a visit by the President and her. Maybe the President and the First Lady visiting wounded people in a terrorist attack seems like a weird thing to these conspiracists too.

But even if we accept for a moment that any of the theories raised could be plausible –which they aren’t-, to do this for the simple fact of doing it, for fun, would make no sense. The question to ask is not who, but why. The motive behind the actions is what gives us more information about an event in itself.

Who wins here? Not the Obama administration, for starters. The bombers didn’t use assault weapons but handmade devices, which does not serve to promote legislation for gun control as the U.S. government wants to do.

It has not been either an enemy country behind the attack, no matter how Muslims are the Chechens. In fact, in the past Chechnya has been a great tool to poke Russia and Putin in the eye, for their violent handling of the problem. Russia has told many times America to mind their own business and let them take care of their “internal affairs” alone.

It makes no sense to organize this now and be forced to agree with Russia that the Chechens are terrorists, nor is viable an invasion in Chechnya (Russian territory).

In the end, many of the conspiracy theorists, and many of those who jump on the bandwagon with them, are the same who commit serious blunders in other matters. From using the attack to defend their personal causes (such as the possession of firearms or the legality of torture of detainees) to order the stupid idea of an invasion of the Czech Republic (which forced the Czech ambassador to issue a statement reporting that Chechnya and the Czech Republic are in fact two different entities and geographically separated).

The youngest of the brothers, now that he has begun to talk, will certainly further clarify things.

Meanwhile, I personally find the tinfoil hatters have a vast the imagination. But in the end, in these cases it is best to apply Occam's razor: the correct solution is the simplest. In this case probably the brothers Tsarnaev were lone wolves acting alone.

A possibility, by the way, that should be even more frightening. In a more or less organized group, even if it is based on cells, it is easier to control what will happen. If we are fighting lone wolves that can act independently and at any time, everything gets much more unpredictable and dangerous.

Read more »