sábado, 14 de noviembre de 2015

The madness of the modern war against terrorism

While preparing for my work about Ex-Yugoslavija​ and trying to be objective as much as possible "be aware of my own biases" (well, we all know how hard that could be) I am trying to understand "the madness of the modern war against terrorism". First of all, there is a lack of generally agreed definition on terrorism internationally. I found that to be a problem.

If it is wealthy European country it is a terrorist attack  and nobody questions that. When it is a poor, middle income country, the same is considered to be either a civil war or they are "insurgents" fighting for their civil or human rights. To be honest, when poor people "fight" it is always a civil and human right issue.



When in the Macedonian parliament​ they are representatives sitting that have killed or massacred something is terribly wrong with the political system. If those have been elected despite what they did, then something is wrong with that society and that needs to be fixed.

During the "war" (what in a Western world would be called a theorist attack) atrocities were made both by the Macedonian police and the terrorist (by the western media they were referred to as "fighters for human rights and the other side of the war were the called contemptuously "Slav-Macedonians"). They are assassins sitting in the Macedonian parliament. Many of them would have never imagined such career if there was not blood shedding and killings. Ethnic Macedonians did that by the (mis)use of the legitimate Macedonian

police to go and kill some Albaninas just to prove they were defending the country from the terrorist. The ethnic Albanians (many of them experienced in Balkan war) tried to kill and/or scare off as much as possible Ethnic Macedonians from "their territory". There were a lot of displacement of both Macedonians and Albanians at the time.

It was called a Civil War, The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) symbolically sentenced Tarchulovski to 12 years of imprisonment and Boshkovski was found not guilty. The number of the dead toll from the conflict was never to be known, as fighters from the Islamic States and others that were not registered as Macedonian citizens were shot down by the Macedonian police. It was a "fight" between the Macedonian police and mainly foreign citizen. Tarchulovski and Boshkovski made a political career that would not have been possible without a war.

Another person that made a good business from  killing people is Ali Ahmeti. Ahmeti is a former leader of a the Albanian therorists that was fighting against the macedonian police, People like Ali Ahmeti and others are now in the parliament as representatives. A lot of cases involving group killing of Macedonian civilians (Macedonians were either working on the field, having a day at the lake with the friends etc ) remain unsolved because of the lack of interest or maybe not to offend the feelings of the other ethnic minority.

The Parliament of Macedonia consists of murderers, very corrupted politicians and other slackers.

Internationally, terrorism looks different in practice and it is according to our political interest and ignorance. We are forgetting that they have one thing in common. No matter the definition, your countries political intelligence or where are you listed by World Bank, a person, collective group that perpetuates such atrocities against humanity finding different excuses, mainly hiding behind political, need to be persecuted and excluded from the society. As simple as that. There is never good enough excuse to kill.

Where in war there is never and never will be a good and a bad side from reasons that are too obvious to say. Terrorism should be equally understood in: UK, USA, France, Turkey Syria or Macedonia.

martes, 3 de noviembre de 2015

Las multinacionales y la miseria - ¿Qué fue lo primero?

El miedo y el desconcierto cuando algo no se conoce puede llegar a destruir la oportunidad que existe. Como ha dicho Paul Krugman​, la miseria ya estaba cuando llegaron las multinacionales solo que ahora son menos pobres. Si hay tanta competencia para fabricar en el tercer mundo, subirá la demanda de mano de obra barata. Se abren cada vez menos fabricas de estas que compiten para atraer más gente para cubrir puestos de trabajo. Hasta en el tercer mundo están libres a decidir si quieren ir a trabajar y dónde.

Según Paul Krugman, mejor algún trabajo que ninguno. Desde allí se puede ya empezar ir mejorando a los condiciones de trabajo. Si no hay puestos de trabajo, no se puede mejorar algo que no existe.

Y allí es donde entra en juego la International Labour Organization (ILO)​ para imponer a los países a respetar condiciones mínimos de trabajo y remuneración.



Y sí las fabricas textiles ofrezcan cada vez peores condiciones de trabajo, es porqué quieren  y nada los impide. Si vas a trabajar en una fabrica textil tercermundista, Amancio Ortega no te va a hacer la entrevista, sino un compatriota tuyo que se va a aprovechar de tu confianza.  Y exactamente ése es la persona que luego negocia los condiciones con Amancio y Co. a tu costa. Los que carezcan de moral y conciencia son nuestros compatriotas. Esa es la sociedad que tiene que trabajar para imponer unos valores de mutuo respeto y empatía.

El trabajo es mucho más que un sueldo, un numero de unidades monetarias. Te enseña de la dura que es la vida y te capacita para mejorar.

Los únicos perjudicados de cada empresa que sube las ventas y gana mercado son las otras que la siguen por detrás - la competencia.

Además, tengo la corazonada que siempre cuando se habla mal para una empresa detrás de esas malas lenguas suele ser otra multinacional. Cada vez que los marxistas hablan sobre el tema hacen un favor al capitalismo malo.

Con que Amancio Ortega y Co. cuide de sus empleados que su empresa contrata y no perjudique directamente a la naturaleza que es de todos, me vale y me sobra. Y si eso lo hace o no, es otra tema por discutir.

A continuación pongo los enlaces de los artículos que me inspiraron a "estallar" sobre el tema:

1. In Praise of Cheap Labor - Paul Krugman
2. El buen trabajo de Amancio Ortega - Miguel Ors Villarejo
3. Inditex: ¡Bienvenido a Macedonia! - Biljana Veljanoska

lunes, 2 de noviembre de 2015

Do you fancy a cup of guil-free coffee?

Did you know that only 4% of the coffee that Starbucks sells is Fair Trade certified (as to 2005). When you buy an unfair - trade coffee in coffee chains like Costa, Starbucks, Coffee Republic etc... coffee farmer earn only 1p or less.

But, then I discovered Progreso Cafes LTD (creation of Oxfam GB). They were located on Portobello road and Covent Garden. They were 100% Fair Trade.

The biggest difference with other coffee stores comes from the fact that the coffee farmers own a share of the business and benefit from its success. Progreso was also supporting @ONE water and all the sells went for a charity called Roundabout.

Unfortunately, just when I tried to find out more about this coffee store, I was disappointed to see that they didn't lasted long. They were set in 2005 and no longer exist.

Is it possible to rescue this idea and put it into practice again? What failed exactly?

It's true that Starbucks has its own schemes supporting coffee growers, and it buys and sells more FT coffee each year. The efforts that Starbucks makes are certainly not enough and there is a lot more to do.


It seems like in international development good intention are not enough. We all know what's the best but is it always possible to make it that perfect?

It takes more than just nice words and good intentions. Give an idea that works not just one looking good on paper.