Conspiracy Theory is explaining that Cameron has got Syria wrong

Since Cameron’s reaction to the alleged chemical attack in Syria the air is filled with eclectic conspiracy theories. As ridiculous some conspiracy theories sounds it is easy to see that the justification provided by the administration for an imminent military intervention is disingenuous. Government line of reasoning is leading many to sinister theories to explain alternative motives for the probable Military action.

I agree that conspiracy theories are generally manifestation of bigotry or attempted rationalisation of hidden resentments but they point out two critical ends about the political measure in question. But sound reasoning is an evolutionary process and it comes about through a series of trail and errors where less rigours theories are abandoned in favour of those that coincide with the reality. Conspiracy theories are like microbial cultures on political medium where crude theories come to existence that is useless on its own but collectively essential for the evolution of social discourse. Second, the intensity of conspiracy theories is an indication of public response to the political discourse. The greater the number of conspiracy theories the stronger indication that the public cannot understand the basis of political decision; another way to look at it is a socially generated indicator of the honesty of political motives.  

Cameron is itching to launch a strike because he believes that Assad regime has used chemical weapons against civilians. Let’s see what is wrong with this reason for staging a war against a sovereign nation.

First, it’s illegal and immoral to stage wars against a sovereign nation without the endorsement of the United Nations, even if it is intended to save innocent life. Governments should work through a legal framework and abide by due processes.

Second, the administration should warrant and corroborate behind any reasonable doubt that the chemical weapons really were used by Syrian government. It should be established what kind of chemical weapon was used and which belligerent party has used it. The Syrian war has turned into a proxy war where Iran and Russia have provided military, economic and diplomatic support to the regime while on the other hand Westerners, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Wahabi groups and Sunni Jihdists are assisting various sections of the opposition. It is feasible that the Saudis provided the ingredients that can be used to make the dirty bomb, or some sprinter Islamist group from Libyan brought it with them. Such possibilities are numerous and not dismissible and their motive would have been to provoke international intervention.

Third, after over a decade of military campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq our armed forces should know that the situation on the ground is extremely complicated and it is really difficult  to mitigate mistakes. NATO is much better positioned than fledgling Syrian government to decipher rules of engagement to minimise such mistakes. Yet thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in NATO strikes across Afghanistan, some in bizarre incidents, for example hundreds of people have died when NATO war planes targeted wedding ceremonies mistakenly for insurgent gathering. How ridiculous is that?  It may well have been some part of the Syrian military that let loose some rocket that they may or may not knew contained WMD and they may or may not know the consequences and impact of the weapon. That does not necessarily mean Assad and his circle of regime sanction the operation. An equivalent would be that some foreign nation claim to hold Cameron accountable for the death of dozens of women and children in a wedding party in Afghanistan and launch a strike against Britain. 

Fourth, Britain has no legal commitment to intervene even if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons. It might be the right thing to do but that is not why the government should take action. The government is sanctioned to act within a legal framework not some moral imperative. We cannot trust the judgement of politician to lead us into wars but the constitutional commitments.

Fifth, why would Assad government use chemical weapon at a point when its armed forces was turning the tide. Surely it would had gain more tactical advantage if it was used when the rebels had the upper hand. This is even more unlikely when the regime knew it would change the stance of international community.

Sixth, if Assad Regime indeed used chemical weapons, wouldn’t a military action provoke him further to use chemical weapons in retaliation to the attack against civilians and possibly Israel and Turkey?

Seventh, we stood by while over 100,000 civilians were killed by conventional weapons but Cameron chooses to intervene after a single and appalling attack that killed 1300, according to rebel sources. Surely death by explosives is agonising too.

For all these reasons it is unlikely to understand why Mr. Cameron would insist on a military intervention.

What is really important is not a surgical strike but the pursuit of two strategic objectives.

The first and most pressing is taking all measures to stop the bloodshed in Syria, it would further disintegrate the fabric of Syrian society and threaten our interests. Overthrowing Assad is not in the interest of peace, it might achieve Cameron Administration’s short-sighted political objective.  The end of Assad regime might exacerbate the situation by creating a power vacuum where extremist will further nurture. This we have seen in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Assad is not the legitimate president of Syria but a brute whom has desolated the Syrian society for a decade and accumulated a personal wealth of 1.5 billion dollars in Hong Kong and Russia. The reason he is in power is because the institutional system in place unlike in Britain is incapable of appointing a legitimate leader and if Assad is dismissed another thug will come forth and take his position. This we will call the best case scenario. The worst case scenario and the most likely would be the creation of a mosaic of factions and characters, which is already taking place, which would ravage the country in their struggle for power.

The second would be to learn from this horrific incident and recognise that the truth is important. We should find out the truth about the chemical attack but this too is unlikely. The only institution currently available for the task is nation states but there is an obvious conflict of interest.  There is no method to ensure that government will not temper evidence in pursuit of their own agenda. This shouldn’t be surprising when we know that the government is willing to transgress into our private space and then lie to us. They would not blink if they were to lie to some foreign people especially when there is no constitutional safe guard to hold them accountable. What we need in this volatile world is independent institutions to investigate such crimes. This will not happen by a decree or funding to some NGO but through collaboration of international community where they show good faith and political will.

isn't this braindrain? 
wouldn't it be in the interest of Afghanistan to divert the over £100 million funding for opportunities to reeducated these brilliant young lads in technical or professional skills that would be required in post foreign support Afghanistan. or is it the case that the British government considers the creation of an economy that would need and supported advanced skills labour inconceivable and instead opts to do a service to these talented young group, that are only few in Afghanistan, by offering them asylum. This seems very plausible and i think for once the politician got it right. they would end up in the west anyway, there is not much else for the interpreters to do in Afghanistan. this is offering them a dignified path.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/afghan-interpreters-uk-resettlement-inadequate

It is not a triple dip recession, this is how it is going to be

In the new world a complex system of network nodes and links are appearing that changes the nature of government. if you accept this premises then the question is how does one tackle the predatory state and in doing so seek to unwind the symbiotic relationship that exists between it and powerful interest groups. these interest groups have varied nature and purpose and range from rent seeking elite that dominate the state to subsidiaries of state benefit system. they include lawyers, public servants, artists, beneficiaries, regulators or bankers. Governments through law making, taxation or public spending have promoted these interests in return for votes, partisan patronage and allegiance. the nature of social discourse in regard to stakeholders is predominantly ideological and not constructive; often focused on singling out one of the groups while overemphasizing the relationship it has in wielding social bonds. the left sees the banks as the very source of the problem, after all they caused the calamity of credit crunch and their greed drove financial institutions to near collapse.  The right sees recipient of public service funds and those employed by the sector as the source of the problem. this is a dept crisis and the government is spending way over what it affords in order to appease the current generation at the cost of the young and the unborn.  

as you can appreciate this is not in the interests of the society and the rule of law. it is clear to an onlooker that the nature of state institution should be altered in a way to face up huge agency problems. this would require charismatic leadership that is willing to take the risk. another but most likely scenario is the tale of continued entanglement of the state with the interest groups, eventually the market loses faith in the capacity of nations and the mountain of depth piles on but the state using monetary and financial policies manage to maintain financial confidence  and prevent the collapse of the economy.  this scenario is already shaping in the UK. this era will see economic stagnation and large scale unemployment but the government won't have to default.

my solution is to revisit the role of the state and in the light of its mission study the relationship it has formed with various groups. a range of solution will surface and we can put them all to democratic test. through a system of bargaining that is the characteristic of democracy we will arrive at a few that are acceptable to all. the dept, economic stagnation, unemployment, immigration ... are not the problem they are just symptoms. 

Low wage craft labourer would have to put up until economic growth

I grew up amidst a ravaging war in Kabul that was gripping the city in the 90s. Playing outside was rarely an option, even then it carried risks. Death or injury of my friends, who were too like me in their early teens, was common and each was a lesson to learn from. Just like many children of my age I adapted to the underground or the general indoor life. At the same time just like many other children of my age I carried the burden of seeking sources that provided the provision of sustenance. This is the time when many children of my age learned several handcraft skills. We had spent around ten hours a day working on a piece of embroidery, carpentry, packaging soap or weaving a carpet. The amount of money a child could make was under 50p. All the crafts were particularly harmful to health, inhaling the dust, debris or chemical is now causing problem among those children that are now in their early 30s. Most are suffering from anomaly associated with sight too. Not to mention of the psychological footprint left from mixing childhood with adult responsibility and imminent death.

I have moved a long way from the misfortunes that had befallen my childhood and now own my business in the UK. When I was in my 20s and had just transitioned from the smothering poverty of my childhood, I took an issue with the marketing trend of handcrafts and the exhibitionist place it had in the western culture. I only saw the prospect of a child confined to a dark room, not the embellishment of the hand weaved carpet or embroidery. I have recently overcome my ethical protest but maintain my objection to the profit distribution mechanism of handcraft. Millions of children will continue to produce handcrafts and labour extensive camps will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Craft children are working long hours in horrible conditions for low pay only because the alternative ways of making a living is none existent or worst.

When you take away an iconic handcraft labour from a woman or child the obvious risk is that they lose whatever financial power they have. This is surely not the aim. The only alternative is economic growth: while it may be frustratingly slow, it finishes off “Afghan Handcraft” by producing far more attractive jobs.

While the economic logic is straightforward enough, it is not watertight. I believe that economic development is not alleviating this particular problem. Economic growth itself can increase the demand for child labour as well as reducing the supply. While luxury customers are willing to pay a dime more for handmade carpet, increasing the chances of handcraft labourer income. Research shows that this income generally adds to the profit of trader and marketer and hardly trickles to the child force. Economic growth – at least in the short-term – is not enough to reduce child labour. Complementary policies to strengthen schools and the incentive to attend them seem to be necessary.

Schools and education is also key in grappling with the psychological element to the persistence of “Afghan Handcraft”. Many labours perceive this work as the only to make a living. The repetitive nature of the craft provides the illusion of safety to the child. Effective education shall reinstate self-confidence and alternative skill in labour children.

It is difficult to discount the long-term effectiveness of economic growth in improving working conditions. Despite my deepest sympathy for children who work long hours waving carpets, unfortunately I see no quick solution for them.

There is a lot to learn from the experience of other developing countries to help us make informed assumptions. For instance after the US boycotted sweatshops in Indonesia profits did fall, and so did investment. Some small plants closed. But few, if any, jobs seem to have been lost. The minimum wage in Indonesia more than doubled between 1989 and 1996, after inflation, and this did depress employment. But there seemed to be no additional effect in the districts with lots of high street handcraft suppliers, despite the fact that wages in those regions outpaced wage increases elsewhere by almost a third.

Increasing the demand and creative marketing for handcraft will not only change the demand but the profit structure and result in increasing the wage of the labourer. Increased income for children will provide the opportunity to work fewer hours and increase chances of school attendance. It will also induce other family member to work, easing the burden on the labour child.