Airport security

A few hours before xmas eve. For the first time since I left Barcelona I will go back home for xmas only on the 24th itself, just in time for the “shitlog” (new entry to come soonest). I used to do so earlier, to allow some time for last minute shopping and prepare for all the excesses, gastronomic and others. This time, though, I waited until the last moment to allow myself a longer holiday break.

I set for the Parisian Orly airport by taxi. Streets seemed almost empty by my place, but I forgot it is indeed 24 December and I am flying in the early afternoon. I am bound to face a city close to collapse with traffic jams, as everyone just left their workplaces to head home in this shortened working day. Not only the taxi will cost me a fortune; on top of it I will reach the airport in full anxiety to check in before the flight is closed. I trust meteorology will have caused some delays; I will only be wrong in part. I get to the terminal just on schedule and yet I will have to wait. The flight is delayed.

We are told the delay is caused by the late arrival of the aircraft, which was flying in from Rome, where a lady had a panic attack and had to be disembarked with her family. Security regulations indicate that in such a case the luggage has to be located and unloaded. Logical, but not on account of any preoccupation about that particular person’s welfare, but rather to avoid that the luggage could be forgotten intentionally and with criminal motivations.

The world’s evolution, particularly during the last decade, transformed security measures in such a way that, being a frequent traveler, forced me get used to all the procedures. As soon as my luggage is checked in I set for the security control. My wallet, my keys, my telephone, all goes in the pockets of my jacket, which will be scanned. I take off my belt and store it in my briefcase. My laptop will also go through the detector on a separate tray.

I am not carrying any liquids or gels, not even a miserable bottle of water. I try to avoid them since their transport in cabin was severely restricted after an attempt to blow airplanes in flight by use of liquid explosives. This was another security measure with interesting side effects; in this case it implied reinforcing the business of bars and restaurants in airports, as well as the general trend by which terminals became enormous shopping malls targeting travelers, who have by definition a considerable purchasing power.

I always asked myself which percentage of the security ritual is nothing but dissuasion or sheer intimidation. This was crystal clear to me in 2000, in Tel-Aviv, when I had to witness how a military officer with a metal detector went through every single piece of my luggage including dirty underwear. That was nothing but the Israeli despicable punishment as I dared spending some time with Palestinian friends in the West Bank. 9/11 prompted security measures to increasingly emulate this Israeli experience, which back then was just a draconian exception. Ever since all the security ritual reinforced all procedures, and most particularly this intimidation side, which I find revolting. I simply detest being treated as a criminal. Intimidation is part of the game, and measures are on the increase after the last incident in Amsterdam when a criminal wanted to blow off a plane using explosive hidden in his underwear. Hugely expensive all-body scans will be installed at the Schiphol airport. However, I read opinions by experts who say upgrading security measures will only cause delays and stress, and that efforts should concentrate on observing people’s patterns of behavior as the terrorists’ seem to be quite distinguishable.

My walk through the metal detector and my thinking is disturbed by a resounding beep. I don’t know what did provoke it, as I never went through any surgery that involved inserting any metal piece in my body. If it were not the bit of metal in my glasses or iron in my liver (?), I ignore what it was. A security guard comes and politely asks whether he can search me. I concede as I do not know what might happen if I refuse. I extend my arms and he searches me. As he goes down my chest and before getting to my legs, his exceeding zeal or excess in hurry result in him touching my left testicle. I immediately jump back, he immediately goes pale and apologizes, which he will later reiterate while I start chuckling in a mix of disbelief and amazement.

As explained above in a more polite language, a certain approach to security measures in airports always broke my balls. However, I never imagined one day this would come so close to being literal.

Spring in Montevideo

Once again Montevideo welcomes me with open arms. This time it feels warmer than ever, for I had only seen the city in winter. The change is notable. Two things strike me: firstly, the light; the sun is much higher and daylight lasts much longer in these last days of the Austral spring than in August. Secondly, the trees; the platanus were naked in winter, now they are dressed in live green and give the streets a completely different aspect, full of live.

I land in Montevideo three days after the run off to the presidential election. The majority went to the electoral ticket of the Frente Amplio, the coalition of the left led into power by the outgoing president, Tabaré Vázquez. The President elect is Mr. José Mujica, “el Pepe”. 75 years old, former member of the Movimiento de Liberación Nacional - Tupamaros, the urban guerrilla that operated in Uruguay in the late sixties and early seventies.

Pepe Mugica is a very controversial character, the kind of charismatic person that leaves no margin but to love or hate. Obviously his past as a guerrilla leader earns him numerous detractors. Yet there is more. Pepe continued to live in his chacra even when appointed minister of agriculture with president Vázquez. Pepe speaks the language of the people in the street, even consciously reproducing typical grammar mistakes people make. Pepe does not wear suits, just ordinary shirts, sweaters and jackets. A number of Uruguayans do not think his image allows him to represent the country in a proper manner and reckon international representation should be left to Danilo Astori, the vice-president elect and minister of economy with Tabaré. They reckon he is too plain, too raw, they think he has no style, he looks too much like a peasant. Besides, the country cannot afford being represented by a former guerrilla leader.

El Pepe used to appear daily in an early morning radio show that I used to listen to when I lived in Montevideo. He would comment on daily matters, on the economy, on politics… I was always struck by the deepness of his thinking combined with an enormous pedagogic capacity; he would be able to explain complicated things and convey complex messages in a totally intelligible and compelling language. Having heard him several times nobody can convince me that he is simple. Quite the contrary.

On the other hand, I do not think anyone should make a fuss about his past as a guerrilla leader –a terrorist, to use a term hugely connotated in Latin America well before 9/11-, all the more when he spent fifteen years in jail. He does not resemble any of the former guerrilla leaders now in power in the region. He is not like the Castro brothers, who maintain Cuba in a surreal economic system that creates poverty and despair rather than wealth; he is not Daniel Ortega, who turned the Sandinist revolution into a parasitarian cleptocracy. And in terms of the present Latin American left, he is much closer to Lula than to Chávez.

If I were Uruguayan, would I be proud? I do not know. I am sure I would not be ashamed, though. El Pepe won the presidency talking plain politics and economy to the people, while most of the world lives in the era of showbiz-like politics, where the real issues are often hidden by a spin of action where appearing to be constantly doing something becomes much more important than actually achieving anything –from Blair to Sarkozy through Zapatero, Cristina Kirchner or Abdulaye Wade-. A model sublimated by Berlusconi, the biggest master of diversion whose presence into politics responds mainly to his search to protect his own personal wealth and nothing else. If I take these other examples, some of them better than others, I can say as humbly as firmly that in my opinion Uruguayans should not be ashamed. Rather, they should be proud.

Too much, too early

The 2009 Peace Nobel prize went to the President of the United States of America, Mr. Barack Obama, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". This came as a big surprise to me, and I must humbly say that I do not think this is appropriate.

I do not have to convince anyone about my high respect for Mr. Obama. In the Catalan edition of this blog I expressed my sympathy, recognition and hope when he was elected; both as the first Afro-American person to become president, with all the symbolism it entails after centuries of segregation, and as a man who won the election with a message of reconciliation and hope.

Barack Obama brought to the international arena a new language and some concrete proposals, notably in the area of nuclear disarmament. He reengaged his country with multilateralism. He also appears to engage in efforts to find a long lasting peaceful solution for the conflict in Palestine/Israel. He has cancelled the anti-missile shield project that must be a long cherished dream of his country’s industrial-military complex. And there are a number of other things. However, I feel we are still at the stage of proposals. We are not yet at the stage of accomplishments. That is why I consider this award unjustified.

I can understand some may want to express strong support for his proposals and compel him to redouble his efforts at a particularly complicated time in his domestic arena, by awarding him this prize somehow in anticipation. Yet I still think this is too much, too early.

Irina Bokova

Mrs. Irina Bokova, nominated candidate to Director-General of UNESCO, appears in France 24 (Interview in English).

Times of change

Since 6 September I have been working without interruption except for one day, Sunday 13. I was seconded to one of the Commissions of UNESCO’s Executive Board. Amongst the decisions to take there was the nomination of a candidate to the post of Director-General, which is tantamount to the election of a Director-General, unless there would be an unexpected and never seen before battle at the upcoming General Conference.

During these very exciting weeks I could observe from the inside an intergovernmental negotiation at the highest level, to put it in nice words. A great learning moment that, for the time being, will only be commented in private as to all its various dimensions. Nine candidates; five ballots. An opaque process with people negotiating in our name, as they stand to “defend the interest of our [respective] country[ies]”, which has in my view two fundamental problems: on the one hand, everything happens in secret, behind closed doors. This leaves too wide a margin for this high interest of our respective countries (States is a much more appropriate term) to become “so high” that in the end it relates much more to the interest of a small minority than to the general interest. This happens quite often. In the end, if one lives in a more or less democratic state, at least there is some space left for accountability. Otherwise everything remains in the unique and private domain of an elite. An elite that, for most countries, is nothing but one of the main obstacles to human development.

On the other hand, I have fundamental doubts about the interest of humankind being the result of the mere addition of the interests expressed along these division lines that we have given ourselves basically through centuries of fights. To put it differently and using an example, if we look at what is happening in terms of response to Climate Change, we can see everyone concentrating mostly on short-term interest, while it seems that no one really thinks about a longer term, in this very future generations everyone invokes. Yes I know, this is a much longer discussion and my view is rather pessimistic. Anyway, there will be more entries.

In any event, the final result of this game is Egypt 27, Bulgaria 31. While I warmly welcome the fact that for the first time in history there will be a female Director General of UNESCO (Yes, a WOMAN, Mrs. Irina Bokova, this is indeed historic!), I remind and underscore that I was always a great fan of Mr. Hristo Stoichkov, whom I could see live many times, scoring many goals. In addition I express my satisfaction of the fact that, lately, there are no problems in my private life. It must be that I actually do not have one.

More information will follow. For the time being I can say that I am happy. And that I would not be if the Egyptian candidate had been elected, out of both candidate's profile and vision statements. There will be more, in person. By now it is time to carry on working, since as my mother use to tell me, “it is those who are tired who do the work” –free translation from Catalan, as the rest of the article-. Moreover, my salary is paid by the taxpayer. So have a good night.

PS: the pictures are, respectively, from early August and from yesterday. It is “the yard” at UNESCO’s HQ. The corner is Av. Lowendal with Av. Suffren.

U2 in Paris

Friday, five in the afternoon. Just tidying up a couple of things before going home for a long weekend. Tomorrow is my birthday and Tuesday is a holiday. I log on facebook. My friend Fernanda has an unequivocal status message: “I have spare tickets for U2 concerts in Paris, call me at XX.XX.XX.XX.XX”. I call her immediately.

Two hours later I have to tickets for the U2 concert in Paris on Sunday 12. This is an unexpected, pleasant and promising birthday present. I have been a U2 fan since I discovered them many years ago when they released “The Joshua Tree”, the album of their international consecration. I saw them live in two occasions: at Palau Sant Jordi in Barcelona, 1992, during their Zoo Tv Tour, when they trotted the world with a stage full of old Trabants and TV screens; and in Cork, Ireland, 2003, by the end of the Zooropa Tour, when they expanded the stage to fit big stadiums.

Since then I heard them only on their records. Now it is the “360º Tour”, a show with an open stage that can be seen all around. This will not disappoint me, on the contrary it will remind me the extraordinary sensations one can live in such a show.

It was definitely worth it. These guys are criticized for their use of pre-recorded sound, and for hiding their music behind screens and ostentatious technology. What can I say… The best live music I ever saw was by Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, that is best quality music and nothing else. But U2 are much more than technology. A career longer than 30 years made them an undisputable reference of contemporary music.

That is what this concert is all about. A visit through my thirtysome. Songs from the new album, “Breathe”, “No line on the horizon”, “Magnificient”, or “I’ll go crazy tonight” where Larry Mullen Junior plays a Djembé!!! Songs from the most recent records such as “Beautiful day” or “Vertigo”, classics that leave me breathless and close to tears like “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for”… And they can still astonish me completely: a version of another new song, “Unknown caller”, where you can follow the words through the screens; halfway through the concert they use their long repertoire and play “The unforgettable fire”, which I had never heard live.

U2 has been on the first line for so long because they manage to adapt to the evolution of times, both to the music and to the technology. Meanwhile they stayed committed to a number of worldwide social causes, in a move that can be subject to criticism –as for instance the social responsibility of big corporations- but is yet remarkable and most welcome in many cases, since it raises the awareness about certain causes to people with little exposure to them. The stage goes green for the revolution in Iran while we hear “Sunday bloody Sunday”. And for once Bono remains silent while Desmond Tutu gives a speech about development in Africa, while I can see the coming of the red colours of my favourite song, “Where the streets have no name”. By the end of the concert Bono revisits the effect of the lighters and candles in a dark stadium, by asking the people to use their phones and cameras while we hear another classic, “With or without you”.

The concert finishes with a new song that in my opinion will be a classic: “Moment of surrender”. Yes, I do surrender. Great concert, great sensations, I could not have had a better birthday present.

Coup in Honduras

Military coups became increasingly unusual owing to the worldwide expansion of democracy during the nineties. The military were progressively separated from politics, out of the relative but yet existent expansion and improvement of democratic institutions, and the possibility for ruling classes to maintain social control without resort to violence. Such process was particularly visible in Latin America. The continent just went through two decades that were convulsed by regime changes from Ecuador to Argentina, yet in general the military did not interfere in political processes, at least publicly and using arms.

However, two days ago Honduras wake us up with a military coup that resonated with the worst moments of the XXth century in the region. We saw again things we though forever gone. The military forcibly deposed the president and embarked him in a plane heading to Costa Rica still in his pyjamas. They retaliated after the president had dismissed the head of the army, who had refused to install ballot boxes for a referendum. Such referendum was an attempt to modify the constitution to enable the President to stand for re-election, although not immediately but after another mandate by someone else. The Parliament opposed this referendum and the Supreme Court declared it illegal. Yet the president insisted in carrying on. The military decided to expedite matters and ignored the constitutional procedure of impeachment to forcibly remove the president from office.

The background: a President coming from the most conservative sectors who made a 180 degree turn to approach Hugo Chavez’s positions, and an elite increasingly worried about its deeply rooted privileges.
The US administration’s reaction was also unusual, but very positive in my opinion: condemn of the violent action, no public interference and ample leeway for the Organization of American States to lead negotiations. The US no longer considers Central America as their backyard? In fact all the Central American elite hold property in Miami, while millions migrate and send their remittances to sustain their families barely out of a line of poverty that is never lowered. My suspicion is that the US does not intervene in the zone the same way it used to do primarily because they do not need it.

Why Iran hurts me

Last 13 June there were presidential elections, after a long and mediatised campaign never seen since the Islamic revolution thirty years ago. The supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei immediately sanctioned the results, by which the outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been re-elected for a margin wider than 60% of the votes. However, there were several powerful reasons to suspect a well-prepared rigging. Among those:
-Khamenei did not wait for the usual three days before announcing the results. These three days are used to discuss and clear any allegations the candidates may have;
-The geographic distribution of Ahmadinejad’s vote was suspiciously uniform. He even won by a landslide in places widely recognized as other candidate’s most favourable territories;
-The opposition candidates denounced their observers had been barred from the polling stations, and that ballots were missing in many places;
-The elections saw an unprecedented turnout. Such moves happen rarely in favour of the maintenance of the status quo. That would be even stranger in a society were the majority of the population had not been born when the Islamic revolution took place.

Khamenei’s reaction gave rise to huge demonstrations that had not been seen since the days of the revolution. The rest is sadly known. On 19 June, at Friday’s prayer, the supreme leader took another step the delegitimation of the institution he represents, by proclaiming that the demonstrations were illegal, not legitimate, and inspired by foreign powers, and that they would be repressed. This was said when, according to official figures, already ten people had been killed. So Khamenei was essentially giving his green light to a bloodbath, while he mortally injured the institution of velayat-el-faqih, by which government and parliament are under the guidance of the religious authority. Khamenei openly associated himself with a clear breach in democracy and with the crackdown on popular revolt.

This move only intensified what the regime had been doing for decades: iron-fist repression inside the country, impeding any demonstration with tear gases, acidic water, batons and live shots, with total freedom of action for the basiji, the youth militia akin for instance to Mugabe’s thugs that terrorized Zimbabwe a year ago –and who continue doing so whenever it is expedient to the regime-; massive arrests. All these combined with intoxication outside the country, accusing everyone of interfering with Iran’s affairs while restricting any access to information, cutting off Internet, expelling journalists or restricting their movements to prevent them from verifying any information they receive, or even attacking the premises of an opposition newspaper and arresting everyone under the accusation of terrorism. Up until now, the only source of information was the people themselves, using the new information technologies.

So far the regime acknowledged some twenty dead people –while some estimates affirm that the real figure could be tenfold-; there have been almost two hundred arrests amongst dissident intellectuals and civil society figures; any attempt to demonstrate continues to be fiercely repressed. The opposition leader did not surrender and denounces his movements have been restricted. At this point the fact that Mr. Moussavi comes from the same regime where he was once the prime Minister became irrelevant. The intestine fight for power has been totally exceeded by the popular movement. Equally irrelevant as the ignominy of the vote recounting, which acknowledged irregularities in 50 districts out of 170; and that there were three million more votes than there were electors. The regime added that, all in all, this last detail does not affect the final result.

What matters is that the regime is tainted with its own people’s blood. There has been an earthquake which will have deep consequences. Iran is seeing its civil rights movement, symbol of the emergence of a new middle class and of the evolution of customs. The regime’s crackdown was for everyone to see. This will not end here.

Some say that solidarity is the tenderness of peoples. Raising my voice for a true democracy in Iran is for me a duty of global citizenship. A citizenship I had the chance to progressively enrich with affective bonds all over the world. These allow me to get first hand information, but also to share impressions, feelings and an outlook. There is also the certainty that anyone who was never deprived of liberty can rarely have a clear conscience of all that it entails. In my case I was lucky enough to grow up in a country that was just liberating itself, but my parents did transmit me the experience of living under a dictatorship. All the aspirations limited by fear; but also the rediscovery of dignity. This goes also to them.