Hasta La Gadget!

Every week, The WorldPost asks an expert to shed light on a topic driving headlines around the world. Today, we speak with economist Edward Hadas about the significance of Syriza’s victory for the Greek economy and the eurozone.

The left-wing party Syriza won national elections in Greece last Sunday with a program promising to roll back the stringent austerity measures imposed on the country in the wake of the financial crisis.

Syriza wants to renegotiate the terms of Greece’s bailout agreements with its creditors — the troika made up of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Troika leaders have insisted that Greece must fulfill its commitments, raising the prospect of a confrontation that could destabilize the eurozone, 19 of the 28 members of the European Union using the euro as their currency.

In his first week in power, Greece’s new Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras signaled that he would not relinquish his anti-austerity campaign pledges. He moved quickly to block the privatization of state assets and promised to rehire public workers, causing the Greek stock market to tumble. “We are coming in to radically change the way that policies and administration are conducted in this country,” Tsipras vowed at his first cabinet meeting.

Economists have disagreed over the right approach to save the Greek economy and whether Syriza’s economic proposals will be effective. Some have warned that austerity is a painful necessity and Greece just can’t afford the financial instability caused by Syriza’s policies. Others argue that austerity is actually harming the Greek economy.

Edward Hadas, the Economics Editor at Reuters Breaking Views, told The WorldPost in a Q&A that while Syriza is inexperienced, the new government could actually be good for Greece.

Do you think Syriza is right to oppose the austerity program?

A lot of serious economists agree that by squeezing cash out of the economy, the austerity measures have made it very difficult to drive demand, increase wages and curb unemployment. The troika plan was badly designed. It made a bad situation worse.

Syriza’s finance minister does recognize the underlying problems that led to the bailouts in the first place. The Greek economy has many structural problems, including dependence on imported capital from the rest of the eurozone.

Some of Syriza’s policies could make this better, others could make it worse. For example, they’ve proposed reversing the increase in the retirement age for civil servants, which would be a waste of human capital. However, they have also said that a serious effort must be made to widen the tax base, which would clearly be very good for Greece.

What has Syriza promised to do exactly?

The fact that you have to ask shows their policies are not very clear. Various members of Syriza have made lots of radical noises. Yet their suggestion to walk away from the reconstruction plan is not reconcilable with their pledge to stay in the euro.

Have Syriza’s decisions in its first week in power made things any clearer?

Several things they’ve said have alarmed people, but they are mostly a sign of inexperience. Syriza is clearly not used to being part of the government. Many members of the new government are academics not accustomed to the world of politics.

What does all this mean for the eurozone?

I think Greece will compromise over the bailout and will not end up leaving the euro. European debates tend to include lots of ultimatums and then a last-minute deal.

If Greece does leave the euro, the financial markets will react out of fear the eurozone could break up. Yet financial markets don’t get the idea of a political project. The political determination to keep the euro together has only increased in the last three years.

There is always a chance that things could go badly wrong. Currently, there is wide recognition that the European project is a good thing. This could change if an anti-Europe party came to power in an important European country, for example the National Front in France.

How bad are the challenges facing Greece right now?

It’s a mess: Unemployment is high, investment is low, the tax base is narrow, and educated people are leaving in droves.

These are longstanding issues. Greece faced a civil war after World War II and was later ruled by military regimes. Some social divisions have not been resolved. Economies need strong civil institutions and these have not taken root in Greece.

It is promising that Syriza is made up of political outsiders, and is willing to consider more unorthodox policies. They appear committed to breaking the cycle of those who have governed Greece so badly in the past.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Stacy Doren joined the company in 1999 and currently serves as the Vice President of Marketing for Levi’s® Brand, Americas. Over the years she has gained a breadth of experiences working in all aspects of Marketing from Direct-to-Consumer to Wholesale to Brand, both Globally and Regionally. She is now responsible for steering North and South American marketing efforts on global campaigns and local initiatives.

Stacy began her career at Quaker Oats with time in both Demand/Supply Planning and Trade Marketing groups, working on numerous brands including Gatorade, Cap’n Crunch, Quaker Oatmeal, and Rice-A-Roni. Before switching industries and joining the Levi’s® Brand, Stacy credits her time at Quaker Oats with teaching her about the power of brands, and the value of delivering against your plan.

After her time at Quaker Oats, Stacy joined the Levi’s® as a Digital Marketing Manager, responsible for driving innovative online campaigns and website presence. Over the course of her 15-year career at Levi’s® she’s worked on all four Levi Strauss & Co. brands, including four years on the Dockers Brand where she was last VP of Global Marketing.

Stacy has helped develop and execute several global campaigns, including the celebration of the company’s 150th Anniversary, Dockers WEAR THE PANTS, and most recently the launch of our new Live in Levi’s® campaign. She has also played a key role in the Levi’s Stadium partnership with the San Francisco 49ers.

Passions include raising her two kids, travel, live music, and cooking feasts for friends and family. Stacy holds a Bachelor of Business Administration from University of Iowa.

How has your life experience made you the leader you are today?
I feel lucky to have had a great family growing up – that worked (really) hard but also played hard. The whole community did. I always had multiple jobs in high school and college. I learned early on not to take anything for granted. To have initiative and drive, but also to be patient. I would say slow and steady but that sounds a bit too conservative… I definitely don’t chase things recklessly. But when I see an opportunity I haven’t been afraid to go for it. These are a few things that define me as a leader.

How has your previous employment experience aided your tenure at Levi’s?
I actually have an interesting background – I wasn’t in Brand Marketing at my previous employer, Quaker Oats. I actually worked in Demand/Supply Planning, with a short stint in Trade Marketing! That was 15 years ago and a totally different industry and job focus but I definitely learned a lot. Probably most notable was the importance of delivering your plan. They were an extremely results oriented company.

What have the highlights and challenges been during your tenure at Levi’s?
Well the highlight has most definitely been the last 14 months, since rejoining the Levi’s brand (I was on the Dockers brand for 4 years, and Signature/Denizen before that). In that time we’ve launched a new campaign, opened a stadium (Levi’s Stadium, home of the SF 49er’s), and introduced new fits, including the 541™ Athletic Fit for guys, and Super Soft, Super Stretch fabrics for women. It’s been a thrilling ride and I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished. As for challenges – believe it or not, when I joined the Levi’s Brand in 1999, as a Digital Marketing Manager, I don’t think anyone really took Online Marketing seriously. We did some really innovative programs for the time, like an online treasure hunt to celebrate the company’s 150th Anniversary (we virtually buried a pair of diamond and ruby studded jeans!), a digital quilt you could virtually sign in support of World Aids Day, and we even let consumers chose which of 2 ads we would run in the Super Bowl (we called it “SuperVote”) which was unprecedented at the time. After that, things started to change. But at first it was challenging to be taken seriously!

What advice can you offer to women who want a career in marketing?
Don’t wait to be asked. If you have a good idea, even if it’s not in your area, share it with a leader. Volunteer for assignments. And don’t assume that someone else is watching out for your career – take ownership of it. Make your goals known. I realize these are relevant tips for any career, not just Marketing. So to specifically answer the question, I think every Marketer should do a stint in Channel Marketing (Wholesale Marketing if your company plays in that channel). If you can make it there you can make it anywhere! It’s tough but it makes you most aware of the real business challenges, and accountable for the business – which ultimately makes you a better Marketer.

What is the most important lesson you’ve learned in your career to date?
The importance of building a strong team. It’s true that you’re only as good as your team. And everyone needs to be and be held accountable for his or her job. It’s been a difficult lesson for me. But I’d also say that it’s important to do the things that scare you a little – a new position, a stretch assignment, a move to a new city. Don’t stay stagnant!! It’s one of the reasons I believe I’ve been so happy with my career – I’ve always felt like I’m learning, because I’ve taken on numerous different positions covering a multitude of functions within Marketing.

How do you maintain a work/life balance?
Well, if you ask my husband he’d say I haven’t mastered this one yet. I’m still working on it… it’s hard! I think it’s important to set boundaries. I want to shut off for a few hours each night to focus on my family. And then log back in later at night, if needed. I’ve learned to work smarter through the years, which helps, but I have a ways to go. And thankfully I have a lot of energy so I can juggle quite a bit!

What do you think is the biggest issue for women in the workplace?
We so often don’t believe in ourselves. And that I believe is the biggest roadblock to success.

How has mentorship made a difference in your professional and personal life?
I’ve never had an official “mentor”… but I’ve definitely had people, mostly women, who have helped me get to where I am in my career. Mostly, because of my point above – I found people who believed in my potential more than I did. I guess like many of us, I just need a push every now and then. I also tend to attach myself to leaders that inspire me. I watch, and adjust my style based on what I’ve learned. I’m so grateful for these people!

Which other female leaders do you admire and why?
There are lots. Oprah Winfrey, because she didn’t let her impoverished childhood get in her way of becoming one of the most influential women in the world. Hilary Clinton for her political prowess. And of course several usual suspects in business too – thankfully there are more female leaders in business today than ever before. I wont list them for fear of missing one!

What do you want Levi’s to accomplish in the next year?
I’d love to see Levi’s continue to look for new and creative ways to expand on our community involvement. It’s something that we as a company take pride in. We have multiple initiatives, like Field of Jeans, a clothing drive with the San Francisco 49ers that benefitted Goodwill locations around the Bay Area, that are just as much a part of who we are as a company as the products that we make.

The Middle East Theater in World War I: Winter 1915

Turkish Infantry Prepares to Attack the Suez Canal

At the beginning of 1915, two new areas of conflict emerged in the Middle East Theater. In Egypt, a Turkish-German force crossed the Sinai Peninsula and attempted to seize control of the Suez Canal. The attack would result in the buildup of British forces in Egypt and led to the decision to begin arming Bedouin tribes in the Arabian Peninsula that were revolting against the Ottoman Empire. In addition, the continued stalemate on the western front and Russian requests for Anglo-French assistance to relieve pressure on its troops in the eastern front and the Caucasus had led Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, to propose a plan to seize control of the Dardanelles and attack Constantinople, forcing the Ottoman Empire out of the war. These two decisions would play a pivotal role in the postwar organization of the Middle East and leave a legacy that reverberates to this day.

The Campaign in Sinai and Palestine

It was Britain, supported by Empire troops, which took on the Ottoman and German Empires in the Sinai and Palestine campaigns. These campaigns lasted from January 1915 until shortly before the end of the War. Originally part of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt had been occupied by the British since the 1880s. Through Egypt ran the Suez Canal, which was Great Britain’s vital lifeline between her Asian Empire and the home country. British Empire forces defended Egypt, and the Royal Navy protected the canal itself.

Arab Rebellion in the Arabian Desert 1915

In January 1915, attacking out of a sandstorm, a German-Ottoman force of 25,000 Turkish troops invaded Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and attacked the strategically important Suez Canal. They were fought off by entrenched infantry, supported by the heavy guns of the Royal Navy’s warships, and had withdrawn eastward. This would be the first of what would be repeated Ottoman attempts to take control of the Sinai. The objective was to seize control of the Suez Canal and deny its use to Great Britain and the Allies while at the same time forcing Great Britain to commit large numbers of troops to the Middle East. Troops deployed in the Middle East would not be available for duty on the Western Front.

Gallipoli

The campaign in Gallipoli was one of the most infamous operations of World War I. Although the campaign is well known, its genesis and evolution is far less familiar. It resulted in an Ottoman victory, perhaps their most significant of the war. Combined with Ottoman successes in the Mesopotamian campaign during 1915, it underscored the fact that the Ottoman Empire could conduct an effective protracted defense and that, notwithstanding its lack of modern weapons and training, the Ottoman Army still remained a formidable force.

Anglo-French Fleet in the Dardanelles, February 1915

After Gallipoli, the notion that Turkey could be quickly knocked out of the war was abandoned. The failure was an embarrassing defeat for the Allies. It cut short, temporarily, the career of Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, the man who was most closely associated with the plan, while at the same time launched the meteoritic rise of an obscure Turkish commander named Mustafa Kemal.
Early in 1915, in response to the ongoing stalemate on the Western Front,

Churchill had proposed a military operation to seize the Turkish Straits, the complex of waterways, consisting of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara and the Bosporus, which connected the Mediterranean Sea, via the Aegean, with the Black Sea. The original plan called for combined land and naval forces to launch an attack in order to secure the Ottoman forts guarding the straits and force the passage to Constantinople. Safely anchored in the Golden Horn, Constantinople’s historic anchorage, the big guns of the Royal Navy would intimidate the Ottoman government into submission.

Control of the straits would open up a southern route to ship supplies to the Russian forces on the Eastern Front. In addition, the Black Sea was Russia’s principal export outlet for its annual wheat crop. With the Baltic and the Black Sea now closed off to Russian shipping, the only other available ports were the Arctic ports of Murmansk and Archangel and the Pacific port of Vladivostok at the other end of the 3,000-mile Trans-Siberian railroad. The Arctic ports were not well developed and could not handle any significant amount of shipping. Neither could the single track rail line from Vladivostok.

Success at Gallipoli, it was believed, would also result in the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and knock them out of the war. If Germany came to the aid of the Ottomans it would have to reduce its forces on either the Eastern or Western Fronts. If it didn’t, and Constantinople was forced to make a separate peace, then the way was open for Allied forces to land in the Eastern Mediterranean and wage war along an enlarged Eastern Front. Sir John Fisher, First Sea Lord, tentatively supported Churchill. Together, they convinced the Minister of War, Lord Kitchener, who reluctantly agreed to the plan, but only if it was limited to just the Royal Navy and did not require the commitment of ground forces. What would become the first phase of the protracted Gallipoli campaign was scheduled for February 1915. It would prove to be the first of a long series of Allied disasters.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Twice this month, the White House has publicly grappled with the politically fraught language of terrorism.

In the days after a deadly terror spree in Paris, President Barack Obama was criticized for purposely avoiding calling the attacks an example of “Islamic extremism,” settling for the more generic “violent extremism.” This week, the White House struggled to explain why the administration sometimes classifies the Afghan Taliban as a terrorist organization — and sometimes does not. The rhetorical wrangling underscores the extent to which a president who pledged to end his predecessor’s war on terror is still navigating how to explain the threats that persist to the American public, while also being mindful of the impact his words can have abroad.

“They do believe that the part of the roots of terrorism comes from the way the United States acts and talks and is perceived globally,” said Trevor McCrisken, a professor at Britain’s University of Warwick who has studied Obama’s foreign policy rhetoric.

The early January attacks on a French satirical newspaper and kosher deli put a fresh spotlight on what Obama’s supporters see as his appropriately careful language and his critics see as overly cautious.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said the attacks that left 17 people dead suggested the world was “waging a war against Islamist extremists.” And British Prime Minister David Cameron, on a visit to Washington two weeks ago, said Europe and the U.S. face a “very serious Islamist extremist terrorist threat.”

Obama, however, assiduously avoided associating the attacks with Islam, a decision White House spokesman Josh Earnest said was made for the sake of “accuracy.”

“These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it,” Earnest said. “We also don’t want to be in a situation where we are legitimizing what we consider to be a completely illegitimate justification for this violence, this act of terrorism.”

Obama’s conservative opponents quickly seized on the president’s rhetorical choice and cast it as an example of the White House downplaying the root cause of the terror threat. At least one Democrat — Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran — agreed, saying the president’s terror terminology matters, particularly as Congress weighs a new authorization for military action in Iraq and Syria.

“By his not using this term ‘Islamic extremism’ and clearly identifying our enemies, it raised a whole host of questions in exactly what Congress will be authorizing,” Gabbard said on Fox News. “Unless you understand who your enemy is, unless you clearly identify your enemy, then you cannot come up with a very effective strategy to defeat that enemy.”

Similarly, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who until last year was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told a conference in Washington last week that “you cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists.”

The president has long tried to shift his administration’s terror rhetoric away from what he saw as the hyperbolic terminology used by his predecessor, George W. Bush, particularly his declaration in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the U.S. was engaged in a “war on terror.”

In a high-profile national security address in 2013, Obama declared, “We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror,’ but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”

Under Obama’s narrower definition, his advisers say the U.S. is at war with terror groups like al-Qaida and its affiliates, as well as the Islamic State group.

Given the U.S. policy of not making concessions to terrorists, the White House has refused to negotiate with Islamic State militants to free American hostages and opposes Jordan’s ongoing efforts to orchestrate a prisoner swap with the group. However, the U.S. did negotiate with the Taliban through an intermediary last year to free American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Afghan detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

The White House insisted anew this week that those negotiations did not violate U.S. policy because the administration does not classify that Taliban as a terrorist organization — though officials said there are overlapping characteristics.

“They do carry out tactics that are akin to terrorism. They do pursue terror attacks in an effort to try to advance their agenda,” Earnest, the White House spokesman, said. The difference, he said, is that the Taliban threat to the U.S. is mainly confined to interests in Afghanistan, while a group like al-Qaida has broader ambitions.

Yet even the administration’s classifications of the Taliban have some contradictions.

The Afghan Taliban is not on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, thereby allowing the White House to engage in the negotiations for Bergdahl. Yet the Treasury Department does list the Afghan Taliban on the list of specially designated terrorists, giving the U.S. the ability to freeze the assets of the group and its members.

___

Associated Press writers Ken Dilanian in Washington and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

___

Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC

They were civilians standing in line at the Rinat Akhmetov Humanitarian Centre in Donetsk, Ukraine. This was aid they needed because of the war between the government and pro-Russian separatists.

But the savagery of the conflict knows no boundaries. Ceasefires have been ignored and civilians have become targets. Yesterday, shells struck Donetsk leveling houses, a bus stop, children’s institutions and the humanitarian centre. Innocent lives were lost.

These are more casualties to a war that is quickly escalating. After yesterday’s attack, each side blamed the other for the atrocities. A Rinat Akhmetov Humanitarian Centre statement urged respect for human rights:

“It is unacceptable that the war is taking lives again in Donbass and keeps people in fear and horror. Hopes for a peaceful future of the region are lost with every tragedy. Nothing is more valuable than a human life. Civilians must not suffer! Civilians must not die!

Since war broke out last year people, who once knew peaceful and quiet lives, are at daily risk of getting caught in the crossfire. They are also dying a slower death of hunger and want.

Over one million people have been displaced, many have lost their livelihoods. They have become desperate for the basics of food, shelter and medicine.

Many of the displaced have fled to other communities in Eastern Ukraine. This has placed a huge strain on resources for towns that have seen populations grow very quickly overnight.

Like many towns and villages in eastern Ukraine, Semenovka, a village near Sloviansk in Donetsk region, was badly damaged during fighting between May and July 2014. Many people have left for safer places in Ukraine or Russia. (ICRC photo)

Aid groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), World Food Programme and others are now having to increase or start aid in a country they never operated in before. Ukrainians, who once needed no help to survive, now depend entirely upon charity.

Ulyana, a 27-year old Ukrainian mother with an autistic child, was once able to support her family. According to Catholic Relief Services she was a lawyer with a good middle-class living.

Then the war came and Ulyana and her son were forced to flee. They now live in a crumbling cottage in extreme winter conditions. They get help from Catholic Relief Services (CRS) which is aiding thousands of displaced persons with food, water and shelter.

CRS is working with Caritas to help those suffering. Christian Hennemeyer, acting country manager for CRS Ukraine, explains,

“Families, who before the conflict, lived quite normal middle-class European lives, now find themselves crammed into a small room or two, or in an isolated cottage in a remote rural area, largely dependent on charity. For many, the routine of work, supermarket shopping, and after-school activities has been replaced by the fear of a savage war that seems to have no end.”

As long as the fighting continues, so too will hunger. Food prices have risen dramatically making it impossible for the poor to afford to eat. State services that could help have been shut down.

In the area of Makeevka in the Donetsk region, it is estimated that more than half of the population are in acute need of food supplies. In medical institutions there is tremendous food shortages with patients starving according to International Relief and Development.

The situation in Eastern Ukraine will get much worse, unless peace can be established. The UN World Food Programme (WFP) recently announced it’s increasing the food aid mission in Ukraine. A year ago they did not even operate in the Ukraine. There was no need at that time.

But now there most definitely is the need for food. Where there is war, there is hunger. This is a tragic scene too often repeated with the most refugees globally since World War II.

WFP is already running one of the largest emergency missions in history because of the war in Syria. Will the Ukraine be the next major hunger disaster?

What can someone do to help? You can pray for and support peace efforts. Also you can help by donating to the charities providing life-saving aid throughout the Ukraine.