Who are you kidding, Mr. Blair
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is no fool, far from it. If he is also not a hypocrite, he probably has little respect for the mental capabilities of people even in the West who increasingly believe that poverty and inequality in developing countries are intrinsically linked with global security.

If Mr Blair thought that his sugar coated words during the recently concluded World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in anyway elevated him to a pantheon of the godly, he must be more naïve than those he tried to convince of his conversion to righteousness.

Hammered mercilessly (particularly since the 1995 Seattle summit of the World Trade Organisation) by civil society and rising numbers of non-governmental organisations over the policies of self interest that have driven the rich nations in their approach to matters of global concern, the West is still trying to protect the huge corporations against mounting criticism.

So now and then the West makes a few noises that seem to suggest that these criticisms are being taken on board and genuine thought given to minimising the havoc that some multinationals have caused in developing countries when given unbridled power.

It was quite clear long before the summit got under way late last month that the multinationals and the huge corporations that operate in the developing countries since globalisation and privatisation became the latest mantra for economic salvation, would receive considerable flak for the economic and social problems they have caused.

Under pressure from the American corporate lobby to which President George W. Bush owes his political ascendancy, he kept away from the summit and let poor Colin Powell, his secretary of state, bear the brunt of universal anger and opprobrium. Some call it carrying the white man's burden.

So it was left to other western leaders such as Tony Blair to try and save the day for big business that has been quite helpful in the furtherance of his own political career not to mention the coffers of the Labour Party that he now leads.

Mr Blair has, of course, fought shoulder-to shoulder with his transatlantic colleague on a number of fronts such as global terrorism and the need to topple Saddam Hussein before he releases poisonous gases and pollutes the atmosphere just as the western industrialised nations have done for decades.

All the same Mr. Blair was keen to strike a different chord, not wanting to show the world that he is the lackey of Washington on every issue. So he stressed once more his support for the Kyoto Treaty on climate change that requires industrialised countries to cut their gas emissions by a target date, the treaty that Bush senior agreed to in 1992 in Rio but Bush junior reneged on two years ago.

But while talking of the need to control environmental degradation and eliminate poverty and other social evils that are abundant in this world, Mr. Blair threw a curved one, what I suppose cricket writers would call a googly.

On initial mention it seemed a good idea and that was what Tony Blair was counting on.

He proposed that corporate corruption could be countered by urging companies to publish all payments made to governments of developing countries and their officials.

In this way Blair hopes to prevent illegal payments to politicians and bureaucrats in developing countries for underhand deals and expects this will reveal where large sums of money paid for concessions and production are going.

But examine it closely and all the faults begin to appear like warts. Firstly, such a proposal would only apply to British companies and that too would be voluntary.

In other words the British prime minister is only appealing to British companies to agree to voluntarily publicising the fact that they have given bribes-okay, made payments-to third world governments or bureaucrats.

Now, would any British company in serious competition with others from elsewhere, commit business hara kiri by making such public statements and jeopardise its chances of winning contracts or concessions from any developing country?

It is a truism of international business that corporations big and small give incentives to grease the palms of politicians and officials to win business for themselves.

Presidents have been given villas, prime ministers have had their Swiss bank accounts bloated and officials have squirreled away dollars.

Besides, the proposal seems to target developing countries as though the only crooks are to be found among politicians and bureaucrats among the poor.

But Blair blithely ignores the influence of big business on politicians and officials of rich nations. After all he should know the number of scandals that have erupted around him and some of his ministers. Just the other day we read of British ambassadors being warned by the Foreign Office not to involve themselves in recommending companies etc. Though they refuse to admit it, this was an obvious reference to the Lakshmi Mittal case in which Tony Blair himself wrote to the Rumanian president promoting the case of this steel king.

When the story broke, Downing Street tried to justify it saying Mr Blair was trying to promote British business. Only later Downing Street discovered its faux pas. Mr Mittal hardly has any British business interests and hardly employs 100 persons here. He is not even a British citizen. But a month or two before Blair wrote the letter of promotion, Mr Mittal had contributed to Labour Party funds.

The Berlin-based Transparency International in a recent report labelled France as the most corrupt country in Europe and Italy the next.

Corruption, bribe taking and bribe giving are not the monopolies of the developing countries though one dare says they have contributed heavily towards gaining this notoriety.

Recent events surrounding one of the energy giants Enron and an internationally-known accountancy firm have shown that fault lines exist everywhere.

If bribery and corruption is a scourge that prevents the economic and social development of the poorer countries, then mere appeals to multinationals will not do. Corporate governance must accompany political governance-ethics must apply to both. If there can be international courts to try crimes against humanity, surely they should apply to business as well as politics.

Corporate action that reduces people to penury and corrupts society is no different, on the moral scales, from genocide and torture.


Back to Top
 Back to Columns  

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster