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.
|