Amid the financial crisis in 2008, Barclays raised $15
billion from Qatar and other investors. The infusion of capital saved the
European bank from needing a government bailout. Unfortunately, the bank may
not have disclosed the $390 million paid to the Qatari government for “advisory
services” as part of the fund-raising, and the $3 billion loan facility that
Barclays made available to that government.[1]
The bank, along with three of its executives at the time were charged in 2017 with
conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation, and providing unlawful
financial assistance—in other words, paying a bribe to avoid needing an E.U. or
state-level bailout. According to Amanda Staveley, a European financier,
Barclays improperly favored the Qataris in the fund-raising. The relationship
between the bank and the Qatari government rings of “mutual back-scratching.” Admittedly,
any business deal involves both parties benefitting, and in much of the world
bribery is de facto necessary cost of doing business. Nevertheless, Barclays
may have had an organizational culture similar to that of Wells Fargo in which
anything goes in pursuit of profit.
What exactly does a large political contribution do for a
contributor? The standard line is that access is “bought.” Being far removed
from the Washington “belt-way,” the American people have swallowed the line,
admittedly naively. As of 2015, we can look at the proverbial “man behind the
curtain” for a much more realistic grasp of the extent to which the American
political system is corrupt. The full essay is at "Political Bribery"
In the weeks leading us to watch the
Olympics, I suspect I was not alone in thinking, “I just don't like what I see
here." Why wasI resisting paying even scant attention to the pre-Olympics "coverage" (a.k.a. advertising) as NBC, the American broadcast network covering the games, was getting rather publicly revved up on the upcoming media event. In this essay, I briefly survey the external stimuli, leaving the self-analysis to the analyst’s couch.[1]
First, as the American press reported
before NBC began promoting the games in earnest (hmm), there is the “whole gay
thing” and Putin. I really think that's a non-issue with regard to the Olympics,
given the uniqueness of the Olympic Village. I would not be surprised were the
Russian police of the mind that “What goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas,” at
least as far as vacations are concerned.
Now, the "not fit for primetime
viewing" conditions of some of the hotels putting up the foreign press
strikes me as more substantive because of the implicit and likely even explicit
rudeness does not go down well, even at a distance. Relatedly, I suspect, the
sheer amount of money "padded" into the construction projects, including
hotel construction, for kick-backs undoubtedly directed to Putin's major
political supporters eviscerates any possible excuse in the tardiness.
In fact, associating Putin at all with the
Olympics comes off to me like associating liver with dinner; I instinctively
spit out immediately any hint of liver-taste. I must admit I am glad the U.S.
State Department put out a travel warning for Americans going to the games. I
was also amused to read of the low numbers of non-Russians arriving from abroad
in Sochi as of the first day of games.[2]
Of course, the modern Olympics hinges on the broadcasts around the world, rather
than attendance numbers.
Even though NBC's studio in the Olympic Village is transparent, the network's tactics may be anything but. (Image Source: David Johnson)
Interestingly, as part of its rather
obvious devices to remind/manipulate its general viewership to watch the
approaching games (including inserting reporters live from Sochi into CNBC's
coverage of the financial markets), NBC strategists may actually have been
fomenting the security story in order to draw viewers' attention to the fact
that the games would soon begin. Stirring up fear and the hope of visual
voyeurism of others’ tragedies is a sure bet for news reporting as advertising. However, overdoing it can be counterproductive
if too much of the ploy is visible on the surface as a duplicitous, otherwise stealth
agenda. Yearning to turn the subtropical town on the Black Sea into an
international resort, Putin could not have been very happy about the coverage,
though may have realized the importance of a huge broadcast viewership even for
himself, not to mention covering some of the kick-backs.
Finally, starting particular events
including skating the day before the
OPENING ceremony may stand out among the various points of smoke above in being
indicative of fire skipping fire lines below. Even though Chris Chase of USA Today concludes “it’s a small price
to pay for the overall improvement of the Winter Games,” he admits “it still
feels strange to start the Olympics before the Olympics technically start.”[3]
In the film, Inglourious Basterds,
Lt. Aldo Raine wryly clarifies the matter of something seeming odd (or strange).
“Yeah, we got a word for that in
English. It’s called suspicious.”
In spite of his conclusion (i.e., small price to pay), Chase provides a credible case for suspicion. “Television rules all." he states up front as if it were a natural law. "Adding another day
of Olympic competition means adding another day of Olympic telecasts. Thursday
is traditionally one of the biggest television nights (along with Sunday). With
all the money being paid to cover the games by networks across the world,
turning 17 days of Olympic coverage into 18 days is a nice bonus.”[4]
Regarding the addition of a program of skating, Chase points to a five day
interim within the two weeks without any skating scheduled.
In closing, I must let the philosopher in
me have a few words (no philosopher ever has just a few words, so please take a bathroom break if you need to). From sheer logic, to begin something before it has begun
is a blatant contradiction. As per his categorical imperative, Kant would call
the practice unethical. Were everyone to adopt the maxim, “I will start
activities before the start time,” it would not make sense to have a start time
for anything. The maxim is thus self-contradictory if it (like reason itself)
is universalized.
Hume would point out that Kant relies too
much on logic and reason more generally in assessing whether a given practice
is ethical. A person reading U.N.’s condemnation of the Vatican in February
2014 for having been more concerned
about the reputation of the Church as a whole than children’s welfare—a priority
that Rev. Joe Ratzinger, or Benedict XVI, put in a letter while archbishop of
Munich—may think through the theological implications of priests covering for
each other. However, the sentiment of disapprobation (think of my expression as
I spit out odious liver) is likely, excepting sociopaths, to be the principal
reaction. Emotive rather than of Reason.
When I read of the sports beginning a day before the opening ceremony, I felt a
sentiment of disapprobation well up inside me. Because I had been feeling that
something just isn’t right about the upcoming games, especially from an vague
intuitive sense of NBC’s manipulative tactics as over-reaching at best, I suspected that the rather odd placement
of some events before the ceremony also came from the mentality that wants
incessantly to squeeze out a few more drops of lemon juice from lemon that has
already shed enough. The sight of this childish demeanor in action is
enough for any non-manipulative person to resist going where the manipulations
point.
[1] I
have in mind here Nietzsche’s thesis that reasoning is really a person’s instinctual
urges tussling for dominance—that which overcomes the others (here as
obstacles) reaches the surface of consciousness as an idea. I do think about
this point regarding philosophy (and particular philosophical systems) in
general and how my own psychological background fuels or is otherwise expressed
in the ideas and related theories I “intuit” and “create.”
In late July 2013, the Obama administration decided that
it was not legally required to determine whether the Egyptian military had led
a coup in ousting President Morsi. The decision permitted the administration to
continue $1.5 billion annually in American aid to Egypt. One senior official
said only, “The law does not require us to make a formal determination as to
whether a coup took place, and it is not in our national interest to make such
a determination. We will not say it was a coup, we will not say it was not a
coup, we will just not say,” the official said.”[1]
I’m reminded of one of Captain Renault’s famous lines in the film,
Casablanca. “I’m shocked, shocked to
find that gambling is going on in here!” Coup?
What coup? To be sure, the administration had its reasons, strategic of course,
yet a bigger picture perspective could be helpful here, considering that an effort
to violate at least the spirit of a law is involved here.
Administration officials said the U.S. Government would
continue to use financial aid as a lever to pressure Egypt’s new government to
push through a transition to democracy. Yet what cost to the U.S. Government would
this intent to manipulate the Egyptian military exact?
A Coup or a Book-Signing?
Refusing even to decide if this is a coup reflects on the refuser.
On July 3, 2013, Egyptian generals deposed President
Morsi, put him under arrest, and suspended the constitution. “Under the terms
of the Foreign Assistance Act, no aid other than that for democracy promotion
can be given to ‘any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed
by military coup d’état.’ The law does not allow a presidential waiver, and
stipulates that aid cannot be restored until ‘a democratically elected
government has taken office.’”[2]
Refusing to decide whether a coup took place is essentially refusing to enforce
the law, given the events in Egypt on July 3, 2013.
Fittingly, one of Morsi’s senior advisors, Wael Haddara,
accused the administration of “verbal acrobatics,” and asked, “With the entire
world calling this a coup, why isn’t the American administration calling it so?”[3]
The reference to “verbal acrobatics” is particularly important, for it hints on
the discrediting long-term impact on the U.S. Government by its president’s
decision to take an easy out. Generally speaking, political convenience can
come back to bite even if the pain is not ever felt directly. In other words,
the Obama administration sacrificed some of the U.S. Government’s credibility
to be able to manipulate another government through money.
A similar trade-off existed at the time in Europe
regarding the matter of Turkey’s possible accession an E.U. state. Turkey would
be the largest state by population, and thus would have tremendous influence in
the E.U. Government. The added cultural and political diversity to the E.U.
could cause it added strain, if not compromise the very viability of the Union.
So why would the E.U. admit Turkey when doing so could put the E.U. itself at
risk internally? Similar to the Obama administration’s desire to have more
influence in the Egyptian military, the European Commission would like to use
Turkey as a “way in” to influence Middle East international relations.
Both cases evince putting one’s own federal government at
risk in order to manipulate other governments. At the very least, the strategy
of undercutting oneself to extend one’s influence seems counterproductive. That
the influence comes well before “the bill comes due” creates the illusion of a
costless choice. Looking out for the long-term governing of a union of diverse
states, whether in Europe or North America, is easily shirked when the
opportunity to pull more levers externally presents itself. A federal
government willingly undercutting its own credibility or ability to govern for a
short-term advantage is not only short-sighted; it is also indicative of a
certain lack of character. The question is perhaps whether that lack of
character is societal in nature or merely in ruling elites.
In spite of
expected growth of 6 or 7 percent for 2012, the economy of India was facing a
pessimistic outlook at the time. The underlying cause seems to have been
mismanagement by the federal government—in particular, by the ruling Congress
Party. In actuality, the problem lies in the Indian business culture, and the
society itself. As such, the problem is not so easily fixed as a change of
government or policy.
Officials speaking on behalf of Pakistan’s government
claimed that Pakistani officials did not know that Osama bin Laden had been
living in Pakistan, and yet a Pakistani court sentenced a Pakistani to a
33-year prison sentence for treason in having conspired “to wage war against
Pakistan” by aiding the CIA in its hunt for bin Laden.[1] If trying to find him
constitutes treason, it follows that the Pakistani government was opposed to
the Americans finding him. Meanwhile, that government accepted hundreds of billions
of dollars in foreign aid from the U.S. Government. The reaction of an appropriations committee
of the U.S. Senate in 2012 was merely to cut $33 million from $800 million in
foreign aid to Pakistan. It would seem that the U.S. Government wanted it both
ways—to castigate Pakistan for essentially hiding bin Laden while seeking to
retain some influence with the Pakistani government by bribing it with foreign
aid.
In September 2005, “a senior Wal-Mart lawyer received an alarming e-mail from a former executive at the company’s largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico. In the e-mail and follow-up conversations, the former executive described how Wal-Mart de Mexico had orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance. In its rush to build stores, he said, the company had paid bribes to obtain permits in virtually every corner of the country. . . . Wal-Mart dispatched investigators to Mexico City, and within days they unearthed evidence of widespread bribery. They found a paper trail of hundreds of suspect payments totaling more than $24 million. They also found documents showing that Wal-Mart de Mexico’s top executives not only knew about the payments, but had taken steps to conceal them from Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. In a confidential report to his superiors, Wal-Mart’s lead investigator, a former F.B.I. special agent, summed up their initial findings this way: ‘There is reasonable suspicion to believe that Mexican and USA laws have been violated.’”[1]
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, known as
F.C.P.A., “forbids American companies from making illegal payments to
government officials or others to ease the way for operations in foreign
countries.”[1] The practical difficulty facing
American companies doing business around the world is that in some cultures
bribes are so ubiquitous they are simply a part of doing business. For American companies to refuse to
participate in what is generally expected can be a competitive disadvantage,
particularly if substitutes exist and the practice is widespread.
