|
Point of View with Barb
Sumner Burstyn - March 8 2004
Here's why crony capitalism is such
big business
Letter to William Millman
United States Embassy
Wellington
Dear Mr Millman (Public Affairs Officer),
Thanks for your letter criticising a recent column on America.
It's not often I'm the recipient of an official response, straight
from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Just to clarify your query about my objectivity. I agree with you.
I don't have any. To be objective would be to report things without
inflection, discernment or comment, whereas my column is purely
subjective. Known in the business as an op-ed, taking a position
and supporting it with fact is part of the job description.
And since veracity is important, I thought we'd look at some of
your - I'm assuming - officially sanctioned statements.
Let's start with the comment that because 56 per cent of bilateral
aid commitments by OECD donors are tied to goods, America's practice
of almost 100 per cent tied-aid is acceptable. While it takes a
particular kind of vision not to see how tied aid affects the recipients,
you also remark on the generosity of private donors in America.
And you're right. The generosity of the people of America is triple
that of their government, but surely, at the top end at least, you
don't believe private donation is free of influence?
As an example, just look at Bill Gates' $100 million injection
of cash to fight Aids in India in 2002. Spread over 10 years, his
donation is dwarfed by the $421 million he put aside (over a mere
three years) to fight his Linux opposition and its introduction
into India.
As Thomas C. Greene writes in The Register, "with Bill Gates being
a monster Microsoft shareholder himself, a big win in India will
enrich him personally, well in excess of his Aids donation. Makes
you wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here".
If you'd like a better understanding, Mr Millman, of how official
tied-aid and ulterior-motivated private aid disables poor countries
have a hunt around www.globalissues.org. You might be surprised.
Which leads me onto your concern that I've coupled the words "corporate"
and "hegemony" together. Again, you are correct; hegemony is about
influence rather than control. Which was exactly my point. Aside
from the rules that allow Bill Gates to rule, there's plenty of
proof that industries such as energy, agriculture, biotechnology,
IT, telecommunications, and, of course, the weapons/arms/military
industrial complex, not only influence but directly shape the rules
that govern them.
From government-appointed advisory committees and regulatory agencies
dominated by corporations to former bureaucrats given cushy jobs
by the corporations they promoted while in power, corporate hegemony,
or, as some call it, crony capitalism, is big business, American-style.
The magazine New Internationalist or the website www.americaforsale.org
are good places to unearth the surprising statistics to match these
statements.
Then there's the question of the McDonaldising of a culture. Missing
the point entirely Mr Millman, you say that McDonald's is successful
because it works hard and provides products people want.
Ahem. Well, not really.
It's more like they work people hard. If I can refer you to the
Centre for American Progress' recent report on McFactory jobs, I'm
sure you'll get a broader understanding. Certainly, as you state,
people want McDonald's (and other nutritionally deficient food products),
but take a step back and you'll see they are merely one element
in a system that begins with corporate influence to ensure agribusiness
subsidy, causing overproduction and ending in obesity and illness.
Somewhere in the middle, the advertising machine creates the want
and the illusion of freely chosen products.
And onto global warming, where you assert that even if the US had
adopted the Kyoto Protocol, the environmental gains would not have
been sufficient to offset the economic losses. While deconstructing
that statement would take more than this column, may I suggest you
take a look at a secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs
and obtained by the Observer, in Britain late last month.
The report warns of catastrophic climate change, and asserts that
as early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels
will create major upheaval for millions. This and other environment-related
scenarios could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy.
"Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," concludes
the Pentagon analysis. "Once again, warfare would define human life."
The Observer goes on to say that the report, commissioned by influential
Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, could prove fatal to the
Bush Administration with its links to energy and oil companies,
which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.
So Mr Millman, sorry to rush you through such big issues. I apologise
for not going into greater depth and for not debunking all the assertions
in your letter. I just ran out of room. But I take your letter as
a genuine attempt to discuss the issues that really matter. And
I do look forward to your reply.
ENDS
© Barbara Sumner Burstyn, 2004
Send your comments to:
Barbara Sumner
Burstyn.
|
