deceit

rotting systems

antarchi's picture

Corruptness: lack of integrity or honesty; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain (from Definitions of corruption on the Web

Corruption is pretty normal nowadays. In the business world I can almost regard it as fair play: part of the sordid rules of that game. The latest Saudi arms deal was nothing surprising. We know that's how the world works, how the Blair government works, how the arms trade works. Shocking, perhaps, that we have become so inured to this that it no longer even surprises - let alone shocks - us. But it doesn't.

What does still shock (me, anyway) is corruption in spheres where you don't expect it, where the rules of the game do not demand it, where very few consider it, let alone engage in it. I don't just mean fiddling the books, which is indeed normal in every ngo and probably every institution (and maybe the rules of the game demand it). I mean deliberate deceit for personal gain, 'use of a position of trust for dishonest gain', in a world - such as the ngo world - where personal gain is publicly, demonstratively put in second place. Or that is the idea anyway.

The foundations on which our ultimate, unlimited faith in human beings rest are so incredibly fragile. The examples of human duplicity, brutality, ignominy are so horrifying and so widespread that it sometimes seems that those foundations must crumble. But we shore them up, determined that ignoble behaviour is always the result of corrupted rules of the game, of unfortunate circumstance, of the system, rather than the individual.

I had always imagined that the ngo world, even if corrupt in its own small way, was a relatively safe haven. When that too starts to rot; when the individuals appear to be moving the system towards corruption, rather than vice versa; when they look at the rot as if it is normal and the safe haven eats up the rot as if nothing has happened – then one wonders what on earth it is that we are trying to shore up.

business as usual in chile

antarchi's picture

The files clearly show that British planners in Santiago and London totally welcomed the coup [in Chile] and immediately set about conducting good relations with the military rulers as repression increased, even secretly conniving with the junta to mislead the British public.

British officials were completely aware of the scale of atrocities. Three days after the coup, Ambassador Seconde reported to the Foreign Office that ‘it is likely that casualties run into the thousands, certainly it has been far from a bloodless coup’. Six days after, he noted that ‘stories of military excesses and mounting casualties have begun increasingly to circulate. The extent of the bloodshed has shocked people’.

, in Unpeople

Unpeople

signing away their rights

antarchi's picture

It was entirely improper, unethical, dictatorial to have the Chagossians put their thumbprint on an English legal drafted document, where the Chagossian, who doesn’t read nor speak any English, let alone legal English, is made to renounce basically all his rights as a human being. Robin Mardemootoo, lawyer for the Chagossian Islanders

the case was thin

antarchi's picture

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

, July 2002 ('Downing Street Memo')

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

antarchi's picture

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

, July 2002 ('Downing Street Memo')

Emperors With No Clothes

antarchi's picture

Do the emperors know they have no clothes? and is it worse to know you are naked and lead others to believe you aren't, or worse to manage even to deceive yourself?

Perhaps it depends on why you feel you need the deceit; and perhaps on whether you really do (need it).

We aren't allowed to judge as HR 'educators': we are only asked to understand. So even if they didn't seem to us to need the deceit - they clearly 'did'. Otherwise they wouldn't have deceived (being good and honourable human beings).

I want to be told if I am looking naked (or ever looking like an emperor)

Syndicate content