corruption

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.

a prison worse than death?

antarchi's picture

According to [Reporters without Borders], 105 journalists were murdered over the year. Iraq, where at least 62 were killed, was the most dangerous place, followed by Mexico (8), Somalia (7), Pakistan (4), Afghanistan (4), Sri Lanka (2) and Eritrea (2). It would be no surprise if these countries ended up with the lowest scores. However, with the exception of Eritrea ranking 169th, this is not the case...

How is it that Eritrea, where only two journalists were murdered, ended up ranked below Iraq (157), Mexico (136), Somalia (159), Pakistan (152), Afghanistan (142) and Sri Lanka (156)? Perhaps because that nation is on Washington’s black list and RSF receives funding from the CIA front National Endowment for Democracy, NED?

Likewise what is the explanation for Cuba ranking 165 when not one journalist has been killed there since 1959? Why is this nation ranked below Iraq, Mexico, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Brazil (84), China (163), United States (48), Haiti (75), Nepal (137), Paraguay (90), Peru (117), Democratic Republic of the Congo (133), Turkey (101) and Zimbabwe (149), where at least one journalist has been killed? RSF explains that Cuba’s poor ranking is due to journalists being imprisoned. Just supposing the organization is correct on this point –which is actually far from being the case-, wouldn’t killing journalists still be more serious than imprisoning them?

— Salim Lamrani

rigging nigerian elections

antarchi's picture

One day [British colonial officer] Smith was given a secret file containing a minute that ordered him to get involved in regional elections taking place in the late 1950s in the run up to independence [in Nigeria]. He was to make vehicles, staff and other resources available to the NCNC colleagues of Okotie-Eboh who was standing in the elections. Smith was shocked at the request. He explained that the election had to be fixed because the plan was that the Northern region would hold power on independence...

Asked if such manipulation of an election result could have happened Professor Anderson, Director of the African Studies Centre at Oxford University, replied: “In almost every single colony the British attempted to manipulate the result to their advantage.... I would be surprised if they had not done so.”

— Barry Mason

Saudi Arabian Money-laundering Affair

antarchi's picture

The condition was that Saudi Arabia would use its petrodollars to purchase US government securities; in turn, the interest earned by these securities would be spent by the US Department of the Treasury in ways that enabled Saudi Arabia to emerge from a medieval society into the modern, industrialised worl. In other words, the interest compounding on billions of dollars of the kingdom's oil income would be used to pay US companies to fulfill the vision I had come up with... Our own US Department of the Treasury would hire us, at Saudi expense, to build infrastructure projects and even entire cities throughout the Arabian Peninsula.

surely he knew

antarchi's picture

Surely, he knew that the foreign aid game was a sham - he had to know. It existed to make him rich and to shackle his country with debt. It was there so Panama would be forever obligated to the United States and the corporatocracy. It was there to keep Latin America ... forever subservient to Washington and Wall Street. I was certain that he knew that the system was based on the assumption that all men in power are corruptible, and that his decision not to use it for his personal benefit would be seen as a threat.

— John Perkins

'commissions' for arms sales

antarchi's picture

In 1965, [Denis] Healey asked Sir Donald Stokes, the head of Leyland Motors, to enquire into the possibility of establishing a sales body for British weapons...

[Following Stokes’ feasibility study], Sir Henry Hardman, the top civil servant at the MoD, said: ‘Sir Donald Stokes had indicated that it was often necessary to offer bribes to make sales... The commercial technique was to gather intelligence on the right people who controlled sales and purchases. When the right person was found, effort would be concentrated on him and, in time, a sale would be effected. Sir Donald stressed that a great many arms sales were made, not because anyone wanted the arms, but because of the commissions involved en route.’

— Tim Webb

Syndicate content