Follow the Money?
Ok, a lot has been said about the Wikileaks scandal, and i want to adress one particular dimension that has opened up that hits Britons harder than most at present.
A royal prince whos blames the press and the media for his mother's tragic death can perhaps be forgiven for mouthing off about journalists being nosey, interfering so and so's.
But the fact is that without a free press, the government would be up to all sorts of things that are not in the national interest of the nation being governed. I mean, should the guys who blew the whistle on Watergate be locked up or get a nations thanks? I rest my case.
Yet, what if the government has to 'play dirty' in order to accomplish the public good?
For example, suppose that a British businessman is given to understand that a big contract from a foriegn government can be gained if a certain official gets a big enough bribe? Hey, nobody should bribe my government, and I vote for any and all measures that will give transparency and reduce the impact of corruption - but if you go and do business in the Middle East, and everyone else is at it, and if we don't win that contract by foul means, someone else will... well, what is a decent chap supposed to do?
I have to admit that I got into politics with the aim of "cleaning it up", but the more I find out about what goes on in international affiars, the harder I see it becoming to steer a valid, never mind a virtuous course.
So, if British businessmen have put up prostitutes for royal Arabs in order to win contracts, can we blame them for trying? Many years ago, I got out of sales as a career, because I didn't like the unethical way that things were done. For instance, when I was going door to door with a certain company's catalogue, come Christmastime, I was encouraged to show toys in it directly to the children in the house. Not the parents, mark you - show it to the kids.
Now, hang on a sec, says I to myself - what if the kids *are* pestering parents to buy the stuff. Is it really fair on the parents as customers? What if they genuinely know they can't afford a great deal and are trying to economise? Sure, show parents what is in there, but let them choose what they can afford, and let it be a suprise, whateve it is they get their kids. But the company was insistent that the kids were the ones to show toys to, that was the way to get the goods sold.
It might come as no suprise that I left sales and went into the public sector - but even in the public sector, I have to say that I am appalled at the way that public money gets spent and sometimes wasted.
Yet, here at the top, when a country is selling to another country, we find dirty tricks and corruption are the order of the day. Maybe it isn't a problem to the people who run Saudi Arabia if they happen to have British and not French figher planes because we put up better whores for the guy with the cheque book. But somehow, it rankles me all the same. I mean, how can you legislate against this sort of thing? Can the international community stop it, even if it wants too?
The question is, how much else is down to money, and not high sounding principles? I used to think that western democracies should stick together - y'know, be the good guys in a world that needed moral leadership. But its beginning to seem that if thousands of jobs are on the line if we don't sell our goods abroad, and we can't sell without greasing corrupt official palms in the process, well we have to accept that this is how the world is.
Or, should we beware of allowing this sort of thing to go on and do all we can to stop it?
Are business interests always the same as national interests?
Your thoughts, please?
A royal prince whos blames the press and the media for his mother's tragic death can perhaps be forgiven for mouthing off about journalists being nosey, interfering so and so's.
But the fact is that without a free press, the government would be up to all sorts of things that are not in the national interest of the nation being governed. I mean, should the guys who blew the whistle on Watergate be locked up or get a nations thanks? I rest my case.
Yet, what if the government has to 'play dirty' in order to accomplish the public good?
For example, suppose that a British businessman is given to understand that a big contract from a foriegn government can be gained if a certain official gets a big enough bribe? Hey, nobody should bribe my government, and I vote for any and all measures that will give transparency and reduce the impact of corruption - but if you go and do business in the Middle East, and everyone else is at it, and if we don't win that contract by foul means, someone else will... well, what is a decent chap supposed to do?
I have to admit that I got into politics with the aim of "cleaning it up", but the more I find out about what goes on in international affiars, the harder I see it becoming to steer a valid, never mind a virtuous course.
So, if British businessmen have put up prostitutes for royal Arabs in order to win contracts, can we blame them for trying? Many years ago, I got out of sales as a career, because I didn't like the unethical way that things were done. For instance, when I was going door to door with a certain company's catalogue, come Christmastime, I was encouraged to show toys in it directly to the children in the house. Not the parents, mark you - show it to the kids.
Now, hang on a sec, says I to myself - what if the kids *are* pestering parents to buy the stuff. Is it really fair on the parents as customers? What if they genuinely know they can't afford a great deal and are trying to economise? Sure, show parents what is in there, but let them choose what they can afford, and let it be a suprise, whateve it is they get their kids. But the company was insistent that the kids were the ones to show toys to, that was the way to get the goods sold.
It might come as no suprise that I left sales and went into the public sector - but even in the public sector, I have to say that I am appalled at the way that public money gets spent and sometimes wasted.
Yet, here at the top, when a country is selling to another country, we find dirty tricks and corruption are the order of the day. Maybe it isn't a problem to the people who run Saudi Arabia if they happen to have British and not French figher planes because we put up better whores for the guy with the cheque book. But somehow, it rankles me all the same. I mean, how can you legislate against this sort of thing? Can the international community stop it, even if it wants too?
The question is, how much else is down to money, and not high sounding principles? I used to think that western democracies should stick together - y'know, be the good guys in a world that needed moral leadership. But its beginning to seem that if thousands of jobs are on the line if we don't sell our goods abroad, and we can't sell without greasing corrupt official palms in the process, well we have to accept that this is how the world is.
Or, should we beware of allowing this sort of thing to go on and do all we can to stop it?
Are business interests always the same as national interests?
Your thoughts, please?