[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

CORRUPTION and ABUSE OF POWER are p (r)



Subject: Re: CORRUPTION and ABUSE OF POWER are part of the STANDARD OPERATING 	PROCEDURE.

Look, just understand one thing, money, resources, and power (authority,
state, legitimate constitutional legislative, executive control,
whatever); power is money, secret bank accounts, money laundering,
lawyers, bankers; resources are cheap labor, natural, internal, external
revenue, concessions, commissions, selling it off fast and cheap, to the
highest bidder, the first take all, losers wait and get nothing. Sooner
or later the dictators know they are dead or exiled. Their objective is
to use power to accumulate as much power and money, selling off as much
resources as fast as possible. Look at Burma, the gas, the teak,
anything that can go, its going fast, as fast as they can move it, the
drugs, as nature produces it flows, and flows are increasing. 

Look, we've been to school, got the graduate degrees, whatever. in the
halls of power with the most powerful. It all comes down to money,
power, and the corporations eager to raise profits, increase capital,
revenues, reduce costs, and when it comes to retire, stock options,
parachutes, and lots of fun with the grandchildren and mistresses. 

But the dictators cant hide. Somoza was blown apart in Paraguay,
Stroessner ccoldnt protect him, no one could, the Shah of Iran had no
where to hide, the PLO promised that, not in Morrocco, Egypt, Bahamas,
Panama, USA, no where and he died, weak, sad, disillusioned and now
virtually forgotten (what happened to his billions no one really is
talking), the list is long, but the scenario is more or less the same,
strong allies, geopolitical convenience, east-west standoffs, stability,
alliances, partners and friends who betray when its time to say goodbye. 

the dictators in the east south pacific asean alliance group know they
are in power until they are forced out. do you know of a benevolent
dictator? the shah of iran was terrified, didnt know what to do and told
the usa to help, and the us got a lot of flak for letting the shah down.
the usa lost a lot of prestige, then the hostage crisis the real slap in
the face. 

the usa is still getting slapped in the face by the junta. so why does
the world bank and imf entertain and court the burma finance minister
now? 

you tell me. ds

MSoe9872@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> http://www.stuent.ipfw.edu/~soem01
> 
> Militarized Nondemocratic System vs. Burma
> 
>     Militarized nondemocratic systems operate in many L.D.C or third world
> countries. Central America, Asia, for example, have been the scene of
> powerful military rulers and attempted takeovers in nations such as Burma,
> Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
> 
> A small wealthy class is sometimes allied with the military government, with
> its members serving in high-level government posts. Human rights and
> democratic freedoms may be severely curtailed by the government (eg. More
> recently, pressures from many sources have focused on alleged abuses of human
> rights in countries such as China, Burma and Nigeria) .
> 
> The press and media are normally government controlled and used for
> propaganada purposes. Unions, religious organizations, and some professional
> groups (eg. artists, teachers, writers, lawers, musicians) are watched
> carefully by government authorities to keep them from becoming vocal
> political opponents. Outwardly, the socioeconomic may appear to be a mixed
> system of private and state enterprise. Private markets may be tolerated and
> many privately owned business may exit.
> 
> The dictatorship government or military government may welcome foreign
> investment and foreign corporations. However, foreign companies and
> corporations will immediately withdraw their investments from those countries
> due to economic factors, political factors, social factors, human right
> factors, infracture factors, techonological factors, and skilled labors
> factors. There will be opposition political parties, although the opposition
> is unlikely to win or won in elections, which are usually controlled and
> oppressed by the government and military.
> 
> These military regimes have sometimes been pawns of the superpowers as they
> engaged in skirmishes in different parts of the region. for example, Burmese
> military generals were long supported by the China, its allies as a way of
> keeping Burma's natural resources away from the global and western market.
> 
> Sometimes they have been the result of the ambition of local military
> officers, impatient with other forms of democratic self-government ( eg.,
> Nigeria, North Korea, and Burma are the among the current restrictive brutal
> military regimes).
> 
> Military-political regimes present serious ethical and strategic problems for
> business leaders. In an effort to generate economic activity, such regimes
> may make attractive deals with foreign companies.
> 
> Low taxes, low wages, freedom from criticism in the press, and weak
> enviromental rules and regulations are among the attractions that a military
> regime can creat through its power.
> 
> Still, if a company knows that human rights are suppressed, that military
> leaders are lining their own pockets with money that should go to the
> country, and that CORRUPTION and ABUSE OF POWER are part of the STANDARD
> OPERATING PROCEDURE.
> 
> Business leaders must pause and think about long-term consequences. The
> strategic business question is an ethical question:
> 
> Do the benefits of doing business in such a system outweigh the economic,
> human, and social costs?
> 
> 
> 
> Msoe
> 
> Indiana University
> 
> Reference:
> 
> James E. Post, A.T. Lawrenece and J. Weber. "Corporate Strategy, Public
> Policy, Ethics"; Business and Society.