Friday, 11 July 2025

A letter to a young friend

 Not very long ago I said something in a private setting, in the company of people I know pretty well, that caused a bit of a stir. It was intended as a satirical – or, at least, disparaging – reference to officials in authority, in government (elected and permanent) who look down their noses at the occupants of distant lands and their failures to raise themselves above dependency.

Unfortunately, my remark was not recognised as satirical, sarcastic or disparaging and led to a bit of frostiness. The relationship is important to me. I gave it some consideration and now share more widely some thoughts triggered by that exchange.

Corporate greenwashing

In the course of my writing activities, especially about globe-spanning supply chains, I am in contact with people in countries in many other parts of the world. Sometimes, readers have picked up a sense of my discomfort with global realities; not all the articles have managed to retain that air of dispassionate, balanced reportage!

I have often spoken with companies, countries and individuals that are on the receiving end of detritus from the West (& elsewhere – the West does not have a monopoly on misbehaviour). I speak to organisations, both commercial and charitable. They grind their teeth in frustrated fury at the attitude from Western agencies, NGOs, government representatives and corporations, which dump ‘solutions’ that may play well back home but are worse than window-dressing. They are denied agency by globalisation and neocolonialism, its slightly older first cousin.

Well-meaning solutions can make things worse

In East Africa, it is common for agencies to “roll up in convoys of 4 by 4s”, impose a dam, or reservoir, or packing plant, etc, without consulting any of the locals, have a few photoshoots with local bigwigs and besuited politicians no-one has ever seen before & will not see again, then buzz off, having failed to teach anyone how to run the dam or attached turbine, provide a power source for the packing plant, or whatever.

They come back a few years later, express surprise at the state of the infrastructure and contempt for the locals who have let it get to this stage, maybe arrange another loan (with politicians – not the community) for repairs and drive off in their convoy of 4x4s again. The local community is, of course, liable to repay the loan through taxes. And not all the money gets to whatever project it may be.

Window dressing rather than real help

They deny agency and are viewed with exasperated contempt by people associated with other, leaner charities like Cafod and Caritas – & very few others – who work on the ground to develop and build long-term solutions, including education, health, low-energy cooking, water, etc, etc. Not glamorous but vital.

West  Africa’s problem with the dumping of electrical goods that are supposedly being recycled has been chronicled so often that it’s a surprise that more people aren’t aware. In parts of East Africa, as well as SE Asia, it’s dumping of plastics – supposedly sent for recycling, which allows the appropriate CSR (corporate social responsibility) box to be ticked and the reassuring shades of green graphic to be printed in the Annual Report.

There is corruption, we know; politicians and senior trade/aid delegates fly in, unveil a plaque, engage in a photo opportunity and sign a trade agreement for recycling. The dumpers never check actual capacity; the companies that come in behind them to ship their rubbish don’t, either. The CSR box is ticked; the graphic is signed off – and agency is denied.

The rivers get blocked. The foreign press might do an expose; politicians and aid/trade officials express patronising concern and ‘what more can you expect/what can you do with these people?’. Rarely out loud, in public, but ‘in private’, among ‘friends’ or ‘off the record’. Agency is denied because, for all the talk about development, agency is denied because they don’t think they are worthy of it or up to it.

Behind the veil

Some initiatives – that many young people are fond of – are somewhat disappointing behind the scenes. Coffee is an example. A sustained campaign has led to farmers are paid a fair price – or at lest a much better price for their coffee beans – than previously. European tariff barriers against coffee beans, among other agricultural produce, have been pretty much eliminated; there is free trade! Fair trade! Look at their smiling faces!

In coffee beans. Raw material.

Exclusion from real wealth creation

Tariff barriers against added-value products, such as roasted coffee beans, ground coffee, freeze-dried instant coffees all remain insurmountably high. The added value activities that would actually lift the economic performance of developing countries are, in practice, barred. There’s not much point buying “fair trade” anything (a range of initiatives have similar titles and I am not singling out any particular one), if you really want to make a difference; those activities look kinder and fairer but they support the status quo. The price of raw material is the least part of the finished product. The added value is reserved to advanced economies.

I don’t bother to buy coffee with the ‘right label’; I buy Nescafe Alta Rica, because I like the taste. It is processed in the UK or near-Europe, as is Costa – whose roasting and processing plant in Kent I welcome, because it provides jobs in an area that needs them, but I am aware of the other side of the coin.

The foreign press doesn’t often do exposes about that kind of thing, beyond lauding the supposed ‘good guys’ for paying the farmers more – but they do feed the ‘what can you expect/what can you do’ position.

The hypocrisy of Big Aid

This is not limited to the West and the UK is far from being the worst offender in the West. If you are unaware, check out what China is doing with its Belt And Road strategy. It has taken a leaf out of the Western aid model, including US. It talks about ‘aid’ to foreign countries, which ordinary folk would think of as donations, gifts and the like. When we are asked to give aid, we don’t generally expect the money back (except via Lend With Care, which has a particular purpose, goes direct to people to use and the money for which can be endlessly recycled).

Not so with Big Aid. Much of that is in the form of loans, either conventional or sovereign Bonds – what we call Gilts, in the UK.

The loans are typically for big infrastructure projects – and come with strings. The biggest are that the loans are from developed countries’ banks AND the major works have to be done by US, UK, French, German, Italian, etc, contractors. Local content is pretty low, if it is actually above zero. Appropriate local skills, non-existent before the project, remain so afterwards, when the foreign corporations have completed the project and then leave. The dam, reservoir, power station, whatever is impossible to maintain – they don’t have the skills – and they fall quite quickly into disrepair. Not the loan, though: that still has to be repaid.

This behaviour is described in some detail in The Corporation, by Joel Bakan (https://amzn.eu/d/8RLQAPp - also available as a documentary movie). He used to work in this field. I also recommend The Silent Takeover, by Noreena Hertz (The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy), who used to work for the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, in St Petersburg – the one in Russia, not the one in Florida.

New World Order, same old system

What China does is lend countries money for their new airports, transport infrastructure, power stations or whatever, itself – it doesn’t use foreign banks, no matter how much they knock at the door. They have the same strings, though: Chinese companies to do the work, Chinese managerial and executive staff, local labour in low-skilled, labouring activities. Chinese staff are housed in compounds that, paradoxically, often include such things as cricket clubs established by the British.

When the countries inevitably default on the loans, there is no refinancing; China repossesses the asset and thereafter charges the country for its use. It’s a not particularly novel and traditionally onerous form of neocolonialism.

Keeping Africa in line

Talking of neocolonialism, check out the CFA Franc – Western CFA Franc or Central Africa CFA Franc. It doesn’t matter which; they are currencies on fixed exchange rates, fully interchangeable and tied to the French Franc. They seem to have the same objective – or do in practice: to keep former colonies in the role of suppliers of low-cost raw materials, whose economies are subject to French economic needs and diktats. Until very recently – 2020 – countries that are part of the CFA Franc zone were required to deposit 50% of their foreign currency reserves with the French Treasury.

There is now a new currency, called the Eco. It was intended to be a regional currency for West Africa but has been essentially co-opted – some would say ‘kidnapped’ – to perform the same function as the CFA Franc. It is pegged to the Euro and ‘freely exchangeable’ with it.

These countries have no control over their own currencies. Countries who need to devalue cannot do so. Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa, is blocked from joining the Eco because it will not accept the conditions.

Why the dinghies are setting sail

The contempt and corrupt attitude towards these countries is not only enraging, it leads directly to the migration crisis we are seeing across the Mediterranean Sea and ultimately washing up on our shores, via dinghies across the Channel. I wrote over a quarter of a century ago, in The Manufacturer, that we (the West) should invest in growing the economies of developing countries, especially Africa, or the time would come when their population would come to us, to demand their share.

The innocence of youth…

My young friend took me to task for a scathing satire of the attitude of the establishment, across the West and developed nations. I was surprised and upset that they misunderstood.

…and, of course, the EU

They snorted when I mentioned that the fisheries was one reason why I voted and supported Leave. Others included: antidemocratic governance, very much along the lines advocated by Oswald Mosley, the unreconstructed Nazi-sympathising genuine fascist; the erosion of people’s power, the inevitable gravitational pull of the Paris-Bonn-London triangle for investment, and the restriction on targeted economic stimulus, including local purchasing for public sector needs. All of which came to pass, and more.

And now, even after Brexit, we have the Attorney General seeking to impose EU-style judicial authoritarianism on the UK. I’m against that, too.

I’ll mention an article I wrote a few years ago that went into some detail about how the Common Fisheries Policy developed and how damaging it has been. Yes, I welcome the reduction in quota for the EU fishing fleets, and increase for the UK’s.

 I would like to see a lower increase for the UK, as the whole fishing catch should be reduced – but one thing at a time; the whole is gradually being reduced and annual discussions should keep them heading the right way. [update: it looks like we have lost even that]

The acid test this year will be where the Dutch and Belgian supertrawlers go to gouge out the seascape.

On treasures, lost and found

My article on the subject: Fishing: The Great Betrayal - Briefings For Britain.

Sadly, my article on the downsides of globalisation – including the spectre of mass migration of the poor – published in 1998 and in which I coined the term ‘turbocapitalism’, does not seem to be available any more.

I was genuinely hurt that it even occurred to my young friend thought of me as some right-wing goon. When I was their age, opposition to the EU, for example, was definitely a left-wing characteristic. Organisations like War on Want and Third World First saw through the early days of Greenwashing and long-haired, bearded ‘capitalism with a groovy face’ to the realities of neocolonialism and exploitation.

I may be disgusted by Labour’s lurch to antisemitism and bourgeois callousness, have little or no time for the feel-good window dressing of comfortable Green Party leaders and do not see the State as the solution to all ills* but I have not abandoned my principles and become a rabid right-wing racist. But I will admit that I am not as optimistic as I once was. No, protest is not the answer, either; the establishment can easily contain protest, as Noreena Hertz pointed out, nearly 20 years ago.

“The game is not to win; it is to prevent others from doing so.”

*Regarding the state. I recently read ‘The Long Shot’, by Kate Bingham. It is hard going to begin with but well worth a read. I have been speaking to people on the sales end of public sector procurement for many years and I know how inefficient it is. What I did not know is how much of a game some (too many) senior public sector officials seem to think it all is – and the game is not to win; it is to prevent others from doing so. The realisation explains a lot.

I recommend reading it. The first third is establishing the scene and is full of how wonderful are the people she selected and how eminent in their fields – but she does know her stuff and, once she gets going, it is revelatory, both as to what can be done and how things that should be utter, undiluted triumphs, such as the Ventilator Challenge and the Vaccine Centre in Oxford, are belittled, sidelined, frustrated and finally, in the case of the Oxford centre, sold off, to the detriment of the country more widely.

BTW: I initially thought Kate Bingham was a ‘chumocracy’ appointment, like the hapless Dido Harding; I recognised by August 2020 that I was wrong. That she was immensely capable and was making incredible headway.

Kate Bingham believes that part of the solution is to have intelligent women, with experience and qualifications in STEM subjects, in decision-making positions.

That’s my young friend. Despite their callow years (and surprising lack of perception in this case) I have enormous confidence and hope in them to make a difference.

A shocking suggestion for the young and talented: if you can’t make a difference in government, elected or permanent, then maybe join Kate Bingham in venture capitalism, which is where the Government turned to when it really needed something done.

I hope it isn’t too late to make a difference.

The social contract is under threat.

 

In his seminal “Foundation” series, science fiction writer (and proper scientist) Isaac Asimov portrayed a thrusting, entrepreneurial society – the Foundation – that became stifled by bureaucracy. A sclerotic legalism took over, which found it ever so convenient to prosecute and victimise enemies, dissidents, opponents and, finally, those who merely disagreed, denying them employment, social and financial services and, ultimately, means of earning a living. All in the cause of  ‘order! System!’

Russian writer Yevgeny Zemyatin’s book, “We”, published shortly after the Russian Revolution, imagines a society constantly under surveillance, with all activities – including sexual activity – under the control of the State, which is also in the process of building a giant spaceship that will bring other planets and societies under the self-proclaimed benevolent rule of the Benefactor. The spirit-crushing conformity is threatened towards the end of the book, with a series of apparently unrelated incidents leading to a revolution. The people simply get exasperated.

Obviously - couldn’t happen here. Although the revelations about the Attorney General’s attempt to extend unaccountable legalistic power over the civil service and government ministers might suggest that such repression is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Paul Embery recently warned, in a Substack article, of the dangers of “vigilantism and mob justice”, if due process is not followed by the legal authorities, including both police and the judiciary. His warning is not unplaced.

We in the UK have a dual contract in place, a societal or social contract, under which “we, the people” delegate law enforcement and administration of justice to the police, judiciary and powers-that-be and, in return, agree to refrain from lynch mobs, vigilantism, clan-based feudalism and tit-for-tat vengeance. The expectation is that dispassionate individuals, authorities and bodies, those who are not connected to, involved with or victims of criminal behaviour, will take a dispassionate view and enforce and administer justice without fear, favour, partiality or prejudice. 

If that confidence is undermined then there is a very serious danger that the system will be seen as failing. 

If the belief becomes widespread that the system is no longer neutral and cannot be relied upon to enforce the law - effectively, community standards, if you like - then resort to vigilantism will become more common - and, God help us, accepted. 

"Two tier justice" is extremely dangerous. There are people now in jail who shouldn't be (eg, Lucy Connolly) and there are people walking free who should be awaiting His Majesty's pleasure. Not unrelated is carte blanche being given to antisemitism on the streets, plus the formal introduction of thought crime - the criminalisation of silent prayer. 

We're walking a razor and I think we're on the wrong side of it.