PIRACY : TERROR FUNDING

The silicon terrorism
How piracy is funding the global terrorism?

The Hurt Locker, a story on Iraq war and winner of six Academy Awards, may be just another movie in the line of terrorism, but it took war on piracy to an interesting turn. One of the scenes in the movie, where Christopher Sayegh (as Beckham) sells pirated DVDs and various electronic items outside the Jeremy Renner's military base, may not be the climax, but has a significant role in the theme of the film. The pirated DVDs, which are sold for about $1 each, are not only a major source of terror funding in the Middle-East, but are sources of minting money for global terror groups.

On May 2010, Voltage Pictures, the production company of The Hurt Locker, sued thousands of computer users who downloaded pirated copies of the film and filed complaints against 5,000 unidentified BitTorrent users with the US District Court (largest lawsuit of its kind). In addition, it demanded $1,500 from each defendant to release them from the suit. This case, however, may be one-of-its-kind, but it would surely go a long way in influencing production companies to take such steps to reduce piracy. According to a report, counterfeiting and piracy cost around $250 billion annually from the movie industry. Terrorists and organised criminal groups are exploiting this huge market in order to fund their evil plans — for instance, the highly active D-Company that spearheads the major syndicate involved with film piracy in India and sub-continent for the past 25 years. In 2004, an Interpol report revealed that intellectual property crimes (illegal CDs manufacturing) are a growing resource for terrorist groups from Northern Ireland to the Arab world, including Al-Qaida and Hezbollah. This mode of terror funding is not only present and practised in Asia and the UK, but also found in Latin American countries like Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. According to a report by Rand Corporation, Hezbollah receives $20 million annually from proceeds of pirated films in the tri-border area. Moreover, restrictions on release of international movies in countries like China (allows only 20 foreign movies per year) have cost its industry a whopping $2.5 billion in 2005 (the last available data), due to influx of pirated DVDs. Studies say that developing a pirated DVD in South Asian countries costs less than 70 cents and these can be sold in developed countries for around $10 each. Not only is developing a pirated DVD relatively safer and cheaper, the transfer is equally easy. For example, in France, transacting counterfeit products, including pirated DVDs, is punishable by a fine up to $0.19 million and imprisonment up to two years (whereas selling drugs is punishable with 10 years imprisonment along with a fine up to $9.5 million). However, the pirating gets more lucrative not just because of the returns it offers, but also because of the low risk factor. The rate of conviction for piracy is lower compared to that of smuggling drugs. In 2002-03, merely 134 criminals were convicted of piracy while smuggling of drugs pushed around 1.5 million criminals behind the bars in the US alone.

It is just not about saving millions of dollars that finds its way into the terror industry, but actually about several innocent human lives that are eventually hit. While anti-piracy laws will take its own time to stop piracy, a move like Voltage Picture's will certainly deter internet users from downloading pirated movies.

SPORTS : TRANSPARENCY

Fear of FIFA
FIFA needs to democratise itself

This FIFA World Cup should have come as a slap to all those skeptics who thought that an erstwhile apartheid-loving nation won’t be able to pull off this mega sporting event well. Not only did South Africa pull off the game well but it also raised the global standards when it comes to hosting a mega sporting event like FIFA. South Africa took care of every possible measure in order to squeeze maximum economies out of this gaming event. From refurbishing and building new infrastructure to vacating slums – almost all attributes under the sun were taken care of to make sure that the dividends of the game flow well even after the World Cup got over. But then, amidst all these romantic developments, it was someone else who ran away with big money, leaving pittance for the host country. The figures will prove that – while FIFA made a whopping $3.2 billion as profit, it gave a trifle $80 million to the South African government, and that too because the amount was a guarantee.FIFA is more than a century old organisation. Talking about big moolah, FIFA on an average generate revenues that is well above $1 billion per year and more than $4 billion in the World Cup year. A brief research would be enough to unearth the fact that most of revenues come from television and marketing rights, which are under direct control of FIFA. So much so that FIFA charges rent from the host country and does not pay taxes for revenues earned as it insists on having a ‘Diplomatic status’ (amendments allowing FIFA's activities as 'diplomatic' via the Revenues Law Amendment Act 20 of 2006, guaranteeing 17 provisions granting 'supportive financial environment' as well as various other free services, have been passed). Unlike the International Cricket Council (ICC), where the tenure of the President lasts on an average for 2.5 years, FIFA has no term limits (tenures average over 13 years). Moreover, FIFA allots tourism rights to its agent, Switzerland-based Match AG (the company is said to have family connections with heads of the FIFA body), without any bidding process. Match AG is reported to practice marking up of services charges and licensing fee and surcharge. Match AG is the official accommodation provider since the last six World Cups. All in all, FIFA retains on an average 95 per cent of total profits. In March this year, a UN human rights expert, Raquel Rolnik, said FIFA ignored clauses on adequate housing in the bid proposals and commented that the organisation should be "more transparent." In July, 2010, Transparency International pin-pointed FIFA being involved in multimillion dollar illegal transactions on account of broadcasting and TV rights. As per a recent article published in Forbes, "Executive power has remained with the president and his unaccountable cabinet of highly paid advisors, despite the 24-strong executive committee drawn from FIFA's member associations."FIFA needs to understand that World Cup – or for that matter soccer – is not just a mega sporting event but a game that unites the world. History is testimony that the game played a major role in bridging the racial divide. FIFA should not dent a host country's development activities and burden them with exorbitant costs, especially in developing economies. Instead of asking countries to build new stadiums and infrastructure on their own cost, FIFA should productively engage member countries to invest in such capital expenditure in the host countries. Imagine the camaraderie that can be generated within even enemy countries by such a model through the world's greatest event.

Technology: the view of gibberish

Technonsenselogy!

It has been routinely predicted that salvation will be found in tech- advancement; is all the government tech babble pure nonsense?

Considering that billions still live below the poverty line across the world, the fact that countries can justify raking up investments into so called futuristic tech-areas illustrating an unrealistic and impractical canvas of future technological development that would supposedly bring the advent of utopia, is not only ironic but cruelly criminal to those underprivileged billions. In this issue, the IIPM Think Tank analyses technologies that have either brought quasi revolutions or endangered the economic existence of nations.

Most of this Olympic tech-orientation can be attributed to developments that were being experienced in Japan in the early 20th century. But not without costs. Russia’s numerous failed space missions,  the Chernobyl disaster, the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear accident (cleaning up cost around $975 million), the Ariane 5 explosion ($500 million) – all these and other incidents took economies of some countries a few years back.

But then, these are only totem pole examples. The ring leaders are others. Take for instance the money spent on space missions by the US during 1957-1975, which stood at $100 billion (USSR mirrored some facets of the insane spending; for example, by 1989, it was spending around $4 billion on space exploration annually). Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, started in 1983, was even more legendary, with costs of over $100 billion. Some experts opine that this space-race eventually gave birth to numerous fissures in the economies of both the countries.

But on the other hand, there are many countries surviving and even thriving on their hi-tech research and hi-tech exports, built through decades of previously seemingly useless tech investments – particularly Japan, followed by other Asian countries like China, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Israel.

The on-going technology rivalry spree (especially in China) can be encapsulated in the words of Friedman, who in one of his books writes, “In China today, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America today, Britney Spears is Britney Spears.” Talking in numbers, in 2008, China’s software service industry generated 757.3 billion yuan or $110 million in revenue. Israel’s economy is largely backed up by its high tech industry; the percentage of Israelis engaged in the technology sector, and the amount spent on R&D is amongst the highest in the world.

South Korea is ranked first in the world in the Digital Opportunity Index, and first among major economies in the Global Innovation Index; likewise, Taiwan, Hong Kong and many other emerging economies are on a tech-spree to boost their economy. Malaysia is promoting its Multimedia Super Corridor topped up with tax perks and lenient censorship policies since long; Vietnam is all set to develop a local “knowledge economy”, while Myanmar is concentrating on connecting all its key industries on a single IT platform.

There have been amusing fallouts of tech-advancements too. Way back in the 1980s, the generally ‘walled’ East German government allowed access of West German television programmes to its citizens as their studies showed that East Germans who watched West German television were more satisfied with life in the communist regime.

In the last few years, Twitter, Facebook, search engines and similar media are playing a huge role in political and administrative mobilization and apparently hold the strength to raise the hackles of ‘the powers that be’; but these and similar sites also clearly traverse controversial waters as not only do they openly host porn gateways, but also despicably allow slanderous, libellous and defamatory content almost without restrictions in the garb of ‘free speech’. In the same breath, thanks to social networking, Iran’s Green Movement has found its space into numerous contending debate forums. Extending this thought to even nationalism and extremism, Hezbollah and Islamist extremists (and other fundamentalists) are very active online.

All in all, this whole wave of multi-level technology orientation towards building the “biggest, fastest, tallest and mightiest” innovation somehow never talks about how many billions, who currently defecate in the open, will get a self respecting place to stay in. Obama too seems to be playing to the rote. Even though he announced in early 2010 that he planned to eliminate funding for NASA’s manned moon missions, he increased NASA funding by $5.9 billion annually. For $5.9 billion, we estimate Obama could have built 30 million toilets in India’s most underdeveloped regions, catering to 600 million destitute Indians. Imagine how amazing a gesture of goodwill that move could have been!

They say ICT4D helps; we say too

The saga of the dot-com bust would have been enough to kill the initial frenzy of Information and Communication Technologies aka ICT, but for the fact that someone somewhere along the line most intelligently raised the concept of ICT to ICT4D (Information and Communications Technologies for Development). Supported even by profit seeking entities, ICT4D  allowed a considerable part of Africa, parts of Asia, Latin America, and other developing & underdeveloped nations to leapfrog over many developed nations and their prevailing, slow and archaic infrastructure with a focus on social and economic development.

If Singapore was a developed nation revamping its administration using ICT4D to an extent where public participation in government touched new heights, India was a developing nation where a cigarette major initiated an iconic concept educating villagers how to retail their produce through the Internet; they call the forums e-Choupals. The All China Women’s Federation used ICT4D to help rural women get access to updated health information online and to provide them secret counselling on rape and abuse. Cuba is practicing online health initiatives while Egypt is using ICT4D to encourage rural education. In countries like China with a massive rural population, newspapers are using ICT4D to go on-line and reach larger sections.

There are macro advantages too. Going by official reports, Egypt’s overall economy grew by 4.7%, pumped up by investments in ICT4D, which experienced a 14.6% growth. The computer and semi-conductor industry supporting ICT4D today forms the back-bone of economies like China, Taiwan and a few other Asian economies. Many developed nations are relying on continuous development in third world countries like India and China for their own future growth. And that is possible only if the purchasing powers of the disadvantaged billions living in these countries (more in India) is increased. If that needs to be double quick, then ICT4D is a social re-engineering process we cannot ignore. 

Illegal business: adoption

Business ‘of’ and not ‘for’ kids

International adoption is emerging out as a new illegal business

Adoption predominantly and fundamentally was meant to provide a better living and growth environment for orphans. Historically, the process of adoption was given a very high social recognition and was seen as a community responsibility. Of late, especially in the developed world, the increase in infertility rate has shifted this process of adoption from realm of domestic region to international markets. With Hollywood celebs like Madonna and Angelina Jolie adopting numerous children from world’s poorest regions, the whole concept of adoption seems to have become an international fad now.

Westerners see this act of international adoption as a rescue measure for orphans from poverty-stricken life. But then, this act at no given point of time convalesces the fundamental and core reason of poverty. Moreover, these so-called adopted children are actually either kidnapped, stolen or transacted and not really adopted. Social unrest, poverty and natural disaster make it very simple for child traffickers to export or import babies like any other commodity behind the veil of adoption.

International adoption has today become depraved business of supplying children to rich Westerners. Children are literally assumed as commodities and are sold to those who can afford it. In regions like Haiti, Guatemala, China and Africa there are agencies that deal in international adoption. Going by a conservative estimate, adoption today stands as a $100 million industry and agencies charge anything between $25,000 to $40,000 per child from adoptive parents.

According to an adoption advocacy organisation in the US, around 13 countries have put a ban on international adoption. There have been numerous cases where adoptive parents later kill the children or these orphans find themselves in foster care.  So much so that these so-called orphans turn out to be local children and not actually orphans. This can be exemplified by recent arrests of American missionaries in Haiti — accused of trafficking 33 Haitian children out of the quake-stricken country. A few countries use this process for exporting their socially detested or undesirable children to foreign families.

All in all, international community (viz. Hauge, UNICEF) need to urgently give a pause to the on-going glamourisation of international adoption and make it more transparent and regulated process. In the light of natural disaster and social and civil unrest, it is pertinent for countries to arrange bilateral arrangements and developed agencies based on proper accreditation norms. Otherwise soon this gratifying gesture of better-off society will take a shape of gigantic business and become an ‘icon’ among modern families. The present form of international adoption provides a different life, but do not promise a better life. What else could be the reason behind an American flying a thousand miles to adopt a baby while the next-door Canadians prefer adopting, more than 100,000 children, from the US itself?  In the same breath, a very few Americans find time to adopt orphans after the Katrina or Rita disasters; but don’t mind flying thousands of miles away and adopt a few so-called orphans from Africa, Korea or other south Asian nations.  Sounds quite morbid, isn’t it?

Regional union: South Asia

Thank you Dr Yunus!

This is the right time to set the ball rolling for South Asia Union

Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus' speech on South Asia Union (SAU) in the Indian Parliament on December 09, 2009 has resuscitated the age-old debate of unification of South Asia by 2030. He stressed on facilitating border-free movement along with having a common flag, currency, visa, trade policies. This idea is being criticised heavily by the main steam media. But then for once let’s just not criticise this vision but conversely analyse the benefit out of it. At the time when European Union is flourishing (both socially & politically) and is all set to emerge as a new world power and at the time when unification of Africa (a continent torn apart by wars, conflict & numerous social ailments) and South America is being worked out — the concept of SAU seems more achievable.

Every south Asian country is unique in itself and does hold an exclusive success story. Thus, on unification, each of these success stories (or success models) can be implemented Pan-SAU and thus many problems like poverty, employment, health and terrorism can be addressed. SAU can easily benefit from success mantra of Singapore, India, UAE, Turkey, Maldives, Iran, China – to name a few. If one of the south Asian union members has achieved zenith in international relations and lobbying then others are good at reducing poverty, fighting recession, becoming oil and real estate hub, generating tourism, eliminating conservative behaviour, outsourcing hub, generating employment, nuclear and scientific research and so on and so forth.

However, amidst this rosy dream, the ongoing tension in south Asia acts as a nightmare. However, an unification can, to a large extent, dilute this issue too. Take for instant, the European Union (EU). None of the south Asian countries have been more hostile than Germany and France and Italy. And today we see Germany, Italy and France working together (as members of EU) and have recently appointed a common president for the union (with enforcement of Lisbon treaty on Nov 30, 2009). Even Slovakia and the Czech Republic (born out of Czechoslovakia) and are part of the union. Same can be iterated for the whole Balkan region.

We are far better-off as we share lot of common culture, festive (other soft power) and still have feeling of brotherhood for each other even across the border.

SAU will allow the countries to share resources so that 'resource-dearth' countries can grow and develop. This will in long run address more social problems (ranging from poverty to employment). The ball has already been set rolling with the inception of SAARC or South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. SAARC should now work towards uplifting all proposed SAU countries, economically and also help them in becoming politically more stable, so that in next two decades or so they are all ready for unification. Issues like migration, terrorism, conflicts needs to be addressed on urgent basis if SAU dream is to be realised. Twenty years is a plenty of time for SAARC member to eliminate all hurdles and start talks on SAU. SAU will be, if formed, one of the most powerful unions and beating EU, African Union and South American Union or for that matter even the US. Before we get reduced to ruins (because of ongoing tensions), we need to realise that sharing a few aspects will make each of us more developed and will inculcate trust and prosperity.

 

END OF THE WORLD

From Mayan to ‘Obama’yan

Yes, we can’t (duh) 

Perhaps it’s already too late to save the world of its various ills; a primer

“State of Fear”. That is the name of a book where the late Michael Crichton talks about eco-terrorists who are attempting to create a ‘state of fear’ to press forward their point-of-view regarding global warming. There have been several prophecies from almost all civilizations pointing toward the end of the world. Be it the Mayan 2012 prediction or the Chinese oracle of the I Ching or the internet bot software program – ‘Web-Bot Project’ (which predicted that a reversion of the earth’s magnetic poles will devastate the world in 2012) – all forecasts have boiled down to a specific date of the end of the global society to peddle their postulation.
Surprisingly, we are not questioning the credibility of these oracles; instead; we are forwarding the premise that perhaps all these oracles who did get it right (their forecasts, that is) for all the wrong reasons (of course, the dates were all kooky) dug up a bigger problem – and that was that all the ‘other’ forecasts which were positively more pertinent and had a better chance of seeing the light – or dark – of the day were also relegated to the standard bin of ‘end of the world’ theories. To contribute our mite to the weight of the bin, is this issue’s section of Scrutiny, in which we pretend to be the first ones to be predicting how and why the end of the world is nearer than you thought and why Obama might end up being able to do nothing about it.
At least geo-politically, what we are seeing around is surely nothing less than steps towards the end of the world – the rising tension in Middle East, strategic moves by Russia, emergence of China and South Asia in making themselves potently loaded with nuclear weapons... Economists who support the growth of nuclear arsenal (yes, they are there!) forward the hypothesis that in the modern era, weak countries are arming themselves not with an intention to attack, but with an objective to dissuade other stronger countries from attacking them. The theorem does hold credibility – when Pakistan attacked India’s borders, India was constrained in its response due to Pakistan’s visible atomic base.
However, those are not democratic and sane governments that rule all countries across the world. Studies have shown, but obviously, that even a limited nuclear war would devastate the world. And the day an autocratic or military ruler decides push has come to shove and the time to decimate the opponent is now, many more than the two of us would wish we were living near the Thames in London.
What the world today requires is a foolproof non-proliferation policy. Comprehending the vibes, Obama has already amended his policy to protect the world from nuclear terrorism. During his April 2009 speech in Prague, he delineated his arms control and non-proliferation agendas and promised a US-led international effort to secure “all vulnerable nuclear materials” within the next four years. That is the most far reaching agenda any US President – for that matter, any premier across the world – has announced in history. To start it up diplomatically, in the recent G8 Summit in Italy, he announced a Nuclear Security Summit in 2010 to combat nuclear smuggling and prevent nuclear terrorism.
Obama knows his priorities too well – the US considers climate emissions control its last priority on the ‘save the world’ list; the December Copenhagen summit will be proof enough. We aren’t complaining about that...

Alpha (decay) male

Alpha males that we all are, none of us believes a nuke attack will ever happen in our lifetimes – so we write this treatise to the alpha female

With around 2000 nuclear weapons on high alert and ready for launch, the nuclear Armageddon is just waiting for its reincarnation. We provide some ‘what if’ details.
There are currently more than 30,000 nuclear weapons of which 8,000 are currently operational. In 1977, the US Department of Defense predicted 265 million casualties from a full-scale US-Soviet nuclear war. United Nations Disarmament Committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. With regional tension intensifying, especially among nuclear-rich countries, the probability of nuclear war can’t be denied.
Around 50 nuclear weapons are reportedly deployed against each other by India and Pakistan, targeting their megacities. An incident involving Israel and a neighbour (particularly Syria and Lebanon and to some extent the Palestinian areas) may stimulate the Arab nations to fight. Even the nuclear tensions in Iran and North Korea are increasing. Iran’s nuclear program and North Korea’s nuclear testing spree adds to the complexity. Factoring in nuclear terrorism creates a creepy new dimension with enhanced risk. A nuclear country with a terrorist presence could trigger a nuclear war easily. After the US attempt to push Russia’s neighbours into NATO and the EU, the probability of a US-Russia flash war, though feeble, still can’t be done away with. NATO has stationed around 500 nuclear weapons in Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey. When it comes to the mightiest, the US and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, 24 hours a day, that reach their targets in less than 30 minutes.
So what if a ‘mild’ nuclear bomb detonates, say in the subcontinent (ten times the power of Little Boy)? In the 30 million subsequent deaths, NRDC (Natural Resources Defence Council) calculated that almost 22.1 million people (in India and Pakistan) would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem (units that measure the effects of ionizing radiation on humans) in the first two days after the attack. Add to this, 8 million people would be affected by 100 to 600 rem. In general, besides the local destructions, any nuclear war in any part of the world would result in a ripple effect. A study on the ‘Atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war’ suggests that the hot smoke from a burning city would tear holes in the ozone layer. Research by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder proves that the increased ultraviolet radiation (from the ozone loss) would double the DNA damage along with increasing the cancer rates manifold. This would also reduce crop yields and starve hundreds of millions the world-over.
It is now clear that even a limited and local nuclear war involving less than 100 low-yield weapons, apart from killing a minimum of 20-25 million people, would activate a decade of cold climate titled the ‘nuclear winter’ (report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science). This limited war would also generate 1 to 5 million tonnes of carbonaceous smoke particles, darkening the sky. NASA predicts that 40% of this smoke would stay in the stratosphere for 10 years. The Journal of Geophysical Research concludes through climate model simulations that even a small nuclear conflict would cause mayhem on the atmosphere by “cooling it twice as much as it has heated over the last century.” The journal reports that on an average, global surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C would remain for years – this could well make global temperatures colder than they were 18,000 years ago.
Like we mentioned, it is much easier (and faster) to die from the effects of a nuclear disaster than from those of global warming. Black humour aside, the world in general should gather behind Obama to support his effort to make the world free of nuclear weapons. What would work against him is the fact that the US has extremely less moral authority on this issue. Well, they’ve carried out 1050 plus known nuclear tests till date..

Corporate crime : Recession

Well, arrest me if you can!
Employees are eating away at company’s money, in bad times too!

Indeed. When it comes to corporate crimes, nothing has created more buzz than an Enron or a Madoff scandal. It’s a known fact that many companies, most of the times, typically let go their internal perpetrators scott-free with just a mere warning. Since the company suffers damage in both monetary and non-monetary terms, it's virtually impossible to exactly calculate the loss it had suffered due to corporate crimes. However, in bad times, when the companies are already bleeding with losses, employees' leave no opportunity to further deteriorate the condition. Or rather, leave no opportunity wherein they can exploit the on-going fragile situation and turn them their own personal benefit.
Going by recent PricewaterhouseCoopers' (PwC) biennial survey of economic crime (for the uninitiated, PwC itself was involved in numerous fraud cases, including the Satyam scam) for the past ten years, one-third of the target audience reported that they went through at least one economic crime in the past one year. The survey further revealed, “43 per cent of all corporate victims of crime and 56 per cent of those in financial services reported an increase”. There was a notable addition in the frauds committed by middle managers – a whopping 50 per cent. Around 56 per cent of Canadian companies have been the victims of economic crimes in the last 12 months. Every kind of crime, be it an accounting fraud, a money laundering or bribery, are deep-rooted in the country’s corporate culture. The direct fraud losses in the victimised corporations were greater than $500,000, on an average. Moving from developed countries to developing countries: According to KPMG Malaysia fraud survey, there has been an increase of 33 per cent in the respondents companies experiencing fraud in their organisations. Another survey by Kroll, a risk-consulting firm, shows that 36 per cent of senior corporate executives believe that the general risk of fraud has increased because of the recession.
Thanks to recession and performance-related pay (which is largely practised across the world), most of the middle level executives were not able to achieve their target and thus turned towards criminal path to fulfil their targets.
However, in order to fight recession (and the corporate crimes) and encourage entrepreneurship, many countries are adopting innovative schemes to attract young talent. The UK has nearly 3,000 events designed to inspire and educate aspiring entrepreneurs that eventually helps in creation of mini-enterprises.
Entrepreneurs do act as job creators but it comes with multi-faceted benefits. Not only it helps a young brain to enter the market economy, but also decreases the incidences of corporate crimes in the long run. Of course, countries need to tighten their corporate laws to check the growing corporate crimes and take appropriate actions against the culprits. Along with promoting entrepreneurship, respective governments should also ensure strict laws so that up-coming entrepreneurs do not get scope to make money on the cost of others and decay the corporate culture of the country further!

Corporate : Philanthropy

In the name of charity!!!

Philanthrocapitalism is being used for personal business!

What is the one thing that is common between Tony Blair, Jet Li, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Muhammad Yunus and Sir Richard Branson? In a single word – it is philanthrocapitalism which is bringing a businesslike approach to solve society's problems at global level. Corporate honchos have jumped into this bandwagon to take advantage of this ongoing global spree and straightening their latent purposes. However, a few genuine donors like Gates (who donated $3.8 billion), Jet Li (Jet Li's organisation, One, has already signed up 1 million Chinese to give money), Md Yunus (developed microfinance), Branson (social causes as a profit-making strategy) – to name a few – are taking all the possible initiatives to change the image of corporations and of course helping the society at the same time. A recent survey conducted by the US-based public relations firm, Edelman, discovered that only 38 per cent of people trust enterprises to do what is right and about 17 per cent trust the information they acquire from a company's CEO.
Projects like One Laptop Per Child or Project Shakti, not only helps the poor, but goes a step further and empowers them and promotes community action as well. Besides jobs, health care and housing, the concept of philanthrocapitalism should go further and ensure participation of civil-society on business and not vice versa. But with business and projects getting more complex and diverse, donors also need to strike the right balance. On one hand they ask for enough information to be able to monitor the effectiveness of the organisations they fund, but on the other they do not bog them down in form-filling bureaucracy. True, today most of them are eying on the tax break they receive from their initiatives. Most of them are investing in projects that redirect the money to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Of course, the rise of the philanthrocapitalists does make some people nervous, fearing that these wealthy donors are unaccountable and lack legitimacy. Gates and others certainly need to be transparent and open to challenge. The initiatives have just reduced to marketing gimmicks that enable these entrepreneurs to push their products to even inappropriate demographies.
Philanthrocapitalism is of course shaping the most destituted part of the world and is trying to embrace business opportunity for the upliftment of the society. But then most of the times, the money get channelised to mid-size entrepreneurs in these developing countries (highly perforated with corruption). The big names need to urgently track down the flow of their money and make sure that it reaches the right audience. Otherwise, soon the whole concept of philanthrocapitalism will get written off.

Historical endorsers

Think Different, Think Dead

Nostalgia sells. And from using living icons as brand ambassadors, Marketers are now stretching back to dip into history. Result: some iconic men & women are being brought back to life!

Can you spot the similarity between Hamburg-based penmaker Mont Blanc and Bollywood flick Lage Raho Munnabhai? Nah... no product placements by the former in the latter; instead, the fact, that both have used Mahatma Gandhi’s imagary – albeit in different ways – to attract eyeballs. Not only did Lage Raho Munnabhai’s promos actively prop up Gandhi’s images in the backdrop, even the storyline incorporated Gandhi and his non-violence credo to successfully ring in the moolah at the box office. This Munnabhai sequel was an instant hit. Similarly, to cosy up with the Indian audience, German pen maker Mont Blanc launched a gold nib plated pen costing a mind-boggling Rs.1.4 million on bapu’s 140th birth anniversary in 2009. The ostentatious effort was to commemorate Gandhi’s historic salt march, but market watchers claim that since Mahatma Gandhi has been also associated with literary achievements, the freedom fighter’s sheen will rub off on Mont Blanc and improve the luxury writing instrument’s standing among India’s discerning target segment. Reportedly, Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi has even endorsed the idea. As a thank you, Tushar’s charitable foundation has already received a donation of $145,000 from Mont Blanc and will receive between $200 and $1,000 for each pen sold. Aditi Agarwal of Ghalla Bhansali Stock Brokers (they’ve recently released a report titled ‘Marketing the Mahatma’), however, takes exception to such marketing moves. “It’s indeed ironical, that Mahatma Gandhi who was considered as an epitome of austerity is being misused by business barons to make money. Marketing and publicity is vital in today’s tough competition, but to what extent? All efforts need to be taken to protect the legacy that Gandhi has left behind,” she argues vehemently.

But, Mont Blanc and Munnabhai are not alone in having made use of Mahatma Gandhi’s name to sell their wares. The list is long. Be it Apple, Telecom Italia, Martin Luther King Jr., Raj Kumar Hirani, or even the American President Barack Obama, all have used Brand Gandhi to break the clutter and reach out to their respective target segments. Leaving aside the hullabaloo of shocked critics and their lengthy petitions to correct the trend, here’s the moot question. What sense does it make to bring back a popular icon from history? Does using the Mahatma as your brand endorsers work better or should marketers settle for current mass icons like Big B, Tendulkar or even couples like Pataudi & Sharmila Tagore?

Some marketers refer to using historical icons as a goodwill gesture (‘paying a tribute’) and if it serves the added purpose of raking in moolah and raising the brand stature, so be it. But the answer to that question could well range from being financially viable (in some cases) to harnessing the product values with the long lasting untarnished image of the endorser. On one thing though, marketers are unanimous viz. the immortal image of these historical ambassadors provides the requisite ‘X factor’ for their brands.

So it’s not only Brand Gandhi who has been used as a brand ambassador by marketers. Che Guevara, Charlie Chaplin or for that matter even Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussain (recently used in a German AIDS awareness campaign) are also right up there. But, Gandhi has by far been the clear favourite, when it comes to reaching the Indian masses. Remember the ‘Think Different’ campaign launched by Apple in 1997 – with Gandhi in his simple white loincloth and shawl? The image linked an ambassador of immense physical and mental strength to the brand – and helped them break the clutter. Even Italy’s largest telecom company, Telecom Italia used Gandhi in its 2005 campaign and went on to grab the ‘Mezzo Minuto D’oro’ (considered equivalent to the Oscars in the Italian ad-industry) award. Take the case of Luxor, which has consistently used historical figures to illustrate the usage of its highlighters. Their ads showcase usages of Luxor Highlighter by sketching images of Che Guevara, Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin on their ads. Not only have the ads highlighted the historical heros but also the brand, transferring their heroic qualities to the brand. In the process, Luxor also managed to break and rise above the clutter in their segment. Similarly, Rasayana (the anti-stress tea) showed Adolf Hitler smelling a rose with a caption saying, ‘Make peace with the world. Anti-stress tea from Rasayana.’ The slogan simply made the world identify better with the nascent brand. Hitler’s face on the campaign made way for instant recognition among the target audience and made a simple product look smart and maybe, the brand promise even fuelled initial trial purchase.

Thanks to Cherry Shoe Polish, the image of Charlie Chaplin is still afresh in people’s mind. As a matter of fact, the two have become inseparable from each other. It goes without any saying that Charlie Chaplin is loved by everyone alike. His black-and-white persona and humor are evergreen and what better way to describe a black and white shoe polish than an iconic comedian from the black and white era? Charlie rightfully portrayed the idea of ‘enjoy polishing’. Says Alyque Padamsee (who helped create the first series of Cheery ads), “The focus then was on the “perfect gentleman” and the ‘perfect shine’ on his shoes.” The idea of using a black-and-white background has not occurred to Cherry Blossom alone. Apple came out with an ad featuring black and white video footage and print ads featuring legends like Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso. The ad ended with the image of a young girl opening her eyes (as if)to see the possibilities before her. Everyday, the ad featured a different historic figure, with a small Apple logo and the ‘Think Different’ slogan. The idea was to convey that although the world may perceive these (historical icons) as rebels, troublemakers or crazy – Apple sees them as geniuses, because people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do – just what Apple does in its labs. The campaign, completely in line with Apple’s brand positioning, was a hit. The idea of using historical icons as ambassadors is catching on fast in India. State Bank of India, the nation’s largest public sector bank, recently launched a print campaign with pictures of its celebrated account holders in the distant past viz. Dadabhai Naoroji, J.R.D. Tata, J.C. Bose, among others. As per the agency, the idea is to establish SBI’s ‘legacy and reputation’ in the mind of modern consumers. For many, using historical icons as brand ambassadors is the safest bet (besides being economically cheaper), as there are little possibilities of controversies and criticism due to their present deeds. Remember, the quagmire that marketers found themselves in when Salman Khan drove his Land Cruiser over sleeping pavement dwellers in Mumbai or when Sanju Baba landed in jail. Millions of endorsement dollars riding on their backs gave sleepless nights to many. Guess it does pay sometimes to really go ahead and take Apple’s advice: ‘Think Different’!

 
 

Around the world: mental (in)competence

Are you nuts?

They were great men, running great countries... oh, they were all nuts

Psychos, freaks, insane...! We were amazed when we found out that there have been political leaders in this world who have qualified on all three of the above accounts – no, we’re not referring to our dearest Members of Parliament. It’s more astounding when we realised after our (brilliant?) secondary research that  some of these mentally unstable politicians actually ended up becoming the heads of countries!

Going by the example, the case of Richard Nixon comes first. Nixon was President of the United States from 1969 to 1974 and the first one in US history to resign from office (facing sure impeachment). The book, Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character, by Fawn M. Brodie – famous biographer and history teacher at the University of California – became the totem pole for understanding who the real Nixon was. Shockingly, the book reveals that Nixon was actually a sufferer of paranoia. For information, paranoia is most often linked with psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia – experts comment that in some cases (not necessarily in Nixon’s), the person believes he is on a special mission and has been chosen by God. To that effect, some of Nixon’s controversial policies do bear evidence of a traumatic childhood he had gone through.

A study done by a group of psychiatrists at the Duke University Medical Centre astoundingly reveals that 49% of former US presidents were afflicted by mental illnesses. The study published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease further reveals that 18 out of the 37 presidents researched, were found to have suffered a mental illness of some form or the other. Ulysses S. Grant (general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War and the then President of US) was also among them. The medical case of depression was the most prevalent disorder among presidents, occurring at a rate of 24 percent – ‘At least 10 presidents were affected by episodes while in office, and the study found evidence that symptoms interfered with their performance in almost all cases.’ Abraham Lincoln was one of the most famous of the sufferer lot – his seven losses (at various levels) before he finally became President big reasons for the same. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, George W. Bush is the most recent documented case of a president suffering from high levels of depression.

On the other hand, although Garry Will, author, journalist, historian specialising in policy and politics states in his book, Kennedy Imprisonment: Meditation on Power, how John F Kennedy’s “insatiable machismo” had dangerous foreign policy implications for his country as well as for the world, one cannot directly infer that Kennedy was suffering from any mental illness – the concept of ‘sexual addiction’ has still not been accepted notably as a disease of the mind.

In a book called Ronald Reagan: the politics of symbolism, the famous American historian specialising on biographies of American presidents, Robert Balleck, says that Reagan’s bitter experience in early childhood, due to his alcoholic father, had severe implication in his later life. As Balleck writes, “The episode(s) must have reinforced Reagan’s horror of being in a helpless condition, beholden to someone else for survival... Reagan lived in fear of his father’s uncontrolled behaviour and understandably places an exaggerated premium on self-mastery in his own life and in the life of the nation.” Although Reagan left office in 1989, in the year 1994, he announced to the public that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, an affliction that kills brain cells. Then CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl has commented that during an interview when Reagan was in office, “a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room,” and that “I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile.” Reagan’s doctors refute this presumption that Reagan had developed the affliction in office.

If the US has its hands full, the world has its hands fuller. In a medical disclosure of the current President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari was declared mentally ill by doctors appointed by him personally during the time he was behind bars. Doctors reveal how he was suffering from psychological problems like dementia, depression or post traumatic mental disorder. It is also documented how Zardari attempted to commit suicide in the between of the jail terms. On a similar platform was the killing Ugandan President, Idi Amin, who was accused of suffering from the “general paralysis of the insane” (demantia paralytica; a neuro-psychotic disorder). But the diagnosis could never be substantiated.

Next in the line is Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Norwegian Prime Minister (from 1997 to 2000 and again from 2001 to 2005). He stakes his claim to the fact that he was and still remains the first head of any nation state to publicly announce that he is mentally ill. Wonder of wonders, he did not resign but took sick leave. And currently he remains the President of the Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights in Norway.

Winston Churchill was noted to be a manic as he suffered from manic depression. In 2006, a British mental health charity even commissioned a statue of Churchill, and defended the same despite a public outcry – the charity later clarified that it was trying to project a more positive image of people with mental illness (which speak volumes about its initial claim). In his book Black Dog, Kafka’s Mice, and Other Phenomena of the Human Mind, psychiatrist and historian Anthony Storr wrote: “Had he [Churchill] been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation....”

Premiers and heads of states have been ridiculed, mocked at and made a joke of since almost time immemorial. And more often than not, many of these premiers have given those slights of hand a pass rather than a challenge – unless of course in non-democratic nations, when civilians have been jailed or even executed for mocking the head of a nation. But can one ever imagine living in a world where your own leaders are certified maniacs? There you go again about our MPs...    

terrorism: world

Calling all the countries

Only a united world can fight global terrorism and usher in peace

The year 2008 has not been peaceful, especially for countries like India, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and a few others. There was no month in 2008 that newspapers went without citing any terror activities; the latest being the Pakistan terror attack and 26/11 Mumbai attack.

During her recent visit to India and Pakistan, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged both the countries to cooperate on terrorism issues. Terrorism affects not only the victim country; its effects are felt by many other countries that are not even on the terrorists' radar. Attacks on hotels (for instance, the Taj and Oberoi in Mumbai, Marriott in Islamabad and Jakarta, Serena in Kabul, Grand Hyatt and Radisson in Amman, Hilton in Taba) has recently increased. Such attacks not only kill the citizens of the target country but many foreign tourists as well. This in turn increases the inter-country tension and friction.

Modern day terrorist uses technology (among his armoury are Global Positioning System, satellite phones, international mobile SIM cards, fake passports and ID cards) that is tough for a single country to track. Take for instance, GPS and satellite phone that can be used from any part of the world, making it unfeasible for the victim country to track the devices. In such cases, almost all countries need to come together and share information about any susceptible movements. 

A report released on December 3, 2008, titled 'World at Risk' talks about possible WMDs attack on US soil in the next few years to come. The same report states that "were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan" and bluntly singles out Pakistan as a prime suspect.

Rice's recent visit was primarily aimed at decreasing the chances of next attack on the US soil. However, it also acts an opportunity for Pakistan to undo its age-old image of being a pro-terrorist country. But will Pakistan, with the help of Ms Rice and thus US, eliminate its domestic terror camps and further help the world fight against terrorism? Time can never tell, but the sooner it is, the better!