Bribe and prejudice

Financial Times: Comment & Analysis, February 26, 2007

‘People could die’: how the inquiry into BAE’s Saudi deals was brought to earth, by Michael Peel

Of all the murky news stories that captured the headlines last year, the suspension of the BAE inquiry was perhaps the murkiest of all. Michael Peel’s feature in the Financial Times looks at the events that led up to the dropping of the investigation.

Last year, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began an inquiry into allegations that BAE Systems, an arms and aerospace company, had bribed Saudi officials. On the 14^th December, 2006, the British government halted the SFO probe citing “the public interest”.

In the feature, Peel interviews Robert Wardle, the director of the SFO, who claims that he dropped the investigation after a meeting with Saudi ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. During that meeting, Wardle was told that the SFO investigation could jeopardize British lives.

I found this feature astonishing, not least because it demonstrates the willingness of the Serious Fraud Office to simply roll over when under pressure. During the FT interview, Wardle says that Sir Sherard’s advice had deeply influenced his decision to drop the case. “Saudi society is a very different type of society to us,” he says, as if this patently obvious fact excuses any behaviour, no matter how questionable.

The feature also says that no less than three government departments intervened to shut down the investigation, namely: the prime minister’s office, the Ministry of Defence, and the Foreign Office.

The revelations laid down in the FT feature ought to disturb any rational British citizen. At the very least, the events speak of cowardice at the highest levels of government. But it is equally disturbing that much of the British media has cast this affair aside as old news.

All quotes taken from the FT feature, February 26, 2007, page 15

Back to basics

Dealing with Iran: A countdown to confrontation

The Economist, February 10^th 2007, p25-27

When it comes to American foreign policy, The Economist often seems a paper at odds with itself. A case in point: this revered publication remains unrepentant for its support of the initial invasion of Iraq, despite the shortcomings of the facts used to support the invasion.

So it comes as a relief that The Economist is now approaching the subject of Iran with more caution.

In “A countdown to confrontation”, the correspondent discusses the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power, and what can be done to prevent this (The Economist’s line is that a nuclear Iran would be a very bad thing). The tone of the piece is powerfully internationalist: that is to say that the writer links over 11 other countries to the debate, and assesses their relationship with Iran. This broad political context provides the reader with a world view through which he or she is better able to understand the issues at stake.

The writer then describes how Mr Ahmadinejad, the “provocative president” of Iran, seems to be losing support at home, and that this negates the need for American military action. He goes on to suggest that a military attack could unite the people of Iran in support of its president. Thus, The Economist takes the view that military action against Iran would be wrong.

This article epitomises The Economist at its best. Clear, concise and well written, the piece informs as only the best journalism can. The Economist gained its reputation by taking its line according to analysis of the available facts. Adherence to these principles makes the paper’s line on Iran worthy of respect.

[271 words]

All quotes taken from The Economist, A countdown to confrontation, February 10 2007, p25-27

Killer Strategy

New Statesman feature: Britain’s Child Army, by Stephen Armstrong


In this feature, writer Stephen Armstrong investigates how the British Army is attempting to recruit young school leavers by targeting children as young as 14.

Armstrong shows that military personnel are leaving the armed forces in record numbers, while it is also becoming harder to find people willing to enlist. The former, says Armstrong, is being caused by the poor state of equipment and conditions within the armed forces; the latter, by the public perception of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The writer uses quotes from British military personnel to illustrate the situation, then goes on to interview army recruiters to form the body of his piece.

The strength of using the words of army recruiters is that they effectively make Armstrong’s point for him. They explain in great detail that the army goes out of its way to indoctrinate young children before they even start considering a career. Most telling is a phrase from Colonel David Allfrey:

“It starts with a seven-year-old boy seeing a parachutist at an air show and thinking, ‘that looks great.’ From then the army is trying to build interest by drip, drip, drip.”

The quote condenses Armstrong’s article perfectly: The military is attempting to drip-feed Britain’s youngsters into wanting to join the army, before they’ve learned to think for themselves. Armstrong cleverly ends the piece by saying:

“What changes will desperation force on the British Army, whose ten-year recruitment strategy begins with a seven-year-old boy?”

Armstrong demonstrates how it is possible to create a thought-provoking and engaging piece, through effective use of interviews and excellent story structure.

[264 words]

Beneath the Mac

Apple adherents consider themselves to be hip, alternative and special. The reality is quite the reverse

In Apple’s series of web-based Mac advertisements, the PC is characterized by an unattractive, speccy, middle-aged accountant in a grey suit. Next to him stands the supposed anthropomorphic personification of the Mac: a post-grunge, attractive, twenty-something guy in designer jeans. The accountant talks about how PCs are good for business and spreadsheets; the Mac guy then talks about how cool Macs are, because they’re made for the home. And... well, they’re just cool, okay?

And this is the secret of Apple’s success: marketing the Mac to people who think that a different computer will make them appear more interesting to the opposite sex. Or the same sex. Thanks to this vapid yet somehow seductive way of tying of their product to an image, Apple has generated quite remarkable consumer loyalty.

Image dealt with, Apple propagates a series of myths about its computers that do not stand up to real-world experience.

Exhibit A: Apple says Macs never crash. This writer has discovered this claim to be untrue on at least three occasions. Macs lock up too, in much the same way as a PC. Apple’s India website now runs on Linux Redhat instead of Apple’s own operating system, thanks to incessant crashes.

Then, when you’ve rebooted your Mac, you discover that it is impossible to trace the source of the crash – unlike on a PC.

Then there’s the compatibility aspect. Despite the new generation of Mac/PC compatible software, anyone who’s tried editing PC-formatted Office files on a Mac will tell you that it’s never plain sailing. Besides which, getting a Mac in order to run a sub-standard version of PC software seems a thoroughly pointless exercise.

This links into another clever facet of Apple’s grand strategy: the tactic of enforced loyalty. A Mac, says Apple, comes with all the software you need to get started, like iLife, a multimedia platform. But iLife is, at best, an average piece of software. Apple users think they’re getting the best, and settle for it. After all, it comes with the machine, so why grumble?

But the reality is that PC users have a raft of more advanced software to choose from, which they can mix and match to their taste. Apple’s iLife resembles a quick fix: a consumer snare just good enough to engage a customer, and hike those sales figures skyward.  

Another of Apple’s claims is that its machine is perfectly attuned the internet. Once again, Apple seems happy to ignore the fact that even Windows has included automatic web compatibility for years. And as far as networks go, the Mac website clearly states that, “networking on a Mac is built on the same technologies used by PCs.” This is to say that Apple couldn’t come up with anything better, so it just used what PC developers built in the first place.

Then there is the hardware. On the Mac website, a series of rhetorical questions is asked of PC users. For example: “can you put the system to sleep just by closing the lid?”, and, “can your PC laptop automatically switch between Ethernet, dial-up and wireless connections on the fly?” Yes, and yes. Proceeding down the list of questions, one realizes that a PC laptop is easily capable of doing everything a Mac does – just without the hype.

It is hard to credit that Apple seems unaware of the capabilities of its competitors, but in many ways, this attitude encapsulates the Mac philosophy: If you believe it’s better than a PC, it must be. Oh, and by the way, it looks cute.

Then there’s the most negative argument of all: The Mac is not a PC! Consumers are asked to buy the product because of what it isn’t. After all, Microsoft is evil, isn’t it? You wouldn’t want to put money into the pocket of Bill Gates, the world’s biggest charity donor. If you buy Apple, you are instead putting money in the pocket of Steve Jobs. And according to the Giving USA Foundation and Indiana University’s Centre on Philanthropy, Jobs doesn’t even appear on the charitable contributions list, despite being worth $3.7 billion dollars - partly thanks to Disney’s recent takeover of Pixar, which Jobs founded.

Of course, Jobs might be giving to charity anonymously. But Gates has used his profile to further enhance public awareness of the charities he supports, effectively extending their reach and positive impact.

The truth is that anyone who buys Apple for ethical reasons is ignoring the fact that Apple is, like Microsoft, a nefarious megacorporation intent on one thing: maximizing shareholder value. And Apple’s share performance shows that, in this regard, the company has trounced Microsoft roundly. Shares in Apple have seen returns of more than 120 percent over a five year period, compared to returns of minus one percent for Microsoft. No corporation sees these sorts of returns without the most rapacious corporate strategy possible.

But to buy into the brand image, you’d think that Apple executives spend their time saving baby seals whenever they’re not snowboarding. The illusion that Apple has worked so hard to foster has proved a success. Apple users buy into that illusion, lock, stock and barrel, dutifully repeating everything they are told about their celebrated white box.

So look at those Mac ads once more, and you might find that the lardy PC fellow bears more than a passing resemblance to Steve Jobs. And if a Mac were to be personified truthfully, surely its human form would be that of a rebellious teenage girl: she wants to be different, but in reality she’s just fitting in. She claims to be rejecting consumer culture, but she’s modelled herself on what she’s seen on TV. Above all, she thinks she’s saying something new, when behind it all is a boardroom of executives who look like… the PC guy.