>> MIM Speaks
LESSONS FROM CORPORATE AMERICA
NOVEMBER 4, 2001 (P.32) -
THE STAR
THE recent incidents that rocked the United States have
some valuable pointers for us in Malaysia. First, the US
Government stands firm behind Corporate America.
When disaster struck on Sept 11 morning, it completely
destroyed the twin edifice that proudly represented the
whole structure of American business. The World Trade
Centre was thus humbled and, along with it the very
foundations of what business has stood for all these years
in that country - the entrepreneurial spirit that has built
America centuries earlier and that has continued to drive
American business today - has been very much a government
creation.
The implication is that business is still very much tied to
the government. Without the assistance and the support of
the government, Corporate America would not have achieved
so much.
It is now reasonable to expect that the government will be
doing all it can to restore the public's confidence and to
ensure that "the-business-as-usual" environment will
prevail. But the numbers in Wall Street have not been that
encouraging since that fateful day. The signs are showing
the stresses and strains of a recession-led economy.
The role of government in pushing business has always been
a subject of intense debate everywhere. It is generally
recognised that the two should be in tandem with each
supporting the other. A government that is
business-friendly will always bring about a dynamic
investment climate. Likewise, a business community that is
behaving responsibly will contribute to economic growth.
Nowhere is this more real than in the United States. But
the system does give way to a lot of opposites. If it is
tied to the power of the government to influence business,
as in the case of the defence industries in the United
States, then this win negate the so-called drive for
individuality or business creativity among Americans. Where
is the noble vision of the entrepreneur in this?
For the last decade at least, American business has only
moved forward at the behest of the government and then
again if this is tied to the national interest. Any
contracts won overseas have always hinged on the support
given or guaranteed by the US Government.
The second lesson for us is to understand that to succeed,
business must show the flag. The current fighting that is
raging in Afghanistan has also got its business
implications.
On one level, it can be seen as the promotion of
American-made weapons. The latest in attack technology is
being demonstrated and tested in the Afghan war theatre.
The food items that were sent and airdropped in Afghanistan
mostly originated from the United States. At least, the
words "United States" have been clearly spelt out on them.
Again, such actions are serving the interest of American
business everywhere.
The practice of first showing the flag and then following
up with business has been perfected by Western governments
over the years. In a way, the show of power has always
preceded business. This was how China came to be won by the
British in the 19th century. Gunboat diplomacy became a
good business strategy.
US policy towards the countries in South America has often
been rationalised as one to protect the lives of Americans
in a particular country or one that seeks to ensure a
continuous supply of a raw material or a food resource.
Notice the elaborate web of defence alliance the United
States has fashioned out of the countries in West Asia in
the name of ensuring the availability of oil to the Western
allies.
There is a belief that in going all out to bring about a
friendly government inside Afghanistan, the United States
is only interested in pursuing a grand business design in
that region. What it is really remains anybody's guess.
The third lesson is that one must fight one's business
battles outside the country. The sending of American ground
forces to Afghanistan can also be seen as an attempt to
take the heat from inside America. The business environment
internally has to be protected against outside attacks.
In any case, it is considered a good strategy to fight your
battles as far away from the country as you can. This was
evident in both World Wars as well as Vietnam, Kosovo, and
even now in Afghanistan. In doing so, the American economic
might could not therefore be destroyed.
Speaking in economic terms, it is widely recognised that
the globalisation and trade liberalization policies pushed
by the Americans so far could be read as an effort to
support this very policy of fighting your wars abroad and
sparing the country from being affected. The WTO will be
the new battleground just as the GATT Trade Rounds were
years before.
We can certainly learn a lot from the recent American
experience following the Sept 11 incident. In essence, the
three pointers listed above prove the observation that the
three elements of power, strategy and business are all
closely interlinked to advance American business interests
abroad.
|