BIG DEAL – By Justin Penafiel

These days, less and less people remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Yet, on May 2, we were there for the ultimate demise of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, his demise is the Berlin Wall of our times. To suggest otherwise would be to dismiss the Berlin Wall as but another man-made structure, or bin Laden as just any other old geezer.

Never mind that bin Laden was found in a fortified residence in the aptly-named Abbottabad in Pakistan, rather than some cave in Afghanistan (because people like Osama could have only possibly lived in caves, right?). If even George W. Bush can bring himself to congratulate Barack Obama for doing what he could never do, so can we. Yes, yes we can.

That is not to deny that the war in terror was a foil in the struggle to track down bin Laden, after all. But in focusing on the fact that looking in caves and bombing Iraq was all in vain, we fail to comprehend and even appreciate the sheer awesomeness of America’s efforts under Obama to take down ‘Public Enemy Number One’. It was achieved completely under the radar, incognito, and without their closest allies ever knowing until Obama’s fateful and awe-inspiring announcement. Let’s not take this achievement away from the CIA and U.S. military, because they sorely needed it.

Many small-l liberals bemoan the lost opportunities to reassert some lofty, but nebulous ideals of the rule of law and presumption of innocence until proven guilty, that were thrown out with bin Laden’s body in the Arabian Sea. I know I do. But let’s not kid ourselves – the bin Laden trials were never going to see the light of day, let alone the pages of law school textbooks. This was Barack Obama’s moment and the accompanying boost in the polls is perhaps deserving of his perseverance.

Bin Laden, as a guerilla, may have been one of many, and he certainly did not define the Muslim world. Yet, the commemorations and celebrations there were of him are indicative of the cult of celebrity that surrounded bin Laden in his quest to define the Muslim world and its relations with the West.

In all the media and hype that surrounded bin Laden, the scale and history of his influence is often forgotten. It is easy to forget he was one of Saudi’s richest sons. As the mastermind behind al-Qaeda, bin Laden transformed the organisation into a well funded, transnational operation that stretched from the Middle East and Africa to the Far East and the United States itself. The sheer spectacle of September 11 and his subsequent pursuit wiped away the world’s memories of the decade of plane hijackings and bombing of embassies, train stations and public markets. Fewer still recall bin Laden’s nearly successful plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II in Manila in 1995. From the comfort of our distant Australian homes, where we have only ever needed to be alert but not alarmed, it was all too easy to forget the real, omnipresent threat posed by bin Laden’s transnational presence to the peace and security of the rest of the world.

NO DEAL – By Preethi Sundaram

It has been stated, “if Osama bin Laden didn’t exist, it would be necessary to manufacture him.”

After masterminding the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, bin Laden quickly assumed the mantle of ‘Public Enemy Number One’ by the United States. This was a title he happily adopted, but as the quote suggests, one he hardly deserved.

The War on Terror was a war the world had never seen before. It was the first in which an enemy, Al Qaeda, could no longer be clearly identified. What exactly were people fighting against? What exactly constituted ‘terror’?

Osama bin Laden filled this information void. George W. Bush promised in 2001 that Osama bin Laden would be captured to avenge those that died in the attacks on United States soil. This was presumably a satisfying response, as it would put an end to ‘terror’ – as though Osama bin Laden had some kind of monopoly on all terrorist activity.

In reality, Al Qaeda is a fragmented entity.  In some ways, it is almost a franchise, where anyone is free to use the name to commit acts of violence under the broad banner of Sunni Islamism. Osama bin Laden repeated claimed to be acting in defence of all Islamic people. In the end, his popularity was never as widespread as he assumed it to be. In most instances, the majority of his victims were the innocent Muslims who he purported to defend. Instead, his idea of an Islamic state – a caliphate of sorts – was soundly being rejected by millions of Muslims who had other ideas.

The Arab Spring arrived in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya as dictators are being thrown out one by one. Freedom, democracy and transparency are being demanded all over the Middle East, by Arabs who are willing to risk their lives in a way that they never would have for bin Laden’s obsolete ideologies. Osama bin Laden’s visions never found a place in the minds of those whose support he needed to continue his violent ways. In reality he was killed by the Arabs long before the Americans got him in Pakistan.

Instead his name was used to con a grieving people to comply with two invasions in the name of justice. A decade on, the objective of the original mission has finally been achieved by another President forced to adopt this war as his own, in another country. Ten years have seen the invasions of two countries and the deaths of countless innocent civilians. Osama bin Laden’s death won’t change the state of the countries that U.S. foreign policy destroyed in their mission.

It won’t cripple the decentralised command of al-Qaeda and it won’t end terrorist attacks. As this is being written revenge attacks are being plotted and executed in Pakistan. The United States’ budget will remain in a woeful state with domestic health care and education still in desperate need.

In the end Osama bin Laden was a caricature – a man with an obsolete ideology who fooled a superpower for a decade because they let him. He led the United States on a wild goose chase, stampeding through the Middle East where their tunnel vision blinded them to the seeds of democracy that were already in place.

BIG DEAL – By Justin Penafiel
These days, less and less people remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Yet, on May 2, we were there for the ultimate demise of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, his demise is the Berlin Wall of our times. To suggest otherwise would be to dismiss the Berlin Wall as but another man-made structure, or bin Laden as just any other old geezer.
Never mind that bin Laden was found in a fortified residence in the aptly-named Abbottabad in Pakistan, rather than some cave in Afghanistan (because people like Osama could have only possibly lived in caves, right?). If even George W. Bush can bring himself to congratulate Barack Obama for doing what he could never do, so can we. Yes, yes we can.
That is not to deny that the war in terror was a foil in the struggle to track down bin Laden, after all. But in focusing on the fact that looking in caves and bombing Iraq was all in vain, we fail to comprehend and even appreciate the sheer awesomeness of America’s efforts under Obama to take down ‘Public Enemy Number One’. It was achieved completely under the radar, incognito, and without their closest allies ever knowing until Obama’s fateful and awe-inspiring announcement. Let’s not take this achievement away from the CIA and U.S. military, because they sorely needed it.
Many small-l liberals bemoan the lost opportunities to reassert some lofty, but nebulous ideals of the rule of law and presumption of innocence until proven guilty, that were thrown out with bin Laden’s body in the Arabian Sea. I know I do. But let’s not kid ourselves – the bin Laden trials were never going to see the light of day, let alone the pages of law school textbooks. This was Barack Obama’s moment and the accompanying boost in the polls is perhaps deserving of his perseverance.
Bin Laden, as a guerilla, may have been one of many, and he certainly did not define the Muslim world. Yet, the commemorations and celebrations there were of him are indicative of the cult of celebrity that surrounded bin Laden in his quest to define the Muslim world and its relations with the West.
In all the media and hype that surrounded bin Laden, the scale and history of his influence is often forgotten. It is easy to forget he was one of Saudi’s richest sons. As the mastermind behind al-Qaeda, bin Laden transformed the organisation into a well funded, transnational operation that stretched from the Middle East and Africa to the Far East and the United States itself. The sheer spectacle of September 11 and his subsequent pursuit wiped away the world’s memories of the decade of plane hijackings and bombing of embassies, train stations and public markets. Fewer still recall bin Laden’s nearly successful plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II in Manila in 1995. From the comfort of our distant Australian homes, where we have only ever needed to be alert but not alarmed, it was all too easy to forget the real, omnipresent threat posed by bin Laden’s transnational presence to the peace and security of the rest of the world.

Most people will never meet someone who works as a professional environmental activist. It’s no surprise then that the commonly held view is often skewed by outdated stereotypes. Are they really dirty hippies or tree hugging radicals? I’ve been traveling around the world talking to green workers to find out. Here’s a snippet of what Ian Singleton, director of conservation of Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL), gets up to.

1. What is YEL and how did it start?

YEL is an Indonesian NGO with the aim to promote more sustainable use of natural resources in northern Sumatra. One of its main focuses, however, is the Sumatran orangutan and its habitat, the tropical forests of North Sumatra and Aceh Provinces…

2. What programs are you running at the moment?

YEL runs a range of projects dealing the problem of illegal ‘pet’ Sumatran orangutans and how to rehabilitate and release them into the wild. It also runs a number of habitat protection and conservation projects, education and advocacy projects as well as undertaking research on the behaviour and ecology of the few remaining wild Sumaran organgutans.

Additionally, YEL is also active in promoting sustainable development, in particular agriculture – running a sort of model farm that is used by local farmers to develop new concepts and ideas and to test them before applying them on their own farms. It therefore functions both as useable farm and as an education and training centre.

YEL and PanEco also work to promote sustainable ‘ecotourism’ in the region. YEL manages its own ‘ecolodge’ in the town of Bukit Lawang, at the edge of the Gunungleuser National Park, and operates with other partners and elephant trekking programme, in which tourists can spend 3 days traveling through the forest on elephant back.

3. What do you think the biggest environmental problems are right now in Indonesia?

By far the most serious crisis is the wholesale conversion of rainforests to plantations. Illegal logging remains a problem, but if only selected trees are removed there is still a chance for forests to regenerate naturally, but if the forests are removed totally, as still regularly occurs to establish palm oil plantations or Acacia plantations to supply the paper and pulp industry, the forests and their wildlife are lost forever. This is also a concern when large scale mining operations are developed too, but by far the most forest loss is a direct result of the expansion of plantations.

Logging also has serious for climate change. Indonesia is the world’s third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, after the USA and China, despite not being considered an industrialised nation. Indonesia’s carbon emissions instead come from the destruction of the forests, which naturally store carbon in peat swamps. Peat is essentially organic matter stored over tens of thousands of years as it does not decompose in the water logged swamp conditions. Once the forests in these areas are cleared, all of the above ground carbon is lost to the atmosphere. Plantations then establish drainage canals, and dry out the upper layers of the peat, which then oxidises in the air and releases huge amounts of carbon. It then also subsides, meaning the drainage canals must be continuously deepened, until all the peat is eventually destroyed.

4. How do you think some of these problems can be solved?

Much hope has been pinned in recent years on the concept of REDD (United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation). REDD aims to cut carbon emissions into the atmosphere by restricting deforestation and the destruction of peatlands. But it aims to do this by allowing developed countries can pay developing countries to preserve forest in exchange for carbon credits. The idea is to develop an ongoing alternative income for communities who would otherwise be reliant on logging and palm oil, while also funding a variety of conservation programs.

To YEL, the misuse and abuse of information by vested interests, often major plantation companies and local governments, coupled with the high levels of corruption still prevalent in the country mean that REDD is not the beacon of hope it could be.

5. Do you feel hopeful about the future? Why or why not?

“Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are certainly reasons to be optimistic”.

In this age of technology and rapid advances in communication and data sharing, companies and governments are beginning to realise that they cannot carry on as before. Free flow of information is making it harder for companies to hide their destructive practices and infringements of the law.

YEL shares the same problem as many green NGOs around the world – “the lack of accountability and effective law enforcement.” Over 2800 individuals have been involved in illegally buying pet orangutans, yet not a single one has been prosecuted in Indonesia – with no legal ramifications in place, how is the species to survive? In Indonesia, there is a similar situation with major companies. Many of them are so large and so powerful, wielding considerable political influence both in Indonesia and abroad, and so skilled at hiding behind smaller, more visible companies, that they are virtually immune to prosecution.

Ian Singleton echoes the voices of many other Green workers I’ve met in his concluding comments – “Yes, there is reason for hope. But any improvements will be slow in materializing, and its by no means certain that orangutans, tigers, elephants, and even the tropical rainforests themselves as we know them today, will still be around when they do.”

He didn’t know it then, but these photos would show Damascus in the last weeks before the silence broke.

A poster of President al-Assad in a shop window declares, ‘We Love You’, from the election campaign in 2007 – he won 97.62 per cent of the vote. An accidently apt comment sits in the bottom-right corner.

The al-Assad’s are prolific monument builders. This statue of Saladin was unveiled in 1993 to mark the 800th anniversary of the Sultan’s death. The crusades have little relevance to the West, but they resound in the Arab imagination.In 2001, shortly after September 11, President Bush warned that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile”. The offhand comment resonated in the coffee shops and homes of the the Middle East.

Schoolboys lounge on the ruins of the Temple of Jupiter. On this site, the Arameans built a temple for Hadad, the god of storms. The Romans destroyed it, and built the Temple of Jupiter. The Christians toppled that, and built a church dedicated to John the Baptist. The Muslims left it alone. For 70 years. And then they knocked it down, and built the Ummayad Mosque.

Over a curiously receded jaw, the President-for-life watches a busy Damascus morning unfold with faint disdain. Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father, Hafiz, in 2000. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. It was his brother, Basil, who their father was grooming for the Presidency. In 1994, speeding to catch a flight, Basil missed a turn, drove into a curb at 125 miles per hour, and died instantly. Bashar was promptly ordered home from London.

Heavy security and images of President al-Assad are part of the Damascene scenery. Syria’s last rebellion occurred in 1982, in its fourth-largest city, Hama. Muslim Brotherhood militants took over state buildings, slaughtered government troops and regime collaborators, and declared the city ‘liberated’.
Hafiz al-Assad responded by sealing off the city and indiscriminately pounding it with tanks, aircraft and artillery. Twelve thousand troops then marched through the ancient city demolishing mosques and entire neighbourhoods. Amnesty International reports that they carried out “collective killings of unarmed, innocent inhabitants” and buried them in mass graves around the city. This destruction was wholly unnecessary; most of the resistance had fled or collapsed after a day of fighting. Hafiz al-Assad was making an example.

Mike Safi is currently completing a Masters of Peace and Conflict Studies.
All photos by the author.

The European Commission defined corporate social responsibility as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations”. News reporter CSRwire considers social responsibility to be increasingly important in the growing international market, with corporate social responsibility being a major determinant of the financial success, competitive advantage and brand loyalty of a company. While there is increasing evidence to suggest that organisations committed to ethical and socially responsible operations benefit in a range of ways, there appears to be a potential conflict between this and the primary responsibility of a company to increase market growth and profit. However, these objectives may not in fact be mutually exclusive.

The Body Shop International is a global manufacturer and retailer of naturally inspired, ethically produced beauty and cosmetics products. Its mission statement is to dedicate its business to the pursuit of social and environmental change. One of The Body Shop’s ‘five pillar’ values is their policy against animal testing, which has been maintained by the company for over 20 years. This operating philosophy, based on ethical and social responsibility, has become an extremely important aspect of its operating strength, with 97 per cent of The Body Shop’s surveyed customers saying that these values were either “important” or “very important” to them.

As part of a process of vertical integration in 2007, The Body Shop was taken over by French-based global cosmetic company L’Oreal, and now operates as a business segment of L’Oreal. Having already successfully entered the Indian market (where it still operates under its original brand name because of high customer loyalty), The Body Shop had planned to enter the cosmetics industry in China as part of its £100 million global expansion. However, Chinese government regulations required overseas cosmetic products to be animal tested, and so The Body Shop chose to cancel its plan to enter this untapped market and adhere instead to its mission statement. According to its industry profile in China, the Chinese cosmetics market grew by 8.6 per cent in 2008 alone, signifying one of the highest industry growth rates globally. China is considered by many to be one of the last untapped markets for Western products, given the county’s rapidly increasing standards of living and education.

So, with the possibility of renegotiating to enter new markets, how important is the social responsibility of a multination company like The Body Shop? Adrienne Fox, a journalist from HR Magazine, believes that ethical and socially responsible businesses can attract investors, customers and top talent – all leading to financial gain, as well as reducing government regulation and the interference of environmental and labour activists. According to Richard Panico, the founder of Integrated Project Management, a long-run strategy like this will generate more market share and higher profits by promoting a positive “corporate image” and customer loyalty.

It is clear that most of the focus between a company’s social responsibility and its impact on market share is upon the link that develops between the level of customer loyalty and trust, and the brand name of the company.

The organisational psychologist Philip H. Mirvis believes that a firm’s social credentials can help to differentiate its brand from its competitors, and that consumers will switch brands due to a company’s corporate social responsibility reputation. Increasingly, companies are utilising corporate social responsibility as a unique selling point in their marketing strategy.  When a product’s social content matches its target consumer’s personal interests, this can be decisive in building brand loyalty.

A survey conducted by The Body Shop in 2008 noted that the public perception of a brand as ‘ethical’ can have a significant impact on the company’s sales. As The Body Shop has reported, “The social responsibilities of a brand are as important as the price when making purchasing decisions…34% said their purchases of The Body Shop products were based on the ethical reputation of a company.”

In her article ‘The Ethical Progression’, Olivia Toth cites The Body Shop as one of the first examples of a company that has benefitted from a largely “social” belief. According to her, this strong ethic has given the brand huge global credibility.

Rosa Chun, Professor of Manchester Business School, believes that The Body Shop’s ability to gain and maintain high customer loyalty and build its brand image is largely due to consumer concerns about animal testing of cosmetics in many countries. By establishing the company’s policy ‘Against Animal Testing’, The Body Shop has aroused consumer awareness and so when consumers make purchasing decisions, they consider The Body Shop to have a deeper connection with their own values.

Furthermore, according to the marketing director of The Body Shop, Andy King, the company has deliberately repositioned itself and changed its product offering by specialising in skin and hair products made from natural ingredients sourced from third world countries, once again reaping the rewards of its focus on corporate social responsibility. Since The Body Shop has been taken over by L’Oreal, it will be interesting to analyse the longer term impact of L’Oreal and its global takeover of The Body Shop on the company’s brand name, as certain issues relating to L’Oreal and the environmental impact of its activities have attracted the attention of worldwide pressure groups.

As the previous discussion has highlighted, the rapid growth of the cosmetics industry in China means that many opportunities appear to exist for The Body Shop to grow in this market. China’s huge population of 1.3 billion and its significant disposable income growth are both indicative of the huge spending power of the Chinese cosmetics market. L’Oreal also has a significant market share (almost one-third) and as a huge multinational company, it seems to have the resources and ‘name’ to successfully introduce a Body Shop range in China. But given that the Chinese government still enforces a policy of animal testing on all cosmetic products, the question remains: what are the possible ‘costs’ of this move?  If The Body Shop were to enter the market at the expense of their ‘no animal testing’ stance, there is considerable evidence to suggest that this may negatively affect their global brand name and market share.

Given that the cosmetics industry in China is highly competitive, with more than 3000 cosmetics brands currently operating, any move by The Body Shop to relax their policy against animal testing would stifle their success not only in China, but also globally.  The Body Shop has built its reputation on the ‘five pillars’ of its social responsibility policy; a movement away from these values by entering the China market may significantly disadvantage the company in its core markets, and would therefore be an undesirable strategic move.

Multinational Attempts to Establish Framework

In 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan launched a partnership called the Global Compact, which was designed to regulate the behaviour of transnational corporations (TNCs) and stop the exploitation of the developing world by adopting a global framework of corporate social responsibility. Based on broad principles covering areas such as protection of human rights, freedom of collective bargaining, elimination of forced and child labour, anti-discrimination, environmental responsibility and anti-corruption, the Compact demonstrates the most comprehensive international solution for aligning TNC strategy with universally acceptable principles.

Successes of the First Chapter

The Global Compact has co-ordinated a new global paradigm in which more than 5300 businesses across 130 countries have adhered to a policy platform and practical framework that internalises their principles. But most importantly, these business collaborate in pursuit of broad societal goals. The Global Compact Local Networks have established local grassroots interest and multi-stakeholder enthusiasm, in which Global Compact participants and interested stakeholders come together to facilitate and intensify a company’s commitment to the Global Compact.

Yet after more than 10 years, the effectiveness of the Global Compact must be re-assessed, as the framework focuses on the importance of this initiative only as a voluntary complement to, and substitute for, a regulatory regime. It is clear that transnational corporations, as private organisations, have an obligation to respect the law regarding human rights more so than states and civil servants. But as Teitelbaum argues, there are prominent and definite limits to creating a binding instrument to enforce respect for human rights in the realm of business activity.

Challenges of Market-Driven Mitosis

Nation states are essentially geographically defined. They retain individual cultural, social and economic tenets, which  sometimes produce ideological and physical conflicts. Given that most are members of the United Nations, nation states accordingly produce, update and follow the United Nations’ guidelines and mandate in order to reinforce the intentions of their membership. In contrast, transnational corporations, which have the ability to co-ordinate and control processes in production networks in multiple countries, are able to surpass and transcend these traditional geographical labels and principles. It is for this reason that the establishment and application of an international framework makes it difficult to influence the systematic profit-driven behaviour of these firms.

As foreign direct investment and other non-financial entrances have provided Least Developed Countries with the impetus to spur economic activities and the opportunity to improve the quality and standards of life, the inevitable autonomy and affluence of these corporations allows them to transform and manipulate a country’s social, cultural and ecological conditions. Apple’s recent record of its labour relations in China, including reports of the lethal effects of chemicals on workers and a spate of suicides due to poor working conditions, has been overwhelmed by increasing monthly profits from its fusion of music, sleek design and latest wireless technology. This is one of many examples of how a corporation can penetrate various countries and retain the principles of its home-country policy, unaffected by the consequences of culture deviations. Therefore, it points to the appropriate structure and mechanism for targeting not only a two-way home-host relation, but also a more complex corporation having hosts in various countries. An international response fails to address these intricacies, as it instead standardises TNC behaviour according to a common denominator which encourages companies to adopt an unconditional version of corporate ‘shadow’ responsibility.

In the case of the Global Compact, critics believe that the discretionary nature of these voluntary initiatives fails to provide the necessary regulatory and institutional framework to ensure effective and transparent management of TNCs. In lieu of the conditions of United Nations membership, the Compact still permits companies that have previously violated many of its humanitarian and environmental clauses. In addition, a corporation’s participation is not measured against its demonstrated progress, with the Compact containing no binding mechanisms for sanctioning member companies for non-compliance with its principles. The United Nations has therefore been unable to hold corporations accountable, with the establishment of its Programme on Transnational Corporations in 1974 now sidelined through its incorporation into the minor United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s Division on Investment, Technology and Enterprise Development. Its current capacity now mainly deals with collecting and analysing TNC information on report operations and providing advisory services to developing countries, with no details on specific implementation of the overall operations of TNCs.

Moreover, its normative orientation demonstrates the far more concerning issue of the use of the Compact by companies as a purely speculative marketing advantage for bluewashing and greenwashing, marked with the United Nations’ ‘seal of approval’. The neoliberal trajectory of the Global Compact program is now more akin to a public relations instrument designed to allow companies to “look good without really doing the public good”, as reaffirmed by previous UN Secretary-General principal advisor for the Global Compact, John Ruggie.

The Next Chapter

While the Global Compact, as an ideological concept, provides greater opportunities for private and non-private entities to address the institutional and operating context of global governance, there is still considerable concern that the governments of developing countries, inevitably attracted by the prospect of economic growth, will fall into the clutches of large corporations. As such, the Global Compact can be viewed as a further  indication of a corporate-run United Nations, in which corporations are damaging and contradicting the name and long-standing reputation of the United Nations. The next Global Compact Leaders Summit in 2013 will need to ensure that executives retain their corporate citizenship at the highest level, producing strategic recommendations to protect the legitimacy of the program and balancing both their corporate and humanitarian ambitions.

We are constantly reminded that we live in an ‘information age’, that our world is decentralised and globalised. We are reminded of the power of the media as a tool for democratisation, creating a platform for the voices of many and challenging the assumed authority of the state and corporations. This is the dominant narrative of our time: from the classroom to the boardroom, ‘social’ and ‘mass media’ pervade scholarly and common discourse regarding contemporary society.

These forms of media encourage the belief that consumption and choice are the true means of global democratisation. People from different cultures, different nations and different ideologies can communicate through the Internet, sharing and experiencing new ideas. There is no locus of authority;  no culture or ideology is prioritised or hegemonic.

But the alleged democracy of mass and social media is the fiction of a modern society that is infatuated with themes of participation, freedom and equality. These ideas are noble, but they tend to disengage global events from their socio-cultural and historical contexts and instead impose the West as a reference point. One example is the media’s proclivity for talking about Facebook and Twitter when discussing the recent uprisings in the Arab world – an attempt at making the events relevant and comprehensible for an indifferent public.

Treating mass media as a corporation reveals the subtle nuances of its social function. We can examine the mass media in terms of neo-colonialism and cultural imperialism. The neo-colonial aspect of mass media suggests that the media profits from the consumption practices of foreign nations, while the culturally imperialist aspect suggests that the media profits by shaping the consumption practices of these countries. We can understand these phenomena in terms of ‘electronic’ or ‘media imperialism’.

Colonialism Redefined

The subtlety of electronic imperialism stems from the assumed benignity of mass media. Consumption is understood as a purely individual choice. If we dislike a television program, we switch it off. If we dislike an advertisement, we ignore it. But media consumption is at the very centre of our culture; its role is too significant to be ignored. The status of mass media as an integral component of everyday leisure, work and social communication (for example, water cooler conversations) sustains its structural import in contemporary society. Social media only accelerated these trends, and while such media cannot wholly replace ‘real’ social relations, it becomes a talking point and a form of networking and therefore influences how we interrelate.

Satiating the desires and inclinations of the public is at the core of mass media. The corporate structure at the foundation of most television and Internet networks determines the profit-geared function of mass media’s message. The synthesis of information-as-entertainment and its need for widespread dissemination, equipped with the financial capital of these media firms, produces social capital as the media guides society around its goals. Fulfilling these goals requires the exploitation of the consumption habits of modern citizens.

But while mass media is a Western phenomenon, its reach extends across national borders into communities and cultures around the world. While local entertainment and information programs exist in the ‘global south’, a disproportionate volume of films, television programs and websites originate in the ‘global north’ – namely, the United States and Europe. The prosperity of the ‘north’ ensures a prolific entertainment and information industry.

Furthermore, while television sets and computers are mostly produced in developing nations, they are primarily distributed in the West where the very rules for their assembly also originated. Tom McPhail, who developed electronic colonialism theory, draws on Marshall McLuhan’s concept of ‘medium as message’ and theorises on the power of technology in shaping the values and beliefs of foreign cultures.

The protocols, rules and systems of modern Western technology lead to the intellectual restructuring of those societies that must abide by these ‘laws’. Electronic imperialism echoes the orientalising of traditional colonialism. In order to procure access to ‘being’ in a sociological sense – which includes potential, satisfaction, wealth, status, hope and knowledge – the instruments of modernity (like television) must be acquired and submitted to.

The logic of electronic media is propagated through these means. Corporations disseminate information through consumerist broadcasting – advertisements, brands, public relations, irritating viral campaigns, obnoxious billboards, sometimes even megaphones! – producing the doxa or ‘common sense’ of our age. The values of consumerism become the subsuming logic of modernity, governing how we behave and think.

Consider, for instance, Slumdog Millionaire - itself an example of an Orientalist portrayal distributed to the portrayed culture. Local Indian citizens crowd around television sets that illuminate the darkness of the slums, anticipating the protagonist Jamal’s victory on Who Wants to Be A Millionaire. Mass media is seen as connecting people regardless of geography, class or status. Everyone is equal. Everyone is involved. This narrative is entrenched in modern society: advertisements for mobile phones and other communication technologies often highlight and employ motifs of ‘connection’ and ‘togetherness’, which become metaphors for happiness and satisfaction.

Another function of mass media in this ‘new imperialism’ is its construction of the Other. The ‘democracy’ of mass media rests on consumer participation through viewership. However, the media also influences how its viewers approach and interpret reality. Mass media therefore both influences and is influenced by the (connected) public. This process is analogous to a ‘synopticon’: we are held under the gaze of authority, yet they are held equally under our own.

However, this synopticon is exclusionary to the Other, which is either an illegitimate participator or entirely absent. In other words, the Other – in this case, the developing world – does not interact with Western mass media except as an object thereof.  For instance, think of charity advertisements, the shock! horror! that accompanies every story on the East/South, the trope of the ‘token ethnic’, and so on.  These images are then transmitted to the West without any active engagement in the very image that is produced. This parallels the imperialist project of Orientalism, whereby the Other is defined (and is forced to define itself) in the terms produced by the imperialist centre – in this case, the ‘global north’.

The New Phase of Imperialism

Electronic colonialism has a significant impact on the ‘global south’. Persistent violence, social stratification, political destabilisation and institutionalised poverty can be partially (but importantly) attributed to the effects of electronic imperialism. A comparison of the Middle East/North Africa and Japan, seen as anti-West and pro-West respectively, exemplifies these factors.

The Arab world is primarily perceived as unstable and violent, a portrayal that is facilitated by the mass media. Major television networks perpetuate this image through their disproportionate coverage of these regions. Events that capture the interest of their viewership will invariably be shown, and these events usually mould to preconceptions of the region. Thus, Islamic violence makes it onto the news, feeding off Western paranoia and the voyeuristic fetishism of violence in Other worlds; meanwhile, protests against governments also make it onto the news, again framed and executed in terms of Western symbology.

While there is nobility in the actions of the protesters, Western electronic imperialism constrains their overall success. Western media focus on signs written in English, and on interviewees who can invoke the empathy of a public whose mentality is generally incongruous with Middle Eastern thought. This empowers some, but disempowers others. Furthermore, a reliance on Western news media can itself often lead to violence. For example, terrorism’s goals include not only the direct consequences of violence but also the indirect consequences of global exposure, as if they were performers on a stage. This vicious cycle of exposure and violence reinforces instability in these regions.

On the other hand, Japan is a nation of relative peace and prosperity. While Japan is not part of the ‘Western world’, it is often seen as ‘faux-Western’. Its politics, economics and society align with most of the Western world, and yet historically it is viewed as an ‘Eastern nation’. Despite this, Japan’s position as an almost honorary member of the West is enabled by mass media representations of Japan as hypermodern, wealthy and quirky.

These representations include kawaii aesthetics such as the big-eyed, flustered, generic anime characters, or the grotesque aesthetics of horror and ‘mature’ anime. These images keep Japan at a distance from the West, while simultaneously encouraging the commercial perpetuation of this stereotype via merchandise and repetition, in order to access the social capital which comes with ‘Western’ status. This boosts Japans own ‘colonial’ power in the Asian region, due to its position in global media.

Electronic colonialism works in a variety of ways, with a variety of different effects. The core of electronic colonialism is the propagation of Western values and ideals through the symbolism of technology, and the transmission of information through the hegemonic Western media as an extrapolation of neoliberal corporate power. Electronic colonialism, subtle as it is, robs cultural conceptions of their own identity and leads to political, social and economic destabilisation.

“The country is waiting. It is scanning the horizon hoping for some institution to distinguish itself, to step forward, to raise the bar, to be the standard bearer and the arena for social and civic responsibility – to fill a moral vacuum. What an opportunity. We only have to reach out and grab it.”

Paul Newman, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP) Founding Co-Chair, CEO of Newman’s Own Inc., and actor (1925-2008)

Giant private corporations are often portrayed as the baddies, rebelling against international goals and laws, revelling in the fruits of super-globalisation and, at times, seeming to threaten state sovereignty. But are they really? Private actors have emerged strong in the philanthropic arena for various reasons, both altruistic and strategic. However, their philanthropic ventures have increasingly aligned with a global humanitarian agenda, particularly through forging close partnerships with the UN. It has become clear that corporate actors are alive and well in influencing global policy and development.

The UN + Corporate Duo

Corporations are increasingly expected to fill the void in a global governance architecture concerned with the values of consensus, collectivity, humanitarianism, moral responsibility and obligation. In times of humanitarian crisis, the international community finds itself obliged to assist and even feels responsible for the crime of inaction. The 2005 World Summit, which coined the term ‘Responsibility to Protect’, and the subsequent UN Global Compact (UNGC) succeeded in transforming corporate identities from profit-guzzling actors to ‘corporate citizens’ with philanthropic obligations. The UNGC asked its participants to seek partnerships in support of broader UN goals, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), aiming to reduce poverty and improve health, education and community development.

The UN is a believer in ‘“philanthrocapitalism”, as coined in Matt Bishop and Michael Green’s book of the same name, whereby the rich can ‘save’ the world. Between 1990 and 2005, private external capital flows to developing countries increased from $50 billion to over $640 billion. This funding has focused on the creation of democratic institutions, promoting human rights and ensuring the participation of all groups in democratic processes. Terms such as ‘development’, ‘citizenship’, ‘obligation’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘democracy’ have strengthened a liberalist discursive regime, creating normative identities that demand certain practices and capacities from corporations.

Pure Altruism(?)

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ 2009 report entitled ‘Doing the Right Thing’ described the process by which they raised $U.S.4 million ($A3,790,750) to build schools for four refugee camps in Darfur, Sudan (completed in early 2010). This will provide education for at least 20,000 children over the next five years.

Denim brand G-Star Raw, a partner of the UN Office of Partnerships, has also been applauded for increasing the publicity of MDGs since launching a series of events in 2009, such as the ‘Stand Up and Take Action’ campaign and the UN Millennium Campaign.  In addition, they have been skyping with Kenyan youth on poverty, life experiences and how our governments should respond. Rather than merely directing money towards global problems, G-Star is also investing in sustainable fabrics such as organic cotton produced without the use of pesticides or synthetic fertilisers, to decrease ecological impacts and help local farmers. This both reflects and enhances norms of environmental sustainability, while simultaneously redefining such virtuous actions as ‘trendy’, making the brand and their customers appear to be politically-savvy fashionistas.

The list is endless. McDonald’s and Gloria Jeans’ ‘fair trade’ Rainforest Alliance is another one we see on almost a daily basis. One of the leading organisations promoting fairer trade includes the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation, which believes that “informed consumer choices” should contribute to a fairer international trade system. The fruits of the global fair trade movement can also be seen in the University of Sydney’s first referendum considering its Green Paper, which voted yes to fair trade coffee in May 2010.

It is questionable as to whether corporations have autonomously adhered to their corporate social responsibility in contributing to ecologically sustainable development to appeal to consumers, or if this was a pressured reaction from the international community in its global fair trade movement aiming to alleviate poverty. Nevertheless, consumer-advocates have clearly identified that corporations play a major role in setting coffee prices and providing the wages for families in developing countries, “so when you drink coffee, the people who produced it earn more than enough … to feed their family for a day”. Consumers and corporations are simultaneously affecting each other’s preferences and interests, in upholding greater purposes for the international community as good global and corporate citizens.

These highly visible mega-corporations are effectively raising awareness on such humanitarian global issues and building a popular culture around them. After transforming into ‘global corporate citizens’ themselves, they’re advocating that consumers become global citizens as well. In this sense, the UN-corporate duo has worked well: funding has increased, and corporations have been pressured to become responsible.

Strategic Philanthropy: the Committee to Encourage Corporate Philanthropy

Established in 1999, CECP was initially comprised of 30 Chief Executive Officers, but that number has since grown to over 175. CECP considers philanthropy necessary in order to address global challenges “from terrorism and climate change to pandemic disease and poverty”. But corporations don’t just fund any cause; it can also be a very strategic process. It’s no accident that CECP finds education imperative, especially in places like the Arab and Muslim worlds and post-conflict societies, because a peaceful environment ultimately creates a good business environment for better profits.

At CECP’s February 2010 Board of Boards Conference, Chairman of Hasbro Alan Hassenfeld questioned: “If you take what were the developing countries; the Chinas, the Brazils, the Indias, they are really creating – we believe a new paradigm in the globalised world. However we, in the United States and in Europe – we’re trying to protect an old paradigm. And the question is how people feel about how we begin to join or … are we going to get left behind?” This highlights the intentional orchestration of power generated by CECP in solidifying liberalist and capitalist ideologies for their hegemony in the world economy.

But corporations have also realised that building a better image and reputation can result in higher revenues in the long term. In this way, they’ve identified that there is a ‘win-win’ aspect of philanthropy that aligns their interests with the broader values of international civil society. They were so enthusiastic that they even created International Corporate Philanthropy Day.

One Step Further with the: “OH! Look over there!” Tactic

Corporations can and do take advantage of the virtuous image. Stephen Brammer and Andrew Millington demonstrate that the link between reputation or corporate image and philanthropy is stronger in industries that have significant negative social externalities. The corporate image of the tobacco industry is clearly difficult to cast in a positive light, given that it can be blamed for an estimated 10 million deaths globally by 2020.  Philip Morris focused on hunger relief as the subject of philanthropy, diverting attention away from tobacco-related issues. This hunger relief campaign, labelled PM21, started in 1990; by 2005, it had donated more than $1.5 billion to over 700 U.S. organisations and 70 countries. Morris mobilised all forms of media to advertise PM21 and to de-link the consequences of cigarettes from the company that sold them.

Another unfortunate example is the Gates Foundation.  The Foundation provided vaccinations for polio and measles for residents who contracted respiratory diseases from a neighbouring oil plant in which the Gates’ had invested. Furthermore, they supported intellectual property laws that limited access to AIDS medication.

Rather than focusing on the underlying motives, acts of corporate philanthropy display prevailing liberal norms and values under global governance. As a result, such corporations’ negative externalities are also mitigated.

Conclusion

Certainly, philanthropy does not address the key causes of poverty, ill health and environmental injustice.  We can all easily take the Dependency-Marxist view and point to the greater structural reasons: the North-South international division of labour, with the North increasing the inequality gap that forces the poor to remain poor and replaces the overtly colonial empire with a capital empire. This, of course, should be addressed.

However, the pro-philanthropy argument set forth by Jeffrey Sachs in The End of Poverty is valid, in the sense that philanthropy is practical and valuable in alleviating poverty in the short term. His policies, based on the MDGs, require that the rich provide 0.7 per cent of their GNP for foreign aid, which should be used for investment in infrastructure and human capital. Undeniably, these services and goods are urgent requirements for the survival of poor countries, and they can be provided efficiently.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether a corporation is acting out of genuine altruism, strategic interest or merely faking the act entirely in its philanthrocapitalistic ventures. But it is clear that the prevailing global governance architecture embedded in liberalist cultures, values, norms and policies has had an effect in increasing corporate philanthropy – and vice versa. The UN has successfully promoted the ideas of both ‘good corporate citizenship’ and corporate social responsibility through integrating its democratic ideologies, promoting human rights (MDGs) and environmental sustainability. Direct partnerships with corporations like PwC and G-Star have highlighted this and shown the flow-on effect in shaping consumer-advocate identity, trends and culture.

The idea of philanthropy itself has powerful underlying connotations of virtue, selflessness and higher purpose which have been advocated by international civil society. But in return, this idea has been strengthened by the corporate sector, and so the process can be seen as a virtuous cycle. The strengthening normative culture of becoming responsible corporate and individual global citizens can be seen as an important positive outcome arising from the practice of corporate philanthropy.

The economic landscape in Africa is a dynamic one. The Wall Street Journal has heralded a “new gold rush under way for the African consumer” in response to an emerging consumer class, particularly in the oil-rich sub-Saharan region. Growing opportunities for paid employment have led to an increased demand for non-essential items, especially retail goods, and multinational corporations such as Vodafone and Walmart are beginning to take notice. While the primary commercial interest still lies with the array of raw materials and minerals, consultancy firm McKinsey & Co. estimates that there are more middle-income consumers in Africa than in India, and that African consumer spending in the retail sector will reach $U.S.1.4 trillion by 2020. Multinational companies from China and the U.S. have recognised these developments and are competing to maximise investment opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa.

With all this promise, economic growth could be expected, even in a continent plagued by extreme famine and poor living conditions. On a fundamental level, the economic flows from private investors should spill over and create improved infrastructure and employment opportunities for the estimated 60 per cent of Africans living below the UN poverty line. Yet ongoing political turmoil continues to endanger the credibility and viability of long-term investment, as well as the enforceability of contracts between government and business stakeholders. In spite of its potential, these factors leave Africa ranked at the bottom of the World Bank’s ‘Ease of Doing Business’ survey.

Traditional Methods are Inadequate

Logically, then, in order to access the wealth of prospects that the burgeoning African economy affords, multinational companies should be investing in education and particularly in skilled labour, which will facilitate both economic and social developments. However, this is not always the case. Technical educational institutions remain underfunded, showing little regard for the protection of citizens who perform the manual labour. Furthermore, because the customer is overseas, the lack of funding in factories mean that there is little processing to be done in Africa itself, with companies seeing little incentive to upgrade local skills and invest in long-term training schemes. Therefore, long-term development remains stalled.

The mining sector’s employment of a contract labour system renders undeveloped communities static, demoting workers to slave-labour status (to put it crudely) which does nothing to quell the continuing distrust of Western companies. Although it is true that African countries will be subject to the ‘worst type’ of multinational companies – that is, those involved in energy, mineral and precious metal – these companies have a certain social responsibility to invest in skilled labour and decent workplaces. While this involves a profit margin sacrifice, the building of factories and research centres instead of offices and retail outlets will result in marked employment stimulus, which will then potentially diminish the political unrest which attends widespread poverty.

The short-term relationship between corporations and government in the process of resource extraction means there is little consideration of long-term communal development schemes. It is therefore necessary to employ the pressures of the international community and concepts such as corporate social responsibility to motivate these actors and hold them accountable, so that workers and citizens in these regions receive more beneficial outcomes.

High Stakes in the Oil and Mining Industries

Due to recent political turmoil in the Middle East, there is more demand than ever for new oil sources. Africa holds 9.3 per cent of the world’s known oil reserves, and the politically fragile states of Nigeria, Algeria, Libya and Angola contain 85 per cent of these extractable resources. Some states are already taking advantage of these: Russia’s Gazprom Ltd is in the midst of negotiations with the Nigerian government, while Angola has become the main supplier of crude oil to China.

Between 2002 and 2006, publicly listed oil companies tripled their spending in Africa, equivalent to 3 per cent of combined gross domestic product. BP announced second quarter profits of £4.8 billion, Shell reported £3.9 billion, and Exxon Mobil reported £5.95 billion as a result of respective ventures on the African continent. This is more than the collective debt relief and foreign aid received during the same period by the countries in Africa.

However, despite this rare opportunity for overwhelming economic gains, there are disturbing reasons as to why it has not been realised. The UN reports that 12 of the 20 wealthiest men in Angola are government officials and five are former officials; meanwhile, 60 per cent of the population live in extreme poverty. In this case, foreign resource-driven economic involvement in Nigeria has intensified political unrest. The quasi-imperialist rivalries between companies resulted in the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, which funded militants to destroy a pipeline and cut production by 40,000 barrels per day last year.

In the mining sector, along Zambia’s Copperbelt, Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) made plans in 2002 for a new deep mine that would require two villages to be relocated years prior to the development, supported by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Anglo American. Subsequently, both IFC and Anglo American withdrew from the project due to declining copper prices. Their withdrawal made the prospect of the new mine infeasible, making the resettlement redundant and subjecting villagers to the whim of market fluctuations and corporate misgivings. As the life span of pre-existing mines is limited, villagers will be without a stable income to sustain these new settlements. Interestingly, KCM did embark on a well-known corporate social responsibility program in Zambia, winning the President’s Special Award in 2003. Yet despite its efforts, it was unable to overcome fundamental business decisions rooted in the primary requirement of profitability.

Positive Initiatives for Mutual Growth

Therefore, it can be seen that the agenda of multinational corporations seeking investment in Africa is plagued by short-term considerations. Frenzied demand has undermined, and in many cases overridden, potential for economic stimulus that would see little or no dent in the large profit margins of multinationals, while improving local living standards and raising the firms’ social consciousness. However, relationships with global corporations do not need to be so limited. If companies adopted sensible macro-economic policy initiatives that prioritised long-term considerations, they could ultimately profit from the benefits of non-violent resolution to socio-political conflicts and economic stimulus in communities.

This is not a new concept. Over the last decade, corporate social responsibility has delivered several successful payoffs. In 2004, Smicor, a subsidiary of Israel’s Leviev conglomerate that produces a small proportion of the African diamond output, desired a higher market share. It recruited and trained 400 locals in Windhoek by expanding mining to production, co-operating with the Government, and investing in the high-value diamond-cutting factories. The mining multinational Anglo American developed a zinc-processing factory at its mine in the Namib Desert. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola supplies insulated cabins to traders who sell its products.

From the perspective of government, Namibia has placed a heavy emphasis on attracting and maximising investment from trans- and multinationals. Namibia’s Ministry of Trade and Industry has established an incentive scheme for export-oriented investment, as well as a black empowerment program that draws investor attention to a previously neglected workforce. Namibia’s tactic is ideal as it is driven by competition and balanced agenda-setting, rather than elitist bureaucracy or corrupt and turbulent negotiation.

A Project for the Future

It is without question that multinational companies possess the financial capacity to practise some form of social responsibility in the African market, whether it be developing industrial investments to include processing units, or funding skilled labour programs and training rather than relying on extensive contract labour schemes. While this venture to invest in developing states that are plagued by political unrest will entail risks and costs, it will also positively influence the market.  This will  create a legacy rooted in ethical protocol which will address corruption and wealth distribution through strategic development.

The repercussions of damaging foreign investment practices in host nations extend to all spheres of society, and multinational companies must no longer feign ignorance. Without this ethical core, further political unrest will ensue, ensuring that the resources available for profit remain untouched.  Accordingly, those citizens in need of economic reform will be overlooked once more by the international community.

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), increasingly known as the ‘third sector’, are a seemingly established force. Yet in the field of international development and international relations, they are a relatively new phenomenon.

Their growing influence has overturned the established statist order by bridging the fissures between states and citizens. Where the state fails to protect the needy from the evils of poverty, disease and famine, the third sector acts to close the breach.

While NGOs are increasingly asserting a newfound influence on developmental economics, they have also provided private individual actors and organisations with the potential to fundamentally transform the global arena. Nowhere is this more evident than in the transformation of Kenya’s third sector.

Independence Chimes, the Kenyan Third Sector Flourishes

The 1952 Mau Mau uprising in Kenya against the British colonial forces gave birth to the ‘third sector’ – that recognisable section of society comprised of volunteers and charity-workers who, through their altruism, provide important services to citizens, business and government alike. The birth of NGOs in Kenya began in a very unfamiliar and unconventional manner.
In the wake of the Mau Mau uprisings, the Christian Council of Kenya (CCK) – a pre-eminent religious NGO – was recruited by the colonial government to run ‘rehabilitation programs’.  In reality, this was a façade designed to intern suspected rebel guerrillas. This NGO, and others like it, formed an apparatus through which the colonial government maintained its power. Conversely, organisations were formed which allowed the Kikuyus people to air their anti-colonial demands, such as the establishment of the Kikuyu Central Association in 1924. By 1952, these organisations posed such a threat that the colonial government banned them entirely.

Historically, Kenya’s third sector has struggled between those organisations looking for reform, and those created to perpetuate colonisation. The third sector aroused both suspicion and praise. While it provided for the needs of many, it also served to perpetuate a quickly disappearing colonial regime. With independence and the rise of Jomo Kenyatta, however, the third sector took on a new face, moulded around the development discourse pressed by the Washington technocrats. To survive, NGOs found themselves in partnership with the new Kenyan government, offering their services and, in some areas, taking up the traditional role of the state.

From 1977 to 1987, the number of NGOs in Kenya proliferated by over 200 per cent. By 1990, the NGO Co-ordination Act was passed, which codified a more effective framework for the Kenyan third sector. There are now 4000 NGOs registered in Kenya, one in 10 of which is international. They employ over 50,000 individuals and account for 3 per cent of GDP.  In partnership with government, Kenya’s NGOs have built the largest third sector in the world.

The immense size of the third sector in Kenya means that it is, in a sense, a form of government. The employees of third and public sectors are economically and culturally intertwined through overlapping employee pools, training and education. These linkages ensure a common sense of purpose and strategic interweaving of government and NGOs. International donors often do not approach government directly, preferring to channel their funds through the third sector to ensure their desired societal outcomes. For example, USAID often favours Mission hospitals over government hospitals to deliver health aid. The preference for third sector organisations has re-framed the social contract in Kenya, meaning that citizens no longer look solely to government for the services they desperately need.

The Third Sector as a Global Trend: an Adversary or Ally of Governments?

Kenya is just one example of the profound impact that the third sector is having globally. Across the world, the sector has become engaged in transforming individual lives at the local level through micro-finance in countries like Bangladesh. Meanwhile, macro-level advocacy has driven the large push toward eradicating malaria and the ‘Highways in Africa’ project.

Within the global arena, this has left developing states with a conundrum: have they found a new ally in the fight against poverty, or are the functions of government being eroded by powerful private foreign organisations? The answer lies somewhere in-between. For all of their power, NGOs still rely on the state more than ever both for security, and to give authority to their programs locally. Likewise, the developing states require NGOs to give them the credibility they need internationally.

It is important to acknowledge that NGOs are principally private organisations answerable to Western donors, and that their development programs lend them enormous influence without the pressure of democratic accountability. The stability of the third sector is also questionable, with the Global Financial Crisis threatening many of their donor bases. Nevertheless in Kenya, NGOs – in partnership with government – have transformed agriculture, primary education and hospitals across the country. Where crops once failed from poor agriculture practices and business failed from a lack of credit (rather than a lack of hard work or ingenuity), Kenya’s NGO-supported reforms have seen an amazing turnaround in these areas.

States like Kenya that have properly harnessed the power of NGOs have seen amazing results. NGOs bring with them a wealth of skills, financial backing and credibility which, in partnership with good local government, give individuals in both the developing and developed world the potential to transform the global arena.