I hope these types of posts don’t bore you, but it constantly astounds me how America (or, to be more precise: the current American administration) can be so blind to the devastating long term effects of ignoring the emerging connection economy. In a world where the size of your army is no longer a guarantee of success, and the key to getting anything done is networking, connections and the human touch, its amazing that America continues to isolate itself and act as a law unto itself.
In The New Scientist, 19 March 2005, it was reported that America have gone back on a 2003 US-Vietnam agreement, whereby America would provide funding into the long-term health effects of “Agent Orange” (specifically dioxin TCDD) used during the Vietnam War to strip foliage. Vietnam has long claimed that this caused deformities in the children and grandchildren of those who were exposed to it during the war. The USA has consistently denied this possibility.
The research was necessary to support a class action suit against US suppliers of dioxin TCDD, including Monsanto (now famous for GM seeds) and Dow Chemicals. (The suit has since been dismissed because no link could be shown between the defendant’s herbicides and the plaintiff’s exposure to dioxin). Once again, America backs away from its international responsibilities, and shows itself to be an illegitimate partner in a connected world.
One day, this consistent lack of connection will come home to roost.
Are you kidding me? Isn’t the Mayo Clinic American? Isn’t it located in the same country you are bashing? How about a little consistency in thought here. You even posted these blogs on the same day. Your point is well taken on the dioxin, but you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth when you commend an American organization and trash the country at the same time. Inconsistency in thought will also come home to roost.
If you read carefully (or even if you don’t) you will notice that I make a distinction between “the country” and “the current administration (government) of the country”.
You are correct that there are many companies (and individuals) in the USA who fully understand this connection economy (I am not sure about the Mayo Clinic :-)), and are doing well within it. The American government, on the other hand, could do with a bit of help. And since (just) over 50% of the American voters (probably closer to 20% of actual Americans) put their government there, I suppose I should be allowed to make (some) generalisations.
Having said that, I think you’re guilty of some fuzzy logic. It is possible to both condemn on one issue (the connection economy and Gitmo, for example) and be impressed on another (their economy, Hollywood, for example). That’s not inconsistent at all.
Hasn’t your organization recently been doing collaborative work with a US “government” organization that has a fantastic model of doing work in the connection economy? While the US government certainly isn’t perfect in any sense, it seems as if once again the point here is missed. I am not so sure about the “fuzzy” logic considering your recent collaboration efforts.
Green eyed bandit, I have to defend Greame on this point. We’re living in a post-modern world, why do you feel the need to encourage us to apply the old ‘black and white’ philosophy which was conceived in era of fascism?
All things are inherently good and bad. It is our responsibility to celebrate the good and denounce the bad. The current US administration is both good and bad, so are all people and organisations that rule us. We interact, celebrate, engage, criticise and praise where it is due. We have learnt to operate in this thick grey ambiguity of post-modernism. This realisation starts with accepting that our own characters are both flawed and beautiful.
CarelJohn, I am well aware of the unencouraging “you are either with us or against us” mentality of the current US administration. I also support the discontent with the current ideologies, however the point I am making here is not about the US or “postmodern” world you speak of. Rather my point is about the ability to create trust between international organizations. I did not “feel the need” to encourage anybody to entertain your “old” black and white philosophy. If America is backing away from its international responsibilities and is an “illegitimate partner in a connected world” as Graeme so aptly put it, then why do we see an organization like the sponsors of this blog happily collaborating with another who it is so disgusted and unhappy with (i.e. US government). Further, how can one company publicly scorn an organization it works with and then expect that organization to respond without pointing out the inconsistency? How can one expect American CEO’s and organizations to be interested in working with an organization that focuses on “the people side of business” yet scorns an the same organization it works with? This issue is about relationship building and trust between international organizations, not promoting philosophies of “fascism”.
I am not sure why you say we are “happily collaborating” with the US government. Firstly, if we were interacting with the US government, if may be in an attempt to assist it (or the part of it we interact with) to become more connective. That would be completely consistent with the stance I took above.
Secondly, this blog is not an “official” voice for TomorrowToday. It is the “musings, insights, observations, etc” of the TomorrowToday.biz network. Therefore, it is completely consistent for me to share a view that may be contrary or tangential to the TomorrowToday approach (that, too, is part of the emerging reality of chaotic management).
Thirdly, I assume the arm of the US government you are referring to is the East-West Center. In fact, we interact with (and are contracted by) the APLP (Asia-Pacific Leadership Program – see http://education.eastwestcenter.org/aplp/). This is a stand alone leadership development course, which is linked to East-West Center. But our contract is with APLP.
The East-West Center was founded in the 1960s (I believe) in an attempt by the US government to create links with the Asia-Pacific nations. My understanding is that the early days were quite paternalistic, with an attitude something along this lines of “if we can get the Asians to come to America and see how great it is, maybe they won’t mess with us.” That’s probably an exaggeration, but maybe not.
Right now, I’d grant you that it appears to be one of the most “connecting” of all the US government arms I am aware of.
And I will grant Green Eyed Bandit this : it is impossible to speak of “the US government” as if it were one thing. That is why I spoke of “the current administration”. I am sure Green Eyed Bandit is aware of the difference between politicians elected to office for a short term and career politicians who actually run some great programs over decades. I was referring to the former, not the latter in my original post.
So, to bring my contribution to this fun discussion to an end, it is good to have voices like Green Eyed Bandit in the mix, who remind us not to over-generalise. So, to be specific about my original point (one you shall see me repeating over time): George W Bush and his team have done more to damage international relations, peace and America’s standing in the world than any other president or administration in living memory (and possible, ever). Point made.
Hee, Hee……I’m laughing because some CIA internet watch programme has probably picked up on some key words in the interaction above and flagged all of us, and this site, for future surveillance as enemies of the states. If that is the case we can all forget about doing business in the USA because we will never be able to get visas [like several of our local ‘struggle’ politicians & business people]……I better log off now…..I think my cell phone camera is watching me…. 😉
OK, I couldn’t resist. I was reading The Economist (11 June 2005) this morning, and in their Legal Matters section, they discuss how laws from other countries are affecting America’s (see here – premium content).
I quote (without further comment): “For the first century of their country’s history, American lawmakers and judges repeatedly looked beyond America’s borders, particularly to England, for precedents that could help their legal thinking. Over the next century, America ardently supported efforts to create a framework of international laws and institutions. But since the end of the Cold War, and particularly since the election of George Bush, it has grown increasingly resistant to “foreign” influence…. John Bolton, set to become Mr Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, believes that treaties that constrain American sovereignty in any way our “not legally binding”; but Mr Bush cited the Iraq’s transgressions of international law as part of the reason to go to war. Mr Bush has pulled America out of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto agreement on the environment, ignored international laws of war and sent terrorist suspects into legal limbo in Guantanamo; yet America is among the strongest backers of global rules on trade, finance and international investment….
In fact, as long as global rules and institutions help its own interests, America was happy to go along with them….
At a crisis meeting in the White House after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, [George Bush] is reported as saying: “I don’t care what the international lawyers say. We’re going to kick some ass!” And so he did. There followed a string of violations of international humanitarian law….
In virtually every other country in the world, an international treaty or convention, once ratified, overrides domestic law. Not so in the United States; it simply becomes part of the ordinary body of American law. As such, it can be ignored by the President or Senate if national security, or even ideology, seems more important….
Under a treaty that came into force last year, extradition rules have been eased between Britain and the United States. American no longer has to present supporting evidence against someone it wants to extradite from Britain. It simply has to claim and “extraditable” offence… But because the Senate has so far declined to ratify the treaty, the new rules do not apply the other way round. If Britain wants to extradite a suspect from America, it still has to make out a prima facie case against him….
Foreign companies are getting worried, too, about the use of America’s Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in 1789, which grants jurisdiction to American Federal Court over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”. This is increasingly being invoked by foreigners in America to sue international companies for alleged wrongs suffered outside the United States. One can imagine the rumpus if such a law were invoked, abroad, against an American company.
… last month, the Supreme Court rejected, in a 5-4 ruling, the death sentence at Peel by a Mexican citizen in Texas who had claimed that he and 50 other Mexicans on death row in America had been denied legal help from their consulates. In a ruling last year, the World Court upheld the Mexicans’ claim. By denying them consular help, it said, America had violated the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, ratified by the United States in 1969. Mr Bush, who as governor of Texas had signed many of the men’s death warrants, angrily announced America’s withdrawal from the protocol giving the court jurisdiction over such disputes.”
All of this controversy…I won’t reveal my identification until I am 80 years old…or maybe I am 80 years old:)