Zut A(rce)lors!
This is a story that has been simmering for a while; Mittal's hostile bid to take over Arcelor. To some it might be seen as simply another business story, one big company eating up another. But no, it is seen as another clash of civilisations - an "indian" company taking over a French institution. But really, that's a load of balls. Anyone who works in the corporate world (although I am not intending to exclude my humanitarian brother and his colleagues) knows that when dealing with these massive conglomerates nationality really plays no part. In fact, Mittal is a company registered in the Netherlands (presumably to take advantage of the tax benefits of the Dutch Antilles) which technically makes it a European company.
Regardless, there is a significant objection to the takeover by politicians, and in particular Jacque Chirac, with the seedy undertone of racism seemingly informing their views. Chirac has had to publicly state that "in principle there is no objection to a non-European taking over a European company". Can you spot what's wrong with this statement? First, as mentioned, Mittal is not an Indian company, but registered in the Netherlands. Second, the reference appears to be directed at Lakshmi Mittal, the head of Mittal, as opposed to a company. Chirac is not talking about one company taking over another but a "non-European" individual taking over a European company. This fact is underlined by the numerous news reports on this matter which always refer to Mittal as being owned by "Indian-born Lakshmi Mittal who is one of the richest people in the world" - this is true even of the Guardian, my favourite left leaning paper.
Martin Jacques in the Guardian has written a very interesting piece about the cartoons and referring to the Arcelor matter which he ties in as being indicative of Europe's contempt for other nations.
I wonder what you all think? Is it just paranoia or is someone really out to get me? Reading the Martin Jacques article, I was reminded of another quite astounding article I read in the Times recently on India's new found role as superpower in the cricket world. Don't worry, I'm not going to discuss in detail the lbw rule (leg before wicket), but the article makes interesting reading in terms of perception. The first sentence alone is a sign of things to come:
"INDIA was once the jewel in the crown of Britain’s Empire and no matter how willingly citizens of the sub-continent shook themselves free from the yoke in 1947, they and their descendants remain generally glad of many of the legacies, including sanitation, the legal and parliamentary systems and, not least, cricket."
The premise of the article is that when England ruled India it was a benign rule, helping the 'darkies' more than hurting them. Of course, if left to its own devices, India would not have the sanitation it has now...it would not be able to rule itself with its own laws, nor govern itself with its own parliament. What a load of crap!
Now that it is acknowledged that the coming century will belong to India and China it is India's turn to the play the benign dictator. It actually states later on that because India control 60% of the overall income from cricket this means that India
" must start to behave with an emperor’s responsibility. All empires tend to be commercial in origin, but some of the actions of the officials in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have put financial gain above the wider interests of the game and under the leadership of Sharad Pawar, the experienced politician, better was expected.".
When I read this I was pretty gobsmacked - remember this is an article written not more than a week ago, in the middle of the war in Iraq, having the benefit of seeing what western rule has done to the Middle East, Africa and basically anywhere else. Does the author really believe that England (and all other ruling powers) behaved with "emperor's responsibilities"? I love England and consider it to be one of the most tolerant places in the world but, come on, this is too much...
or maybe I'm just overreacting... what do you think?
Anyway, the original point was that all empires are commercial in origin, which I actually tend to agree with. Perhaps this is the real reason behind the resistance to the Arcelor hostile bid.
Regardless, there is a significant objection to the takeover by politicians, and in particular Jacque Chirac, with the seedy undertone of racism seemingly informing their views. Chirac has had to publicly state that "in principle there is no objection to a non-European taking over a European company". Can you spot what's wrong with this statement? First, as mentioned, Mittal is not an Indian company, but registered in the Netherlands. Second, the reference appears to be directed at Lakshmi Mittal, the head of Mittal, as opposed to a company. Chirac is not talking about one company taking over another but a "non-European" individual taking over a European company. This fact is underlined by the numerous news reports on this matter which always refer to Mittal as being owned by "Indian-born Lakshmi Mittal who is one of the richest people in the world" - this is true even of the Guardian, my favourite left leaning paper.
Martin Jacques in the Guardian has written a very interesting piece about the cartoons and referring to the Arcelor matter which he ties in as being indicative of Europe's contempt for other nations.
I wonder what you all think? Is it just paranoia or is someone really out to get me? Reading the Martin Jacques article, I was reminded of another quite astounding article I read in the Times recently on India's new found role as superpower in the cricket world. Don't worry, I'm not going to discuss in detail the lbw rule (leg before wicket), but the article makes interesting reading in terms of perception. The first sentence alone is a sign of things to come:
"INDIA was once the jewel in the crown of Britain’s Empire and no matter how willingly citizens of the sub-continent shook themselves free from the yoke in 1947, they and their descendants remain generally glad of many of the legacies, including sanitation, the legal and parliamentary systems and, not least, cricket."
The premise of the article is that when England ruled India it was a benign rule, helping the 'darkies' more than hurting them. Of course, if left to its own devices, India would not have the sanitation it has now...it would not be able to rule itself with its own laws, nor govern itself with its own parliament. What a load of crap!
Now that it is acknowledged that the coming century will belong to India and China it is India's turn to the play the benign dictator. It actually states later on that because India control 60% of the overall income from cricket this means that India
" must start to behave with an emperor’s responsibility. All empires tend to be commercial in origin, but some of the actions of the officials in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have put financial gain above the wider interests of the game and under the leadership of Sharad Pawar, the experienced politician, better was expected.".
When I read this I was pretty gobsmacked - remember this is an article written not more than a week ago, in the middle of the war in Iraq, having the benefit of seeing what western rule has done to the Middle East, Africa and basically anywhere else. Does the author really believe that England (and all other ruling powers) behaved with "emperor's responsibilities"? I love England and consider it to be one of the most tolerant places in the world but, come on, this is too much...
or maybe I'm just overreacting... what do you think?
Anyway, the original point was that all empires are commercial in origin, which I actually tend to agree with. Perhaps this is the real reason behind the resistance to the Arcelor hostile bid.
posted by Akash at 9:02 AM
2 Comments:
thanks Marko, i was going to mention the Mittal controversy in Bosnia - i understand that the war memorial is not going ahead. Bob, i read that article in the Times and I also was stunned - this is sort of thing you expect wih the Telegraph not the Times to be honest.
Exactly Manoj. Is the Times really a newspaper, or just a giant dixons advert?
On the subject at hand, this is merely the beginning. It's all about polarity at the end of the day..
The Chinese were not allowed to buy Unocal, and similar story with Mittal. India and China cannot really be denied, and thee are merely signs of growing independence.
The next 20 years or so will be characterised by endless tension no doubt.
As for the article, i say simply never read the Times.
Post a Comment
<< Home