Buhlmann's Corner

I would like to know.

I would like to know why a CEO has to walk out of his contract, sign a new one (elsewhere) and leave his native country before he can sum up the courage to complain about the vacuum in political responsibility, or have the guts to blow the whistle on apathetic irresponsible politicians. There has to be a reason.

René Obermann, CEO of Deutsche Telekom until the other day, stands up in an interview published in a major German daily (Handelsblatt 9 December 2013) to point out some home truths. He (rightly) accuses the German government of being half asleep (but couched in other terms) and neglecting the NSA issue. Then he pours ridicule on a lethargic (but couched in other terms) Minister of the Interior who firstly forgets all about data security and then trumpets on about the pressing need for the industry to get its data protected and secure; an example of ministerial brass neck and no mistake.

I would like to know who on high cares about this infringement of international law just as I would like to know where the difference lies between my phone and the Chancellor’s when it comes to wire-tapping – weren’t there rules or something? Of course the day may come when a judge (sitting perhaps in the Bermudas) accuses me of terrorism and that I get sentenced without the right of appeal.

I would like to know the moral reason (the legal issue would never get past Washington) on which the American SEC (Security Exchange Commission) or the della DoJ (Department of Justice) bases its presumption to the right to investigate alleged corruption in Siemens, ThyssenKrupp, Daimler & Co. I would like to know the ethical premise for the appointment of former judges, ministers or whatever who are given the task of controlling the moral conscience of a nation in blatant infringement of the rule of law. I would like to know why financial crimes can only be prosecuted by posses of American consultants and expiation obtained by the transfer of billions of Euros into American coffers.

I would like to know who, in the end, is going to send the clean-up squad into the United States’ corridors of power. Even Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Yahoo et al are (at last) beginning to wonder about the conduct of their government and how it is administered. I would like to know whether the ninety days holding period for data on telephone calls was introduced in Europe as a sop to assist the NSA in its (commercial) management of peak hour traffic and reduce volatility. Since that part of the work is outsourced, the hackneyed excuse of “we hadn’t an inkling” might even hold water. The fact of the matter is that there isn’t a government in Berlin or London (with Washington not even in the picture) willing to do anything more than just look into it; the whistleblower knight in shining armour come to save those of democratic belief is still a hunted fugitive seeking political asylum. Freedom of speech is only aired in one-on-one conversations and the only way to tackle the issue is within the terms of (the increasingly beleaguered) democracy.

Poor public governance and thank you René Obermann – there is still someone out there among those who know, willing to tell. Indeed, regular sacking followed by tours of duty abroad might turn certain CEOs into major resources.

The question remains, however, where do the shareholders stand in all this. In the absence of managers with an opinion, they could be the ones to set the example without being constrained within secret encounters, exclusive clubs or video-conferencing to a few. The question is not who has the most lack of responsibility to make up for by “duty to act”, whether the asset manager (shareholder) or the manager of the asset (company administrator). The issue is one of awareness and the shouldering of responsibility by both sides.

AT&T gets 10 Million US Dollars from NSA for lending a hand, and now a New York City pension fund is suing them for having obtained information illicitly. And what pension fund might that be? And on the same note, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension Fund sues IBM claiming a loss on the market of 12 thousand million dollars. Anyone want to play at sheriffs and board members?