Is fining US firms deliberately reflecting it’s insecurity?
Rules are meant to be broken. Well, this might be a famous aphorism in Asia but aptly inapplicable in Europe. Europe is a classic example which, on one hand, can attract big MNCs but on the other hand, can be too harsh on them when they indulge in fraudulent activities or bribery. Apparently, it is unique in itself in treating the MNCs.
The case of Microsoft is a famous one. The IT giant was heavily
fined when it failed to meet the regulatory norms set up by the European Commission (EC). In 2008, the antitrust regulators fined a whopping $1.3 billion for not being able to comply with the antitrust laws since 2004 and thus bringing the total amount of fines on Microsoft to a gigantic $2.5 billion. In 2009, EC imposed a fine of $1.45 billion (£1.06 billion) on American giant, Intel Corporation on the ground that illegal anticompetitive practices of Intel would harm the continuation of a healthy competitive market. The EC, in fact, has gone unique in this century with its antitrust activities. It fined Archer Daniels Midland, along with 13 other leading pharmaceutical companies, which the EC suspected were seeking to control the European vitamin market. The most horrifying one was when EC blocked the $43 billion merger deal between General Electric and Honeywell on the ground that American firms are targeting and buying European firms to retain their growth. Surprisingly, the deal was allowed by the US regulators.
Recently, BAE Systems, an European giant engaged in the development, delivery and support of advanced defence, security and aerospace systems, has been given a deadline this month to negotiate with the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for being allegedly involved in bribery in relation to the sale of aircrafts and air defence equipments to Czech, South Africa and Tanzania. This would mean that if BAE systems fails to negotiate with the SFO, as the director Richard Alderman avowed, it will end up paying a fine of millions from the £2.5 billion-plus contracts with these countries.
The region has always been a bright prospect for MNCs since decades. It is flooded with Foreign Direct Investment inflows. With new opportunities, South-eastern Europe as well as Commonwealth of Independent States are becoming more attractive. According to UNCTAD, these states attracted around $69 billion dollar foreign investments in 2007. The region is further attributed with one billion consumers.
Though fining MNCs is not a new phenomenon, it's unique way of treating MNCs is giving scope for debate. Undoubtedly strictness proves that the region is having stringent regulatory framework but sometimes its over-reactive regulatory approach seems to be biased against foreign firms, especially Americans. Many a time, American firms are ending up to be victims of Europe's strict regulation. It has also been witnessed that Europe often ends up debating the US vs Europe on issues like the GM crop. The US too fined £500 million to German's Siemens for bribery. However, fining the BAE system indicates that laws are common for all in Europe but the examples of Microsoft, Intel, GE and others epitomize that Europe is apprehensive of American firms and their aggressive approach. Does it mean that Europe is insecure? Hard to conclude but still debatable.
Rules are meant to be broken. Well, this might be a famous aphorism in Asia but aptly inapplicable in Europe. Europe is a classic example which, on one hand, can attract big MNCs but on the other hand, can be too harsh on them when they indulge in fraudulent activities or bribery. Apparently, it is unique in itself in treating the MNCs.
The case of Microsoft is a famous one. The IT giant was heavily
fined when it failed to meet the regulatory norms set up by the European Commission (EC). In 2008, the antitrust regulators fined a whopping $1.3 billion for not being able to comply with the antitrust laws since 2004 and thus bringing the total amount of fines on Microsoft to a gigantic $2.5 billion. In 2009, EC imposed a fine of $1.45 billion (£1.06 billion) on American giant, Intel Corporation on the ground that illegal anticompetitive practices of Intel would harm the continuation of a healthy competitive market. The EC, in fact, has gone unique in this century with its antitrust activities. It fined Archer Daniels Midland, along with 13 other leading pharmaceutical companies, which the EC suspected were seeking to control the European vitamin market. The most horrifying one was when EC blocked the $43 billion merger deal between General Electric and Honeywell on the ground that American firms are targeting and buying European firms to retain their growth. Surprisingly, the deal was allowed by the US regulators.Recently, BAE Systems, an European giant engaged in the development, delivery and support of advanced defence, security and aerospace systems, has been given a deadline this month to negotiate with the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for being allegedly involved in bribery in relation to the sale of aircrafts and air defence equipments to Czech, South Africa and Tanzania. This would mean that if BAE systems fails to negotiate with the SFO, as the director Richard Alderman avowed, it will end up paying a fine of millions from the £2.5 billion-plus contracts with these countries.
The region has always been a bright prospect for MNCs since decades. It is flooded with Foreign Direct Investment inflows. With new opportunities, South-eastern Europe as well as Commonwealth of Independent States are becoming more attractive. According to UNCTAD, these states attracted around $69 billion dollar foreign investments in 2007. The region is further attributed with one billion consumers.
Though fining MNCs is not a new phenomenon, it's unique way of treating MNCs is giving scope for debate. Undoubtedly strictness proves that the region is having stringent regulatory framework but sometimes its over-reactive regulatory approach seems to be biased against foreign firms, especially Americans. Many a time, American firms are ending up to be victims of Europe's strict regulation. It has also been witnessed that Europe often ends up debating the US vs Europe on issues like the GM crop. The US too fined £500 million to German's Siemens for bribery. However, fining the BAE system indicates that laws are common for all in Europe but the examples of Microsoft, Intel, GE and others epitomize that Europe is apprehensive of American firms and their aggressive approach. Does it mean that Europe is insecure? Hard to conclude but still debatable.
But I don’t think we’re pushing the envelope to compete with the best of global cinema. Where are the really brilliant world-class filmmakers after Satyajit Ray and Adoor Gopalakrishnan competing at Cannes or Toronto Film Festival? I know Bollywood producers make a noise about going to Cannes and other international forums… The films I saw at Cannes were bloody realistic. Here in India we make films which convey a softer realism. I think Nandita Das’s film “Firaaq” could’ve gone to Cannes, or earlier, even Sheetal Talwar’s “Dharm”. Manikada (Ray) always used to ask, "What is the West’s compulsion to understand us?" They don’t have any compulsion. Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s “Devdas” was shown at the opening night of Cannes. That was a huge honour for us. But if we want to compete with the West at Cannes and other international platforms, we need to become a global player and make the kind of films the world is resonating to.
BJP. But today this staunch Hindutva supporter is a disillusioned man. The squabbles within the BJP, he feels, has left the party's committed foot soldiers high and dry. He argues that by abandoning its hindutva plank the bjp has lost its core essence. Now he wants advani to go and make way for fresh blood. read on...