Private Rebuilding

The battle for private control is planned in secrecy and privacy. It is the private organizations who are dictating to the state . . it should be no surprise why the public need not be consulted anymore - this is the New World Order.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4789877/

'A World of Peace and Prosperity'
Can the private sector play a role in preventing conflict and rebuilding strife-torn nations? Siemens CEO Heinrich Pierer has some ideas about how to make it happen

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett
Newsweek

Updated: 5:24 p.m. ET April 20, 2004April 20 - As the head of one of the world's largest electronics and electrical engineering firms, Heinrich Pierer might seem an odd choice to speak at a United Nations Security Council meeting on conflict prevention, peacekeeping and post-conflict peace building. But the chief executive officer of Siemens has plenty of experience in those areas. The German firm reopened its office in Kabul in February 2003, after hostilities died down in Afghanistan, and has helped repair two hydropower plants there.

Siemens has also begun work on infrastructure improvements in volatile Iraq, setting up a mobile telephone network in the north of the country and rebuilding a power plant. So when U.N. ambassador Gunter Pleuger of Germany, the current Security Council president, proposed a discussion on the role of business in preventing conflicts and building peace, he immediately thought of Pierer. "I asked him, why me?" says Pierer. And he said that Siemens has more than 150 years of experience in many countries of the world, including a lot of experience in areas of conflict—not only now, but in the past—and that was his motivation to ask me," says Pierer, who learned when he arrived at the United Nations for the meeting on Thursday that he was the only businessman ever asked to speak before the council. Still, Pierer found he shared similar views and ideas with the other speakers, who included U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, World Bank president James Wolfensohn, and Dumisani Kumalo, chairman of an advisory group for African countries emerging from conflicts. NEWSWEEK's Jennifer Barrett spoke with Pierer after he left the United Nations about what corporations can do to promote in promoting peace and prosperity in developing countries—and what went wrong in Iraq. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: How and why did you come to testify before the U.N. Security Council?

Heinrich Pierer: The German ambassador [Security Council President Gunter Pleuger] had called me a fortnight ago and asked if I would be prepared to make such a presentation. It was his idea that security and economic progress are somehow interconnected, and he apparently convinced the other members of the Security Council that they should deal with the economic issues... For me, it was a great honor. I learned while I was preparing for my speech that it was the first time that a businessman was asked to make a presentation at the Security Council.

You spoke about your company's operations in Afghanistan. What did you learn from the experience in Afghanistan that you can apply now in Iraq?

It is difficult to compare Afghanistan to Iraq. In Afghanistan, the Germans have a very long tradition and, before the war, Afghanistan was a country looking toward Germany. We restarted our activities [after the war]. I gave the example of two hydroplants that we had built over 50 years ago. We were asked to rebuild them with [Germany engineering company] Voith as our partner. We looked at our archives and found the old plans, so we had a jump start. We trained people in Pakistan and tried to do as much work with local people.

I also stressed in my remarks two points. One was the fight against poverty and the lack of hope and I would be glad if we would come to a broad cooperation between the United Nations, the World Bank, for example, and private companies with the aim to provide education not only here or there, but with a broad and systematic approach. People want hope for their children. This is a very effective way of improving conflict resolution, peace and post-conflict peacekeeping.

You said security must be in place before you can focus on rebuilding the infrastructure in places like Iraq.

In Iraq, the situation is more complex and we have to be more cautious. We have to look even more after the security of our people and see what we can do. Still we also have projects in Iraq.

Aren't you concerned about the current security situation?

Maybe we have to withdraw people if things get too bad, but our principal motto is that we are here to stay. We don't want to leave because of difficulties. This has been our policy.

How do you feel about the Pentagon's barring of German—as well as French and Russian—companies from competing for many contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq because those countries did not support the Bush administration's stance on the war?

There are concerns about how these contracts get awarded. But I think it is a bit exaggerated. If I look at the newspapers in Germany or I talk to colleagues, there is nobody really happy about how it is being handled, but the criticism is not so loud. I am not complaining. Maybe it would be better if the handling were more liberal, but I don't see so many problems for Siemens—maybe there is a bigger problem for the smaller companies.

In your speech to the U.N., you say that post-conflict plans need to be developed at the same time as military or conflict resolution strategies, and that there must be a seamless—and fast—transition. Most observers would say that this has not happened in Iraq. What do you think has gone wrong?

I did mention this point and I did it, I hope, in a very statesman-like manner. I would say that it is important to prepare yourself and to think a bit about what problems may arise after a military solution. I think this is one of the lessons one could draw from the experience in Iraq. I understand that the military people try to do their job, but other people maybe should think a bit about what should happen immediately afterwards.

What advice would you give to companies that want to help with rebuilding efforts in Iraq?

It is very important is that you have the right people who are ready to do the job on a voluntary basis, and you have people experienced in this environment. You need some expatriates, but you should also work with people who understand the ethnic, cultural and social problems in the country. You have to know what is really needed. In my opinion, the first thing to be repaired or restored is the infrastructure. The companies that can contribute to this should do it.

With outsourcing such a hot issue right now, are you concerned that extending operations into these developing countries might come at the expense of German jobs?

This outsourcing is a serious topic in the United States and in Germany. I have been trying to convince the public and the politicians that we have to take steps to stay competitive. That is what we have to do. We have to build factories. We have to execute this software where we find highly trained, motivated people at much lower hourly rates, like in India and China and Russia and Romania. We have to do this for three reasons: cost; to be close to customers; and because we want to use as much as possible the talents from other countries. And, of course, it helps also the not-yet-developed countries in the Third World that we use this approach.

How critical is the private sector's role in conflict prevention, peacekeeping and post-conflict peace building?

The question is whether business can find the right balance between profit-making and social responsibility. I say it is not only possible but it is absolutely mandatory. Businesses also want to live in a world of peace and prosperity.

U.N. peacekeepers are now deployed in Cote d'Ivoire, a country that could benefit from post-conflict peace building and infrastructure improvements. Why are African countries so often overlooked by the private sector?

Because there are not many business activities there. There are very limited commercial activities. A company like Siemens, we are literally everywhere—but we have only very limited activities in Africa before and after the wars. It's a matter of security, but also of financing and funds being made available. And they [Africans] are not so much in the center of public discussion. In those countries, this initiative I mentioned for education should be even more important because it gives the people hope, and also the possibility to earn their living not in military actions or in other illegal activities, but really to get the right training and become more a member of the civil society. What we miss is a real systematic approach and someone has to sit in the driver's seat.

Who do you envision in the driver's seat?

Someone from the United Nations, maybe. Or perhaps someone from the government in America or Germany or France or Britain.

You've said in past interviews that the use of the public-private partnership model in such ways has so far been limited. Why do you think that is?

This is difficult to say. My impression is that politicians sometimes concentrate on more short-termed activities. The long-term activity is to educate people. In my speeches I mention this many times and I always get applause and everybody says it is a good idea. But we need to see some concrete actions. I know there are projects here and there but not a systematic approach of public-private partnerships.

Do you feel more hopeful that there will be more of these types of projects after this meeting?

I think the response was positive. But, I must say, we'll wait to see what happens next.

How do you ensure that other companies don't give business a bad name in the countries where you are trying to promote peace and prosperity?

One of the participants in the discussion made a very good comment that business is business and politics is politics. Some tasks can only be executed by politicians and governments. As a CEO of a private [sector] company, I have to say that I have no influence on these people.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.