The Paris Olympic Games are over, and Britain appears to be happy with its medal tally of 65, equalling the success of the 2012 London Games. Several athletes in Team GB in Paris were British immigrants who contributed to the rich medal haul.
It's not surprising at all. There is a beautiful picture of four British athletes-Asha Philip, Imani-Lara Lansiquot, Dina Asher-Smith, and Daryll Neita-beaming with joy while holding their national flag after winning bronze in the 4x100m relay event at the Tokyo Olympics. It was a proud moment not only for the British people but also for the country's immigrant community.
The British quartet were all Black and children of immigrants. Their parents were born and raised in their respective countries before they migrated to the UK.
This is in sharp contrast to the ongoing violence on the streets of England and Northern Ireland, which the local media says is being carried out by far-right protesters. However, not all protesters are necessarily far-right. Many of them are ordinary citizens who are often led to believe that if a large number of buskers and beggars are sleeping on the streets, it's because immigrants have taken their jobs and houses. They are also led to believe that if the National Health Service (NHS) is struggling, immigrants are primarily responsible for it; if organized crime is rife on the streets, illegal immigrants are behind it.
Whether it's perception or reality, the fact is that many people here feel that illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are the main source of their social and economic woes. It's not surprising that the protesters targeted hotels where asylum seekers were housed.
Immigration and Racism a Lingering Issue
Immigration and racism are two very emotive issues in the UK, as all political parties must clearly spell out their views and policies on them before each Parliamentary election. To be fair, successive governments have passed laws to protect minorities and immigrant communities, and a large part of British society has had little problem with immigrant communities. And yet, the gruesome murder of three young girls by a 17-year-old boy, born to Rwandan parents, in Stockport snowballed into street violence across England and Northern Ireland.
The Root Cause of the Problem
It's the long-simmering resentment over "small boats" that bring asylum seekers to this country, stretching national resources. Many people believe that the government has failed to stop these boats, and once asylum seekers are in the country, they are accommodated in four-star hotels at taxpayers' expense. Some sections of society have shown their racist tendencies even against legal immigrants. British-born Black footballers often bear the brunt of racist chants in match after match.
The reality is that the immigrant story of this country is one of success. At the London Olympics in 2012, immigration was a factor in at least 24 of the 65 medals won by Team GB. British Future, a think tank, found that at least 11 gold medals, three silvers, and 10 bronzes were won by athletes whose immediate families came to Britain from overseas. It was a very different British Olympic team from the last London Games in 1948, when sprinter McDonald Bailey was the only athlete born outside of the UK.
Who could deny Somali-born Mo Farah's rich contributions to the Olympic medals won for Britain? His record of four gold medals in distance running at the Olympics has made him a national icon. Footballer Bukayo Saka was eligible to play for his parents' country, Nigeria, but he proudly chose to represent England, his country of birth. His contribution to the recent successes of the English national team is unquestionable.
In politics too, one cannot ignore the contributions made by immigrants or children of immigrants. For their rise to the top of the political ladder, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Priti Patel, and Sajid Javid have their migrant families to thank, who tried hard to integrate with the host society. Some of the wealthiest Brits have their roots in India, and they are today the backbone of the British economy.
US Corporations' Near Control of the British Economy
But dare I suggest that the protesters' fury fails to take into account the fact that much of their economic woes lie at the door of American corporations. While the blame has been unfairly laid on the most vulnerable, it is these powerful corporations that siphon off profits. They pay little or no taxes but make optimum use of British infrastructure.
Over the years, many British economists, policymakers, and academics have tried to convince the people and politicians of this country that corporate America has near-complete control over the British economy. The latest to make this claim is British author Angus Hanton, who has argued in his recently published book, Vassal State: How America Runs Britain, that Britain has become subservient to US corporations, leading to the weakening of the British economy.
Think of a tolled bridge or road. The toll owners let you in and out for a fee. Hanton calls them "bridges and pipes of our economy," which he believes have been taken over by American companies, such as eBay, Amazon, and Uber. For example, he explains in an interview, "If you sell second-hand stuff on eBay, you are selling to a British person but paying a royalty to the American for crossing the bridge. The same goes for using Airbnb. With Amazon, you are a British buyer, but you are paying Americans on the way."
Similarly, British government departments store their critical data on the cloud, which is owned by American companies, such as Amazon and Microsoft. "We pay for the privilege. We are very much beholden to them." He laments the fact that the government disregarded a Manchester-based cloud services company and opted for American companies. The British company went out of business.
Cadbury's and Boots are two of the most famous British brands, yet they are now American-owned. The truth is that one cannot escape the stranglehold of American companies here. Major football clubs, such as Arsenal, Liverpool, and Manchester United, which are the pride of England, have US owners. Apple, Google, eBay, Microsoft, Bumble, Tinder, Uber, Airbnb, Amazon, and now AI-all have big market shares in the UK, and needless to say, they are fully owned American entities. Hanton says 25 percent of the British economy is owned by American companies.
A Success Story or an Issue of Economic Sovereignty?
Hanton admits that many here and in the US "would describe it as a great success story." But he says that "if you are sending 100 billion dollars' worth of profit back to America every year through tax havens, inevitably it leads to the impoverishment of the country." There is a perception here that the UK's reliance on American investment and trade can make it vulnerable to US economic policies and interests.
The Counterargument
But there are counterarguments to the claim that American corporations dominate the British economy and jeopardize economic sovereignty. US investment creates jobs in bulk, provides services, and stimulates economic growth. American companies bring expertise, technology, and resources that can enhance the UK's competitive advantage in various sectors. Additionally, the UK government has measures in place to protect national security interests, such as reviewing foreign investments in sensitive sectors.
However, Hanton questions whether the political class or policymakers have the will to protect home-grown industries. He alarmingly points out that "almost all British PMs and chancellors (finance ministers) over the last 20 years have worked for American corporations either before office or after leaving office, including speaking tours for American companies."
Hanton admits he is not against American corporations but is more critical of the British sellout, without checks and balances. He also says that American corporations are significantly present in other European economies as well as in major global economies like India, but the "scale of their dominance in Britain and also the type of control that American businesses have in Britain is huge."
The Difference Between Foreign Ownership/Investment Rules in the UK and India
It is interesting to draw a parallel between the UK and Indian investment scenes. The primary difference between the UK and India lies in their approach to foreign investment. The UK's open market allows for complete foreign ownership in most industries, which has led to significant American corporate influence, often without proportional economic benefits for the UK.
In contrast, India's regulatory framework imposes limits on foreign ownership and often requires partnerships with Indian companies, thereby protecting domestic interests and ensuring that foreign investments align more closely with national priorities. While the UK's approach offers greater ease of doing business for American corporations, it also leaves the economy more exposed to external control and profit repatriation. India's model is more restrictive, but it seeks to balance the benefits of foreign investment with the need to preserve economic sovereignty and support local industries.
Whatever the truth, it will be hard for Hanton to convince the angry protesters on the streets that Britain is becoming subservient to corporate America at the expense of British industries and businesses. The people have let out their pent-up emotions against immigration, particularly illegal immigration and asylum seekers. They are fed up with successive governments for not doing enough to stop small boats carrying illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.
(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author