The economy of a handshake

ONE was walking with his hands extended. The other had hands by his side. One had a slight smile on his face. The other one's expression came close to a grimace. Then they shook hands. And this is how the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, and Japan's prime minister, Shinzo Abe met at the Great Hall of the People, a grand reception hall just by the Tiananmen Square in Beijing at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit's economic leaders' meeting, which lasted for two days packed with power and soothed by a lakeside resort in Beijing's far-northeastern mountains. Did this handshake mark the end of the dispute that soars in the East China Sea? No. But it IS a start.  While Abe requested Xi for a hotline, which would prevent future clashes over the claims to the uninhabited islands in the China Sea, called the Diaoyu by China and the Senkakus by Japan, the Chinese government had kept quiet about the meeting. Does that stop a Chinese envoy and a Japanese ambassador from calling each other “Lord Voldemort”, the archenemy of Harry Potter? Perhaps not but the thawing has begun. Does a single handshake change the history of the brutality of Japan's occupation of China during the Second World War? No, but for the sake of survival and mutuality, they have shaken their hands at the summit. This is how a single handshake perhaps can just begin to change the course of aggression.

Another set of handshakes between President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping of China in the Great Hall of the People in early November proved to be a pleasant surprise. Both sides addressed the press and aired issues between the two countries and spoke on democracy, human rights and media freedom. Last time President Obama visited China in November 2009, there was silence in the joint appearance of both sides, whereas Mr. Xi's predecessor, Hu Jintao was asked questions about human rights at a news conference in Washington in 2011. The other pleasant surprise from both came in the form of an agreement to release their targets for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.  

Now, why would anyone of the above favor cooperation over conflict? What does it yield in today's world? Does economy prompt these handshake initiatives? A single corporate example of Intel and Microsoft may shed some light on this issue. These two firms are perhaps the best known pair of complementary firms in the world, working the best together as more than 80% of the personal computers have an Intel microprocessor running Microsoft's Windows operating system. And since 1980 when IBM chose both Intel and Microsoft as the core components of the first IBM PC, these two firms, Intel and Microsoft managed to stay married and their combined profit in 2004 soared over $15 billion in net profits while the largest original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in the world (Dell, HP, and IBM) made roughly $2.5 billion in profits from their PC operations.

Even animals cooperate, in spite of their animosity.  Many animals fend their predators off better when they stand together as a herd. Strangely even these animals, in the face of their tension between group interests and their conflicting individual interests choose wisely when given options to either forage and bring food to the offspring, to defend the nest, and to forage for themselves and heighten their own chances of survival.  A classic example of the Rhizobia-legume interaction proves increased survivorship, where the soil bacteria Rhizobia supply amino acids to the plant and in exchange receive organic acids as a carbon and energy source. These are both examples of choosing mutual dependence and survival over exclusive warring strategies.

This land of ours too, calls for an end to hostility. The blood soaked university campuses, the terror stricken alleys, the gruesome murders in elite neighborhoods, the anxious lot awaiting justice at the courts and above all, a reconciliation of disagreements at the highest level of national politics require some attention. We live in times, which demand an end to conflict. We live in times where disputants need to work towards a constructive resolution process. In reality, all economies today require the basic principle of cooperation where each goal needs to be linked so that everybody will either sink or swim together. Since the goals of sharing a single pie are all usually interdependent, choices to be made here are clear: one could either compete or accommodate; one could either collaborate or avoid; one could either compromise or champion a cause. One must also remember that each of these choices comes with an appropriate price tag.

Today we stand on a ground that appeals for a handshake. A visit to a friendly factory proved your columnist's point. A worker had just expressed fear of being pressured to convince his friends to form a trade union in the factory that he works in. When probed, he answered that he was actually in favor of a collective voice, which could also come through a Workers' Participatory Committee. A furor is being raised with regard to the practice of trade unionism in this country. In spite of the number of trade unions shooting to more than 230 in one year, there are complaints about how difficult it is to form these platforms. Given the fact that the mid-level management maybe shy about allowing them to be formed, given the fact that the top management may or may not be fully invested in the topic, it becomes a challenge for a factory worker to find his/her voice of freedom. Many factories may already have effective Workers' Participatory Committee in the ready-made garment sector where the workers' representatives maybe fully elected by the workers themselves, but many may still be shy of a collective voice surfacing on their factory floors. Point is, for the good of the economy, both sides of the owners and the workers must come together and focus on a handshake. No negotiators need to step in and no translation in transition is required.

In general, one must remember that a single handshake between opposing global leaders does send out a positive message to the rest of the world as much as the news of a ceasefire calms a political inferno. Therefore for the sake of the economy, the landscape of this land also needs a number of handshakes to change its direction. There must be more dialogue on the table, both in economy and in politics. And though sporting events only ensure the win for one and loss for another, one must ensure that games need to be played fairly and on equal ground.

The writer is Managing Director, Mohammadi Group.