The multinational business enterprise and its attendant economic phenomenon of globalisation have become ubiquitous in the new neo-liberal world order of the last few decades. However, all too often, these enterprises’ activities have lacked prudence and foresight in terms of the consequences for the local populations. Moreover, the loopholes of international business law allow these companies to go scot-free and evade accountability toward the citizens of the countries in which they operate. Globalisation per se can either be beneficial or disadvantageous to a particular country. But, recent evidence suggests that there are more cases of the latter than the former. The culmination of this discontent among the masses of lesser developed regions of the world seems to fuel the fire of trans-national terrorism. This essay tries to find how far true the criticisms directed at the phenomenon of neo-liberal globalisation are, and how much it is culpable for the propagation of terrorism.
The primary criticism levelled against globalisation is its lack of accountability toward the local and broader communities in which it functions. While financial analysts can accurately evaluate the values of tangible assets, more often than not the measure of intangible consequences of a business corporation’s operations are not accounted. For example, let us take a company that out-sources manufacturing of cosmetics to a developing country. Countries such as Taiwan,Thailand,Singapore,Bolivia,Venezuela and Chile are typical examples. In a typical scenario, the manufacturing and packaging of the company’s products involves chemical processes, the residues of which are purged into a nearby river stream or sea. The discharged residual matter is highly toxic and hence harmful for the aquatic life in the waters. This leads to the diminishing in numbers of many species. Those that survive this hazard and land in fishing nets are consumed by human beings (Rodriguez, et. al., 2006). So, now the citizenry of the area surrounding the company’s processing unit get affected. The affectation could be of varying degrees and can manifest slowly over a long period of time. These are all costs alright, but not for the concerned corporation. These “externalities” are not accounted for by them (Verbeke, et. al, 2007).
Findings of several research studies conducted in the last few decades present a rather bleak picture of globalisation induced environmental and local community disturbances in the developing world. In countries that have transitioned form centrally planned economies to free market economies in the last thirty years, the overall effect on the large majority of the local population is very discouraging. When the United Nations designed Human Development Index (HDI) parameters were measured for these countries, the results were quite dismal. As pointed out by critics, globalisation leads to exploitation of cheap labour in the developing world. A highly publicised recent case is the operations of sportswear maker Nike in countries such as Indonesia and Philippines. Documentary filmmakers have recorded the inhuman working conditions offered to labourers in Nike plants in these countries. Moreover, these workers were never offered medical insurance or prescribed minimum wages. As a consequence of this negative publicity, many consumers in the West have refused to consume products that were manufactured through exploitation of labour in developing nations. While the condition in manufacturing hubs of Taiwan,Thailand and China are not as harsh as in Indonesia and Philippines, they only barely adhere to international human rights standards (Baram, 2004). These injustices and imbalances do not directly lead to the victims taking to arms, but they do contribute toward tendencies that foster terrorism.
Today, terrorism is inevitably equated with Islam. Most perpetrators of trans-national terror acts originate from predominantly Islamic nations. One can easily connect this stark reality to the effects of globalisation. For example, in regions with significant Muslim presence such as the Southeast Asian nations ofIndonesiaandThailand; Asian nations ofBangladesh,IndiaandPakistan, the levels of corruption have increased since the opening up of their economies. Terrorism inevitably thrives in a political environment that is chaotic and anarchic. In other words, the increasing presence of Western big business enterprises in the Islamic world has clearly stoked the historical grievances of the latter and has contributed to the growth of trans-national terrorism (Buckley & Ghauri, 2004).
In the context of globalisation in developing countries, the issues of national sovereignty and commercial opportunity are intertwined. In other words, while large Internet portals such as Yahoo and Google, by way of exploiting global opportunities provided by the medium of the Internet have submitted to the imperatives of business. While their profits have shot up as a result of the new opportunities for advertisement, their tacit support of citizen censorship (as typified by the case ofChina) has attracted criticism. As a result of facilitating Chinese government censorship, these dotcom trans-national corporations have done social injustice to the people ofTibet. Similar instances of thwarting democratic participation can be found in countries such as East Timor, Cambodia and the Indian subcontinent. In essence, MNCs such as Yahoo and Google don’t seem to care an iota about freedom of speech and democracy in the countries in which they function, as long as their revenues remain impressive. Such profiteering attitude is ethically very shallow and does not project globalisation and MNCs in good light (Buckley & Ghauri, 2004). It is an unfortunate reality that globalisation is starting to resemble war profiteering. A case in point is the ongoing chaos inIraq. While theUnited Statesgovernment initiated this war on grounds of its War on Terror agenda, as the weak Iraqi army was defeated some of the companies with close ties with the Bush Administration started imprinting their corporate footprint in the spoils ofIraq. Companies such as Bechtel, Halliburton and Chevron have shown impressive profits as the rest of the corporate world is trying to stay afloat in the prevailing period of economic recession. It is a well known fact that Dick Cheney, the former Vice President of theUnited Stateshas a vested interest in Halliburton Corporation; and it is too improbable a coincidence that the company should prosper in the aftermath of theIraqquagmire. It is events and trends such as these that adduce a bad reputation to globalisation. In this particular instance, the perpetrators of globalisation are seen as conniving war-profiteers. This rationale is used by the militant elements inIraqto gather support for their cause. Seen in this backdrop, the guerilla warfare inIraq, where both sides have employed terror tactics, falls within the discourse of globalisation and its discontents.
The aforementioned case was just the most recent of a long list of digressions that are connected to globalisation. Right through the history of twentieth century, the Western democracies have not hesitated to use force under the pretexts of principles, sovereignty and justice. Subsequently, military intervention in world affairs has risen drastically since the end of the Second World War. The period following the Second World War sawAmericaassume the role of a superpower that headed the western coalition in what was a bipolar world. In a way, the nuclear bombing ofJapanwas the first of its international digressions and the ongoingIraqquagmire the latest. Since the collapse ofSoviet Union, the West has had at its disposal the most potent military force. Its economic structure complements military spending; leading to a military industrial complex. The 2003 Allied invasion ofIraqwas not an exception. The repercussions that we are witnessing today in the form of civil unrest, guerrilla warfare and random acts of terror should serve as a wake up call for the proponents of globalisation (Luo, 2001).
The War on Terror and its sub-plot inIraqhave drawn the most vociferous of condemnations and popular protests that the modern world had ever seen. The events of 9/11 were followed by calamities in theUnited KingdomandSpain. The latter terror attacks were no less brutal when compared to the former, yet the reactions to these catastrophes in the respective parts of the world has been disproportionate. While the anger and indignation expressed by the American public representatives is quite vocal well known, the reactions of their British and Spanish counterparts has been rather subdued – if not in rhetoric, surely in actions. In other words, “terror” is a part of life for much of the world, including the advanced nations ofBritainandSpain, both having their own enemies to civil society. But for Americans, a one-off event such as 9/11 had set off such melodrama and popular outcry that the American populace is surely out of touch with the realities of the outside world. This is the nature of the “insular” American society, which makes it difficult for their public representatives to understand and cooperate with alien leaders of state (Dawson, 2005). When the standard responses of American governments of the last century are coupled with opportunistic exploitation of American business enterprises, we get the perfect recipe for the propagation of trans-national terrorism.
Multinational Enterprises which are at the forefront of the excesses of globalisation are also rightly criticised for their “contribution to global warming”, “contribution to the erosion of ozone layer”, “depleting fertile soils by industrial production policies”, “contribution to air and noise pollution”, etc (Jere-Malanda, 2007). Many sub-Saharan African nations such as Zimbabwe, Kenya and Mozambique have all been subject to these blatant injustices. In the more prosperous nation of South Africa, the exploitation is not so much through external forces as through the institutionalised slavery of apartheid, until it was dismantled a decade ago. The economic structures of many developing countries are not designed to make business corporations pay for the damages induced by them. While those contributing capital are not affected in a major way as a result of this degradation to the environment, the dependent wildlife and the unsuspecting general population bear the brunt of the consequences. This blatant unfairness on part of the torch bearers of globalisation has gained better awareness over the last decade or so – mainly through the persistent efforts of activists and intellectuals. The efforts of devoted activists are finally having an impact on the regulatory and legislative branches of governments to improve existing standards of accountability and thereby alleviate retaliatory measures in the form of terror attacks (Jere-Malanda, 2007).
In conclusion, it is quite clear that much of the criticism directed at globalisation is justified. The objections related to the expansion of big business operations are part of a broader critique of contemporary industrial societies. These criticisms include deceptive mass advertisements, over-population, environment damage, toxic dumping, corporate greed, etc. The proponents of economic globalisation, who are essentially headquartered in Western democracies, can virtually dictate terms of trade for the rest of the world due to their military and economic superiority. And being the torch bearers of unfettered laissez faire capitalism, the powerful business interests often dictate local government policies. This heady mix of wealth and power has so far led to outcomes that have harmed communities at large and the environment in which they live. The poor people in developing nations are especially badly hit by this phenomenon (Steinbock, 2007). While the rich are getting richer than ever before, the real incomes of the poor have stagnated or declined in most countries across the world. In this way the poor are disadvantaged twice over and adds to their tendencies toward acts of terror.
References:
Baram, M. S. (2004). Multinational Corporations, Private Codes and Technology Transfer for Sustainable Development. Environmental Law, 24(1), 33-65.
Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. (2004). Globalisation, Economic Geography and the Strategy of Multinational Enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 81+.
Dawson, L. M. (2005). Marketing to Less Developed Countries. 13+.
Doukas, J. A., & Kan, O. B. (2006). Does Global Diversification Destroy Firm Value?. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 352+.
Jere-Malanda, R. (2007, November). Profiting from Poverty: . How Western Companies and Consultants Exploit Africa. New African 10+.
Luo, Y. (2001). Toward a Cooperative View of MNC-Host Government Relations: Building Blocks and Performance Implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 401.
Meyer, K. E. (2004). Perspectives on Multinational Enterprises in Emerging Economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4), 259+.
Rodriguez, P., Siegel, D. S., Hillman, A., & Eden, L. (2006). Three Lenses on the Multinational Enterprise: Politics, Corruption, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 733+.
Steinbock, D. (2007, January/February). New Innovation Challengers the Rise of China and India. The National Interest 67+.
Verbeke, A., Chrisman, J. J., & Yuan, W. (2007). A Note on Strategic Renewal and Corporate Venturing in the Subsidiaries of Multinational Enterprises. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(4), 585+.