Civil Service Reforms-India

Published in B&E

The strange case of mr. patil and the hen

Politicised; pliant & pressurised is what the political class has reduced the civil servants to. Killing the very spirit and purpose of service, the government is hell bent on making good governance an ever elusive goal.

“The civil service should be accountable, effective and transparent in its functioning. It should be proactive and produce results.” What we need is a “fair, just and equitable” system of governance. These prophetic words belong to none other than our reformist Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who in his initial (after taking over as the PM in 2004) rush to change the system had made bold statements. Three years hence all we can say is, it was mere rhetoric; a humbug. Like all politicians, Manmohan Singh too got embroiled in the political mess, with no time to for definitive policy making. The result is, today, we have unnecessary & avoidable controversies pertaining to lack of transparency in filling the high profile posts in the government. If only the PM had persevered, we would not have seen Kiran Bedi washing her dirty linen on television channels. Earlier, another woman in MEA, Veena Sikri was overlooked for the post of Foreign Secretary, Chokila Iyer who finally managed to get the highest post in MEA had to go through a series of struggles. All these examples may make us wonder if gender is the major criterion for the government to fill high profile jobs. However, a closer scrutiny of the system reveals that womanhood is certainly not the sole reason, why Kiran Bedi has been denied the top-cop post in the national capital. The malaise runs far deeper & therefore, cannot be ascribed to one single reason alone.

The rather sick Indian bureaucracy has plunged itself into an unfathomable pit of unholy nepotism, favouritism & corruption, reducing itself to being the midwives of politicians. Adding punch to the negative assertions about civil services and their impact on the armed forces, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Raj Kadyan told B&E, “A bureaucrat in the Ministry of Defence asked me to pay up Rs.5 lakhs, for an assured promotion to Army Commanders’ post. The General added finally “everything boils down to demand & supply. The top posts are very few & the queue is too long. Those who have the power to decide these appointments exploit this demand-supply gap to their advantage & showcase their power and reach.”The bureaucracy is so deeply embedded in a nexus with the politicians that they have simply forgotten the very purpose of the profession. This fact is corroborated even by the politicians from time to time. Former Lok Sabha Speaker P.A. Sangma had remarked “We have a highly flawed system of management of administration.... Our administration, including the police force, has got significantly politicised.” The politicians cannot pass the buck, because it is they who are required to reform the system and create healthy work environment for the civil servants. That the political class has totally failed to provide a congenial workspace culture is proven by the fact that grievances within the services is at an all time high. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT-which deals with the grievances of government employees) has 24,585 cases pending as of June 2006. Although the CAT since its inception in 1985 has been maintaining a case disposal rate of almost 90%, but the fact that these cases are on the rise, shows that somewhere down the line the administrative reform process which the government claims to be pursuing for last so many decades have failed to produce results and provide India with a well-oiled administrative set-up.

The bright, young men & women, who are fortunate enough to enter the corridors of power, are not born corrupt. They are neither traitors, deliberately intending to harm the nation through their misdemeanours. The question is – who converts these talented civil services rookies into crooks of highest order? What lures the civil servants to debase their values system and become subservient to the dictates of the political class? Majority would say that it the system which induces the fear in their minds – the fear of being left behind in the rat race – the paranoia related to being posted to the remote corners of the country, where their families will have to bear hardships. It is these small fears which lead them to abandon their dignity at the altar of power & pelf. Therefore, instead of choosing the harder right, they conveniently opt for the easier wrong. The harder right of course relates to serving the country and its people at large. The easier wrong under which majority of the bureaucracy takes refuge is – in a democracy they serve the nation by genuflecting in front of the elected representatives of the people. Therefore, they are doing no harm by following the illegitimate dictates of their masters. It is this very thought process, which makes aspiring professionals into diminished; pliant individuals, incapable of rendering selfless service to the nation.However, there are a few officers who uphold the principles & values and refuse to compromise with the system. But such ramrod straight individuals earn the wrath of their seniors as well the politicians & end up being superseded. This dejected lot leaves behind a trail of discontent, which not only displays the rot in the system but also adversely affects the overall performance of the service machinery. Noted bureaucrat and former Chairman, Central Vigilance Commission (CVG) N. Vittal, told B&E that the government’s skewed policy “doesn’t adequately reward achievers & punish the non-performers. As the Peter Principle states that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence, if you don’t take adequate measures to stem this tide through proper policy of rewards and punishment all you get is a cipher.” There is absolutely no reason to dispute the former CVG’s assertions, because the motivational plans for the civil servants are simply based on patronage system. The ‘time-scale’ promotion system dovetailed with ‘security of tenure’ adds a sense of complacency among the bureaucrats, thus making them less accountable to the system and prone to corruption.
The entire country understands the ills plaguing the system. The sham & vain efforts of the government to reform the system have produced zero results, aggravating the situation ‘beyond economic repair’ and mercilessly killing the very essence of nationhood & people’s faith in the state.

Mumbai Riots 1992

Published in B&E

1992 MUTINY!

There is a growing clamour in India to punish those guilty of the 1992-93 riots that victimised the Muslim community. But unlike those accused of the bomb blasts, will the guilty here be brought to book?

In an atmosphere of communal polarisation, what does one expect from the police? The guardians of ‘public good’ are expected to be non-partisan; diligently douse the fires of bigotry & display compassion for the victims. And what happens when the police fails to meet these constitutional & of course, the moral obligations? In short-term, such a behaviour flares up the passions, leading to gruesome atrocities against the community failing to find favours with the protectors. In the long-run, the social fabric of the nation suffers an irreparable dent. This heinous crime was committed by the Mumbai police during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, where the Muslim community was systematically allowed to be butchered at the behest of saffron-clad politicians. Recollecting the police apathy & insensitivity during the riots, Prabhat Sharan, Senior Editor, The Free Press Journal told B&E, “I & a colleague of mine was sitting with a high ranking police officer & we heard police personnel on the wireless jocularly stating, Mandir Wahin Baneyenge and Udhar Landiya (a derogatory term for Muslim) ko marne ki report hai, zara dekh lo. The police officer did not know what to say he just sheepishly grinned.” The evidence of this, rather obnoxious behaviour of the Mumbai police is adequately documented in the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission report on Mumbai riots of 1992-93. These facts have recently been corroborated by a leading television news channel in India, which has released the wireless messages of the policemen, exposing them as accomplices in the brutalization during that period. Explaining the police behaviour Prabhat Sharan added “We cannot say the entire police force is communalised but then a section of it does carry the germ of hatred towards Muslims in their bosoms.” Now, if a section of the police force only carries the germ, it leads us infer that Mumbai police has been deeply infiltrated by communal elements belonging to the majority community & it is this section of the Mumbai police, which acted at the behest of their political masters instead of following the lawful command of their senior officers. And if this is true, then what happened in 1992-93, surely constitutes a mutiny in the police force.

“They neither obeyed nor did they disobey; they did what they felt and most of them were either polarised or scared to even approach any mob.” Prakash Deshmukh, Senior Journalist, Sakal & an eye witness to the riots told B&E.Those who argue that it was neither a mutiny nor a larger conspiracy reason that since the entire society was communally polarised preceding the demolition of the Babri Masjid & thereafter, a few policemen also got infected. Such an argument supports the view, that an aberration, for a few policemen to get infected with communal virus was a natural phenomenon. Outrightly refusing to categorise Mumbai police actions either in terms of mutiny or aberration, a noted lawyer & Counsel for a group of the victims in the Shri Krishna Commision, Niloufer Bhagwat told B&E, that “If it were a mutiny, one would have seen summary trial being carried out against the constables & officials, who disobeyed the constitutional command, but nothing of this sort has happened. The fact is that no tangible commands to help the victims emanated from the top. It was a larger conspiracy played out at the highest levels to divide the country to manage the discontent arising out of neo-liberal shift the economy was making in the 1990s.” Without drawing a macro-picture of the causes & effects of the neo-liberal agenda, one can say that riots were a systematic act of crime against a particular community. The policemen who collaborated with the lumpen element were a part of the plan executed with precision by political elements. The policemen who participated in the genocide did not get infected after the riots had broken out; they were in fact, already suffering from the communal cancer which had infiltrated their nerve centre much before the riots. That the infiltrated policemen were only used by the political class at that juncture to execute their well laid out plan is the moot point. Therefore, to deny this fact tantamounts to burying ones head like an ostrich to the reality that what happened in Mumbai in 1992-93 was nothing short of a mutiny.

The communal elements in the police force disregarded their constitutional & professional duty; switched over their loyalties to openly ally themselves with the political agenda of a particular hue. And if this does not constitute a revolt within, then we certainly need to redefine the word ‘mutiny’. Moreover, one need to appreciate that communal passions were being raised in the society for years preceding the riots. Did the police officials in Mumbai & the administration system in the country take any concrete measures to stop this virus from seeping into minds of their men? What programmes did the higher police management team launch to ensure the integrity of their rank & file is preserved during tough times? What did the police intelligence networks do to identify & weed out the politicized elements within their force? Search for the answers to these questions and all you will receive is a stoic silence from those who consider themselves to be professionals. By letting politics make inroads within the police structures, all that the police personnel have done is to fracture the state monopoly over organised violence. And no doubt it is because of this enfeebled monopoly that communal carnages continue to engulf our nation at repeated intervals.

Indo-US nuclear Deal

Published in B&E

1. 2.. 3... twist!

Is India all set to sell out its strategic interests to meet the growing demands made by Uncle Sam?!

Nine years ago, on May 11 and 13, India had marked its arrival on the global strategic landscape with five underground tests at the Pokhran nuclear range. The event was hailed as the triumph of Indian nationalism over the non-proliferation diktats imposed by the global nuclear club (USA, UK, China, France and Russia). Shakti ‘98 (name of the operation) was celebrated as the reassertion of India’s independent decision-making ability in a largely unipolar world. Although, the pre-test preparations were carried out under total secrecy and the execution was clandestinely conducted, the post-test announcements to the world were loud and clear. The Indian public was empathically informed by administration that the nuclear tests were carried out by effectively evading the US satellites and hoodwinking the CIA. However, the euphoria was short-lived, Pakistan conducted almost similar test on 15 May, albeit with a tacit understanding with the United States. The important question, which the chain of events leading to the nuclear test in 1998 and the subsequent attempts by the US administration to “cap or roll back” the Indian nuclear ambition leads to, was the US administration really caught napping on 11 May 1998? Or was it a deliberate attempt by the US to turn a blind eye to the Indian nuclear escapades and offer it a loose rope to hang with. Scores of SIGINT (signal intelligence) and HUMINT (human intelligence) sources feed the US administration, especially on the nuclear proliferation; this makes it hard to swallow that the US was unaware of the Indian nuclear blasts. Even if we agree that the US intelligence networks were prevented from reading the Indian designs, how does one explain the post-Pokhran US behaviour vis-à-vis the Indian dreams?

Immediately, after the blasts, the US imposed sanctions on India, which were gradually eased in the beginning of the 21st century. This strategy was buttressed by catapulting India to a status of global power and thus appealing and appeasing the Indian elite. The whole drama about India as the future ‘super power’ culminated with, July 18, 2005, civilian nuclear agreement between President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Without reading between the lines, the so-called doyens of Indian strategic community began to shout out that India has been granted the status of a ‘nuclear weapon state’. Although the left-liberals and the concerned scientific community did raise hackles about the actual US intentions, but their voice was drowned in the din. The net result is that two years after the July 18 agreement; the Hyde Act & numerous bilateral talks, India is slowly, but gradually, beginning to comprehend the true US government’s intentions to lure into a deal which primarily intends to put a lid over India’s strategic options, limiting its ability to conduct further nuclear tests. As the growing opposition within the US about approving India’s entry into the exulted nuclear club gains momentum, a feeling of being cheated is beginning to dawn upon the Indian decision-makers. That after 9 years of the carrying out nuclear blasts, India is yet to have in place a ‘credible nuclear deterrent’; develop a viable command & control infrastructure; suggests that India is a reluctant nuclear power, lacking the will to occupy the nuclear high table. Despite these glaring indicators, Project Director Pokharn II and former Director of IDSA, K. Santhanam, is still sanguine about the prospects of India’s nuclear weapons programme, while talking to B&E, he opined “All is not that bad on the nuclear weaponisation front. We are moving gradually, but definitively on fitting the nuclear warheads on our missiles and this would be achieved sooner rather than later.” This probably makes him more confident about the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, he adds that ‘one need not be unduly perturbed of the concerns about giving US the leverage over our reactors.” But don’t we have enough reasons to be concerned when Henry Sokolski, Head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre, a Washington think tank, devoted to nuclear issues says that, “The Indians are being greedy.” “All that India is asking is, the prerogative of determining the future nuclear tests should rest with New Delhi. The 123 bilateral agreement should not incorporate a clause forcing India to make a de jure commitment to keep away from testing.” said, Dr. Kalyan Raman, member of the Indian delegation at Carnegie Endowment Forum for global issues, while talking to B&E. Agreeing to the US wishes on ‘testing’ would tantamount to signing the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) without being a party to it. All along, India has been opposed to joining the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and CTBT, on the grounds that these treaties encourage “nuclear apartheid” and are primarily designed to preserve the nuclear inequity in the world. Coming to a bi-lateral understanding with the US on this particular issue is bound to harm India’s strategic interest in the long-run.Another contentious issue in the proposed 123 deal relates to the civilian nuclear energy aspect. Those who are favouring the deal, argue that energising our nuclear reactors through a continuous supply of enriched uranium from the US will help us diversify our energy resources & enable us to get the latest nuclear technology. What these shenanigans are forgetting is that nuclear energy provides less than 2% (perhaps, the 123 deal may help this figure to rise unto 7%) of the energy requirements of the country. But what if the US chokes the supply lines? The moot is, does India agree to be a vassal state of the US empire? Are we ready to genuflect in front of Bush and his team? If the Indian government were to sign the 123 Agreement without retaining the right to keep its strategic options open, it will be the greatest betrayal in the history of independent India. If after 60 years of independence we still lack courage to stand up for our rights as a sovereign nation, then we definitely don’t deserve to dream big & play a crucial role in world affairs.

Indian Railways

published in B&E

Does Laloo really deserve all the accolades for engineering a ‘turn around’ of railways? Are the surplus figures quoted in his budget speech the true reflection of the progress achieved?

“A few years back, Laloo used to shout at the top of his voice that he will not allow the privatisation of Railways – same Laloo Prasad Yadav is now the chief proponent of outsourcing even the core functions of railways,” says Gopal Krishna, a trade union leader with Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) in a conversation with B&E. “And all this talk about outsourcing & PPP (public-private partnership) is a euphemism for privatisation,” the union leader critically added. One may agree or disagree with the CITU leader, however, what one cannot deny is that PPP is the new mantra of Indian Railways (IR), being chanted with great devotion & fervour. Yes, over the past few years, a discernable shift in the IR mindset has become apparent. A fertile ground is being diligently laid to transform the behemoth into a dynamic & agile organisation, capable of optimally utilising its assets to enhance profits. Now, the big question is: does this new found love to increase private participation in IR affairs, clash with its social objectives? “It is not correct to view IR as just a corporate body or having corporate functions. It is a part of social fabric of the country, having a far greater role than just meeting economic needs of the country,” Y. P. Anand, former Chairman, Railway Board told B&E. But how does an organisation meet its social obligations, if it continues to operate in the red for years on end? With operation ratio plummeting from 82.6 % in 1994-95 to 98% in 2001 & with staff pensions & salaries accounting for 44% of the total revenues earned in 2004-05, IR was indeed mired in a mess towards the beginning of the 21st century. It was in no position to honour its commitment to pay dividends to the government. A pall of gloom had spread along the 64,000 kms railway networks & 7,000 stations across the nation. It is perhaps these dark hovering clouds of bankruptcy, which led the government appointed Rakesh Mohan Committee to recommend massive ‘structural changes’ for IR, suggesting privatisation as the panacea for the ailing gargantuan.

“Rakesh Mohan would see the issue purely through liberal economist’s view while Indian Railways is a body which is representative of Indian population,” added Y. P. Anand. Since the very word ‘privatisation’ was not considered to be politically correct, the report was obviously put on the back-burner – a via media was sought to turn things around in the IR – chaperon in the private actors, desperately seeking to enjoy a share of pie in this rather large organisation- accounts for 2.3% of its GDP and owns roughly 45,000 hectares of idle land. And what followed this decision to drop privatisation & introduce PPP, is now history. A big media campaign was launched hailing the Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav as the messiah, who through his sheer management skills, had turned around an almost bankrupt public sector enterprise into a profit earning corporation. (In 2007-08 budget, IR generated a surplus of $4.5 billion or Rs.200 billion on revenue of $16 billion. Astonishingly, the revenue & surplus targets for 2007-08 stands at whopping $ 18 billion & $5 billion respectively.) However, Laloo’s tryst with surpluses seems to nearing an end. The recent media reports & Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India’s indictment of the IR’s accounting procedures have revealed that at least Rs.26.89 billion (roughly 13%) have been reflected in the 2006-07 surplus figures not because of any increase in the business, but primarily because of altered accounting policy adopted by IR. Had this 13% not been added the ‘surplus’ figures would have been much closer to what was achieved during the 2005-06 period. And this would certainly have prevented Laloo from receiving accolades from top B-schools across the globe. The question is: did Laloo encourage fudging of figures or was he assisted by the MNCs to pave the way for private entry? Private players too should be held responsible because the IR ‘turn around’ is being celebrated as the victor of PPP. Needless to add that in any partnership both the brickbats & the accolades must be equally shared.

It is a widely known, since Independence, scores of IR functions have been performed by contractors, then why this clamour about private participation now? “IR have a natural monopoly over rail sector in India. The private sector is not enthusiastic in venturing into rail industry.” Anwarul Hoda, member, Planning Commission, told B&E. Endorsing the view, N. M. Balasubrahmanyam, Secretary General, Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport, told B&E. “A lot of investment is needed by a company, which requires a good return, as good a return as in other industries. Hence, privatisation isn’t likely to take off in a big way in India,” Not withstanding the comments, the fact is that both the MNCs and the domestic private players are queuing up to grab the IR contracts both in core & non-core sectors. As opposed to the innocuous contractors’ of the yesteryears’– the fear about the present day private contractors results from the enormity of contracts (see box – IR is seeking investment to the tune of Rs.3,500 billion, in 11th Five Year Plan).Only fools would oppose improvement in financial viability & health of an organisation & therefore, its capacity to meet its social responsibility. But if the process of improving the bottomline is undertaken in a dubious manner; paying scant regard to the long-term sustainability of the reform process, credibility of the participating actors takes a nosedive. Then, whether you name the process as privatisation, PPP or simply an effort for public good, it is bound to be opposed tooth & nail by the public.

NUCLEAR POLICY: UNITED KINGDOM

Published in B&E

1000 reasons for......and against the British government’s nuclear plans

The Brown government in UK is being vigorously confronted by the Greens over the nuclear power issue. The environmental group had recently pulled out of the government sponsored consultations with the public on the issue. The recently concluded London survey, involving 1000 representatives of the British population has revealed that 46% support the use of nuclear power & about 25% disapprove of the government’s plans to revive and renew the nuclear energy resources. However, despite the support extended for the nuclear energy, 92% of the Londoners’ have expressed their concern against the disposal of nuclear waste likely to be generated by reactors.The environment lobby (consisting of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Green Alliance and a few others) is dissatisfied with the government’s consultation exercise. John Sauven, Executive Director, Greenpeace, told B&E that the entire process is a “farce”, & “public relations stitch-up” by the government. Earlier in February, the London High Court had declared the first round of consultation process conducted by the government to be “seriously flawed” & “manifestly inadequate and unfair”. This time again the Greens opposed to the setting up new nuclear power stations and are contemplating moving the Courts against the government plan.The government’s defence in favour of revitalising nuclear power is based on national energy security concerns. The British, who had built their first nuclear reactor in 1956 have a total of 19 reactors – the last one began operations in 1995. All the reactors barring one are likely to complete their life-cycle & decommissioned by 2023. Roughly 18% of the British electrify needs are met by nuclear power. Gas & coal supply 37% & 34 % of the power respectively. Now, according to the government, if the decision to set up new nuclear plants is delayed further, its dependence on fossil fuels will worsen by the day. The other line of defence, which the Brown administration is adopting is that nuclear energy is essential to meet the carbon emission norms laid down by the EU. “Electricity produced by a pressurised light water reactor, when all its carbon costs have been taken into account, emits around 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Gas produces 356 tonnes and coal 891,” says the London-based reputed environmentalist Gorge Monbiot.
Besides the government, the other party interested in seeing the revival of nuclear power is of course the corporations like Areva NP, EDF, British Energy, E.On, Iberdrola, RWE npower & Suez, who after the release of Energy policy in 2007 (granting access to private players in nuclear reactors field) have been getting seriously involved in the process. The Greenpeace and other groups however, feel that instead of going atomic, the government needs to invest more in renewable energy, in order to achieve 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.The arguments put forth by all the parties are right. If nuclear waste & safety are a threat to environment, then the depleting fossil fuels too is a reality. The issue needs to be decided squarely & fairly in people’s court and for that the British government will have to involve the majority population rather than merely a set of 1000 people.

Private Security

Dawn of a new era for private military corporations

By Atul Bharadwaj
Posted on April 25, 2006 -www. atlanticaffairs.org

The private provision of security is one of the most crucial
developments in the field of war and peace in the 1990s and after.
According to a report in The Guardian of London, “private military
corporations (PMCs) have penetrated western warfare so deeply that
they are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq
after the Pentagon”. Peter Singer, the author of Corporate Warriors,
recognizes this point when he says that the current scale of
operations of private military companies can only be compared to the
involvement of private warriors about 250 years ago.

The moot point is, why is there a splintering of national security, which
for many years was considered to be the sole preserve of the state?
There are two reasons for this development. Firstly, globalization has
led to an unprecedented increase in cross-border business activity.
The existing security arrangements have become inadequate to
ensure the security of trade in far-flung regions of the world.

The multinational companies (MNCs) can neither fully depend
upon the governments in distant lands nor on their home state to give
them the much-needed protection against attacks on their
businesses by natives opposed to the idea of globalization. With
massive cash investments worldwide, the international business has
gradually moved towards appropriating the means of conducting
violence, something that so far only the state could do.

Secondly, in the post Cold War world there has been an increasing
consensus towards greater private participation and reduced role of
the state in conducting human affairs on earth. It is this privatization
movement sweeping the globe which has made its impact on the
defence sector. In an era where the power and resources vested with
the state are continuously on the decline, it is natural for the
corporations to fill the security void created by the “retreat of the state”.

The PMCs are now engaged in conducting both wars as well building
peace. Their clients include not only the MNCs but also states and
international bodies like the United Nations. The services provided by
the PMCs range from laundry services for troops to maintaining
missiles and aircraft.

These companies also guard the heads of state, for example
President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, and the prisoners of war in
Iraq. The PMCs are also known to participate in combat operations
and intelligence gathering.

Despite their increasing involvement in the conduct of military
operations, PMCs are yet to acquire the political legitimacy to conduct
war on their own behalf. One reason for this is that state is yet to be
relegated to the dustbin of history. Therefore, most of the PMCs act
primarily as contractors for state's militaries.

The PMCs claim that they are not the same as mercenaries of the
yore. They are professionally managed corporations, which go about
conducting their business as per the corporate norms. However,
efforts to acquire legitimacy remain the primary concern of the PMCs. It
is important for men and women, who fight on ground, to be given due
recognition as soldiers.

However, soldiers working for a PMC would detest being called
soldiers of fortune or mercenaries. Just as a medicine man,
irrespective of whether he works for a private or public hospital, is
called a doctor, similarly the military professional working for PMCs
would like to be equated with soldiers who fight for the state militaries.

The privatization movement in security sector will only grow in the
coming years. Crucial intelligence and related military activities would
be outsourced to private firms. The emerging needs mean that new
international norms and regulatory mechanism will be worked out to
guide the conduct of PMCs and make them socially responsible and
democratically accountable.

Foerign p;olicy lessons through animals

Let Pakistan remain the most favoured pet (MFP)

After 9/11, the US has been performing the balancing act in the region with great astuteness. The US deftly tilts the balance some time in Pakistan’s favour and some time in India ‘s favour, by rebuking both (India and Pakistan) and annoying none. The constant fluctuations in the US stance have prevented the Indian strategists from drawing a clear-cut strategy to deal with the US.
Ever since the end of the cold war and the non-aligned movement going well nigh defunct, India has been trying to grapple with the vexing question of, how to deal with the USA in a predominantly unipolar world?
In view of the recent developments this question has acquired added significance. Because, developing robust military ties with America is a watershed event in history of Indian foreign policy. Although, India has the past experience of military ties with a major power. However, the terms and conditions of a military tie-up in a unipolar world are at great variance from that of the bi-polar world. How our relationship evolves with United States only time will tell. But, how we behave in our negotiations with the sole super in the world is of crucial importance at this stage. Towards this end our experts, in addition to following the foreign policy doctrines could also enlighten themselves by studying the history of animal kingdom.
Millions of years ago, man established his hegemony over other forms of life. The two small and insignificant members of the animal kingdom were the first to comprehend these developments in the jungle politics. The forefathers of cats and dogs correctly understood the human power. The two animals developed a symbiotic relationship with the human beings to survive the fast changing environment.
The approach, which the two animals adopted for being accepted as human pets, was uniquely different. The dog which is the bigger and taller of the two animals bent itself backward to fit into the human fold. It completely dissolved its identity and started following the dictates of its master without ever complaining. Despite, the occasional flogging it received from its master, the canine continued to serve with unflinching servility and followed his master who always kept him under leash. It wagged its tail to receive two square meals, and became absolutely dependent on man.
On the other hand, the cat had a different strategy to come closer to the human beings. It preserved its sovereignty, without loosing any of the inherited from its big brother Lion. Unlike, the dog, the cat, mainly used its charm to entice the humans to feed it. Despite being hated and considered a bad omen by few humans, the cat continued to enjoy the privileges of a pet and roam the human streets in its typical gait without any fear. Thus the two animals using their distinct methods were able to make inroads into the human habitat and ensured their permanent space in the human kingdom. I have chosen to mention the story of transition of cats and dogs form animal kingdom to human kingdom, mainly because there are a lot of hidden lessons for strategists.
Take for example Pakistan, it is an ardent follower of 'Dog diplomacy' (DD). It blatantly relies on its shouting (On Kashmir) skills to woo America. It has ditched its own brother the Taliban and its own people to follow its master. It continues to wag its tail for free aid to feed its ailing economy and keeps demanding a few crumbs in the form of arms and ammunition to prevent itself from being extinct. The USA had earlier left Pakistan to fend for itself, but soon the US found that stray Pakistan had started biting people and was more of a menace. It has once again given her the status of a US watchdog in the South Asian region.
India, on the other hand is a large and powerful nation with an agenda and philosophy of her own. We need not design our diplomacy and post cold war strategy based on DD. We should neither be unduly perturbed about the developing US-Pak nexus nor should we endeavor to replace Pakistan from the most favored pet (MFP) position in the US list. We need to evolve 'Cat diplomacy' (CD). Because following CD in spirit, we can come closer to the west without threatening our sovereignty. We have already enhanced our charm through IT, naval power and economy, and should continue to wage war against the mice like terrorists without causing any undue alarm and noise. Finally, in a cat like fashion, we can allow ourselves to be cuddled by the big powers but without giving up our ferocity.

Managing Stress

Art and Adversity

Experts say that in the modern or rather post modern world every person has to cope with lots of stress both at work place and at home. Somebody’s wife is not kissing; secretary not licking; boss is constantly kicking. There could be numerous other reasons causing increased levels of stress. But despite all these stresses man/woman continues to live and survive. Each one of us devise our own methodology to deal with stressful situations. I will tell you a story from my National Defence Academy (NDA) days- on how I dealt with one particular situation through the use of art form.
During my childhood the movie which had influenced me the most was Anand. The way Rajesh Khanna (Babu mushei) deals with the adversity left a lasting impression on my mind. This belief was reinforced by Munshi Premchand’s story ID Gaha, which we had read in our Hindi text book in 9th or 10th standard. The core of the story was “dukuoon mein bhi takhake (Laugh) lagana sikho”. Both the movie and the piece of literature helped me to develop my indigenous variety of stress management tools.
Coming back to my NDA story. It is a story about the last and final camp which we were required to undergo before the passing out parade. After finishing the camp fire, and enjoying loads of tipsy pudding (trifle fruit), the last exercise was a 20 Km padyatra (walk) beginning at 2’0 clock in the night.
My squadron consisting of 20 guys gathered together with all our packs and tummies full with tipsy pudding. The report was made to a surdy army officer. He looked at us from tip to toe and said “look guys this is tough exercise, the sis’s can fall out”. Somehow during my entire stay at the NDA, I had never been able to impress this guy. He had always considered me to be big shammer, a passenger who just did the required bit. He looked at me again and said “when the going gets tough the tough report sick”.
During the last exercise I had developed a big blister at the back of my ankle and the heavy ammunition boot, which I was wearing, was troubling me. I was seriously contemplating falling out and taking the easier route of traveling in an ambulance. But the contempt in that surdy officer’s eyes and sarcasm in his voice emboldened me to take the plunge. Moreover, since I was a naval cadet that army officer considered us little inferior in physical work. I did not want to pass out without completing this last exercise.
The padyatra started at two in the night. We started moving through bushes and mountains. As we progressed my blister started getting worse and the pain began to increase. I started falling behind. It was becoming increasingly difficult to carry my rifle and other load. My course mates who were not aware of my blister kept encouraging me, and I kept walking. As the sun began to rise my hopes of completing the walk started to diminish. The pain was almost unbearable and the fever was also beginning to shoot up. But there was no question of giving up. So, I kept walking bringing up the rear. I finally completed the walk reached NDA around 11:30 in the morning and just fell flat hurting my forehead with the tip of the rifle.
I don’t know what gave me the strength to achieve my aim but throughout the walk I kept humming Gulam Ali’s gazal to myself: Jinke Honton (Lips) pe hasie (smile) paoon (Feet) mein Chale (Blisters) hoonge, haan wahi mere chaahne wale hoonge.” These few lines gave me tremendous strength to cope with the adverse situation.
Did you discover, that I am writing this to cope with some stress in my life? Yes, writing is giving me tremendous satisfaction and energy to cope with the stress caused due to a young girl in my office insisting on calling me ‘sir’ and not Atul.

India Defence Privatization

C all to Arms!

Will the Indian establishment show consistency in nurturing an indigenous arms industry and make Indian defence self-reliant?

Imagine, the hostilities have broken out between India and its primary adversary. The Indian naval warships & airforce combatants deployed in the war zone are all set to launch their missiles onto the enemy vessels & territory. And suddenly, they find their navigation equipment – dependent on feed from the US-based global positioning system (GPS) – giving erroneous output. The war machines go blind because they don’t know where they are and in which direction to turn. The missiles with faulty navigation technology are flying helter-skelter. All plans go haywire. This is a possible scenario, which the defence strategists often discuss to bring out the dangers of over-dependence on foreign defence technology & the importance of indigenisation. One needs to understand that any country, which aspires to be a global power, cannot remain indefinitely dependent on the outside world for too long (during the period 2004-2007, India’s defence import expenditure stood at whopping $10.5 billion. India is the third largest arms importer in the world; among the developing countries, it tops the list of defence hardware). India’s current dependence on foreign arms is quintessentially a stop-gap arrangement before it can attain the expertise to stand on its own feet in terms of arms production. It is this realisation, which has led the government to reform the Indian arms manufacturing industry. Much in consonance with the DRDO objectives of achieving 70% indigenisation in defence production by 2005 (unfortunately, only 30% has been achieved till date); guided by the recommendations of Dr. Vijay L. Kelkar committee (constituted in 2004) and Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) 2007 paper titled ‘Avenues for Private Sector Participation in Defense’, the government finally decided to undertake revolutionary measures to chaperon the Indian private firms into hallowed precincts of the Indian defence. That the government has finally agreed to grant the status of “Raksha Udyog Ratan” (RUR) status to a selected few Indian companies, to provide products and services support to the Indian armed forces, is indeed an unprecedented step in the history of independent India. According to Brigadier Khutab Hai, CEO, Mahindra Defence Systems, “We should be allowed to develop high-tech weapons platforms by benefitting from R&D funding, sharing knowledge with the DRDO and working with the services headquarters to have a clear idea of their requirements well ahead of time.”

In fact, this understated revolution in armed forces is of far greater significance than the much touted “Revolution in Military Affairs” (resulting from advanced computing and communication technology). By identifying a few companies as RURs and bringing them at par with the Defence Public Sector Units (DPSU), the government has unequivocally asserted that the Indian defence has “nothing to lose, but chains.” The chains which had tied the defence sector to whims and fancies of the DPSU. It is not that the private sector was never involved with the defence production (in the period 2001-07, the private sector had got outsourced jobs worth $700 million from DPSUs and Ordnance Factories). Despite these impressive figures, the private role in defence has been confined to production of ‘nuts & bolts’ only, “the DPSUs with roughly 200,000 employees will continue to dominate this sector for some time to come,” K. Santhanam, an eminent scientist, former Project Director Pokharan II nuclear tests, told B&E. “The current policy envisages to catapult the private firms to play a bigger role now; promoting private participation in key areas like production of sensitive equipment including aircrafts, submarines, missiles, radars, underwater sensors, communication equipment and, last but not the least, a role in developing the strategic nuclear assets too.” Deba Mohanty, senior fellow with the Observer Research Foundation told B&E. A range of companies: TATA Power, Mahindra & Mahindra, Kriloskar, Ashok Leyland, Wipro, & others, are likely to be identified to supply products and services. India’s defence expenditure, which is slated to gallop at 7% annually for the next decade, is certainly an attractive proposition for Indian business community. However, it is equally appealing to the economists, as well the government, who intend to save huge foreign exchange & enhance the manufacturing base by enabling the Indians to produce, what for years we have been importing from Russia, USA, France, UK and Israel. Furthermore, reading the fine print in the MoD “Guidelines for the Selection of Industry ‘Raksha Udyog Ratnas’/ ‘Champions’ In Defence Production”, (No.9(8)/2005/D(S-III), 09 May 2006), it is revealed that the outsourcing being talked about is not confined to equipment and platform production only. The government is not just talking about creating Indian versions of Raytheon & Lockheed Martin. The concept also includes building the Indian Halliburtons’ & L3 (companies engaged in providing security, logistic management, training and other services to the US army, engaged in Iraq and elsewhere). If this was to happen, we would soon find the Indian firms more closely associated with defence logistics and training in India. The training on state-of the art aircraft & ship-handling simulators could be easily provided by Indian computer giants. We could have big retail players, like Reliance Retail, take over major functions, now performed by Army Supply Corps (ASC). This is not an artists dream, it is a global trend widely prevalent in the USA and the UK. The enormity of reforms under way in the defence sector is nothing short of a tectonic shift in the way defence has been perceived for years. The private players will soon begin to shed their corporate attire and begin to adorn the camouflage fatigues, because the dilapidated & decrepit DPSU’s infrastructure is in urgent need of competition. And India surely needs a military industrial complex, which can help it gain dignity in a predominantly Darwinian world.

BANGLADESH: ELECTIONS

Dhaka democracy!

A military backed democracy is a sham to fool people

A military ruler announcing the election dates in a country & urging the people, “Don’t sell your vote and don’t allow others to do that”, is a perfect example to understand the meaning of the word ‘oxymoron’. Because, the moment, the Generals’ begin to decide the fate of democracy, one should start counting the days left for the death of freedom. And that is exactly what is transpiring behind the scenes in Dhaka, where constant trampling of democratic norms has pushed the nation towards a political mess.With the general elections slated to be held in December 2008, one is hardly sanguine about the prospects of a well-intentioned liberal set-up to emerge in the near-future. The sight & sound of polls may make the US Charge d’ Affaires Geeta Pasi sing a happy note, “Bangladeshis have entrusted the caretaker government with a great responsibility, including to put into place a foundation for a free & fair election by the end of 2008 & a healthy, functioning democratic system that Bangladeshis deeply desire.” But, the facts on ground indicate that the military backed caretaker government will produce only an ‘embedded democracy’, devoid of powers to sustain people’s choice.Recently, when Bangladesh Army Chief General, Moeen U. Ahmed pronounced the forthcoming election dates, one wondered why does a General (enjoying all the powers and privileges of running a proxy administration in a nation), go in for elections. One is pretty sure that the General and his cohorts do not have any genuine love for democracy. It is mainly the intense pressure exerted by the international community & the Bangladeshi expatriates living in the West that has forced the General to relent. But one and a half year is a long period in the history of an instable & poor nation like the Bangladesh. And when the army will do an about turn and decide to renege on its promise to restore democracy, will remain a million dollar question.

Earlier, elections that were scheduled to be held on January 22 were cancelled; emergency installed and political leaders of the two major political parties – former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League and her arch rival Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) were asked to pack their bags and leave the country. Through this rather bizarre act, the military, ostensibly intended to introduce a ‘new brand of democracy’ in the nation, bereft of leadership capable of providing stability. But little did they realise that “in their urge to get back the lost power, the two parties are likely to add to the political chaos”, says Sanjay Bahadur of the School of International Studies, JNU, while speaking to B&E.In 1971, when India had helped create Bangladesh, it had believed that its eastern neighbour would be a political model distinct from its erstwhile colonial master, Pakistan. But ‘old habits die hard’. Today, Bangladesh is a carbon copy of Pakistan. Just as military is considered to be an indispensable part of Pakistani politics, Bangladesh Foreign Adviser, Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury too feels that since Bangladesh is a “violent and crime-inflicted society with trans-border links, the army must assume a more robust role.” Now how does one reconcile this love for military dictatorship with their urge to dream democracy? All one can say is, insha’Allah!
B&E

Civil-Military Relations-India

Published in B&E

Down down babudom!

Improved civil-military ties is a must for a nuclear nation

Management & governance are the buzz words in a globalised world. It is not just the corporates who are spending sleepless nights to re-model their structures – the sloth-ridden government is also getting into action to catch up with market forces. The example of this trend is provided by the recently released Group of Ministers (GoM) report dealing with Defence Management. In April 2000, the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpaee had tasked the GoM to do a thorough review of the national security. The GoM under the stewardship of L. K. Advani (then Minister of Home Affairs) had constituted four different task forces for the purpose of studying the intelligence apparatus, internal security, border management & the management of defence. The Defence Management task force under former Minister of State for Defence Arun Singh was delegated to look into the India’s Higher Defence Control Organisation (HDCO) and suggest ‘out-of the box ideas’ to integrate the three Service HQs with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) & also deal with matters as important as Procurement Organisation & Procedures; Planning & Budgeting; Defence Production; Defence Research & Development; Personnel Matters & National Defence University. Despite some good recommendations to establish synergy between the MoD & the armed forces, “the hand of babudom is clearly visible in the report. In fact it has a touch of humour. It is proposed that the Defence Secretary & the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) should be treated at par, irrespective of the warrant of precedence, and each should attend meetings called by the other. Similarly, it recommends that civilians in the MoD should be provided certain facilities available to the Armed Forces, like membership of clubs, medical facilities et al, so that they develop a sense of ‘belonging’ to the defence establishments and vice versa. So you will soon find the Army Golf Course and the clubs full of the babus of MoD and their families. That will certainly promote belonging, because after some time, these institutions will belong to them, not us,” Maj. General (Retd.) V. K. Singh sarcastically put across his point to B&E.

There is a historical background to the existing tensions in the civil-military relations. Ever since Independence, one of the major cribs of the defence forces has been their declining status in the national security management structures. During the British period when the Commander-in-Chief (a single head of all the three services was also the Defence Member of the Governor General’s Council), his was the last word. When on August 15, 1947, the C-in-C post was abolished, the job of coordinating & integrating the three services went into MoD’s lap. The Armed Forces, which had occupied a higher position in the government’s protocol list under the British dispensation, have perceived their power and position being severely compromised. Immediately after throwing away the yoke of British rule, the Indian political leadership wanted to consolidate democracy & was surely vary of the army, which had been brought up under the tutelage of British Imperial Defence. However, as the Indian democracy matured, the political trust in the Armed Forces also increased. Although, the army was unable to prove its mettle in 1962 war with China, the event was watershed in the nation’s history, because it made the Armed Forces a part & parcel of the nation-state. Subsequent wars proved the professionalism of the defence forces & their willingness to strengthen the democratic polity. However, despite these efforts the defence forces were kept out of the higher decision making loop. The blame for this state of affairs is shared equally by the bureaucracy & the political class.One cannot dispute the need to solve the civil-military conundrum. Any attempt by the civilian authorities to usurp the perks enjoyed by the forces will only lead to aggravating the problem. The civilians directly involved in defence affairs need to be made more aware of the environment and the conditions under which the forces operate. It is only by creating a more congenial relations that the democracy will be strengthened.
B&E

US Iraq Policy

Mercenaries of the world unite

Even if the troops withdraw, occupation will continue in perpetuity
“You can fool some people sometime, but not all the people all the time.” While majority of the sane world understands the wisdom ingrained in this ancient thought, Bush simply refuses to learn. First, he fooled the world by spreading the canard about Iraqi nuclear weapons and now, he is busy making a mockery of the American democracy by keeping the Congress and the world engaged on the issue of reduction & withdrawal of 160,000 official US troops from Iraq. The reality is, apart from the official army, “a ‘shadow force’ – 180,000 mercenaries working for more than 630 ‘Private Military Companies’ (PMCs) are assisting US in perpetuating the illegal occupation of Iraq. And the top beneficiaries of the privatisation of war are: British firm Aegis Defence Services ($293 million contract from Pentagon); Texas-based DynCorp. International ($1 billion contract to provide personnel to train Iraqi police forces) & Blackwater USA ($750 million contract from US State Department for diplomatic security),” Jeremy Scahill, a noted expert on private security shared with B&E. And if you thought that these are innocuous looking private security companies, you are mistaken! These companies are armed to teeth with latest arms & engage in combat.Bush is certainly not the pioneer in resurrecting mercenarism; however, he cannot be absolved of the sin of giving the phenomenon a fillip. And this he has done simply to subvert & circumvent both the international & domestic laws curtailing the use of force for aggression of a sovereign land. And also to ensure that even if he loses elections and the troops withdraw; his most favoured MNCs will continue to suck the Iraqi blood & oil with impunity.

B&E

Malaysia

Published in B&E

bondage & state brutality

The in-human Malaysia laws prevent multi-racial couples from living in peace & harmony

Years back, noted Indian author & journalist Khushwant Singh, writing on the man-woman relationship, had remarked that only death & adultery can end a relationship. Khushwant, may have been right, if the bonds were only dependent on the internal dynamics operating within a relationship. However, there are scores of religious & social pressures, which add malleability to an otherwise strong relationship. This fact is being regularly proved right in Malaysia, where married men & woman belonging to different faiths are being ruthlessly separated to prove the predominance of faith over an individual’s right to lead a life of his/her choice.Recent reports have revealed that Malaysian authorities adhering to Islamic tenets have declared the marriage between a Muslim girl, (Najeera Farvinli Mohamed Jalali – an ethnic Indian) & a Hindu boy (Magendran Sababathy) as illegitimate & charged them for “illegal cohabitation”. Not only this, before pronouncing the verdict the authorities had imprisoned the girl for four months under gruelling conditions. The archaic Malaysian laws prohibit cross-religious marriages. However, with Najeera denying adhering to Muslim religion, it is arguing that she isn’t obligated to follow the Islamic law. “I don’t think there’s a legal basis for them to do it,” says Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a human rights lawyer.The so-called ‘progressive Islamic’ state (which claims to be secular) has three major ethnic communities (Malays, Indians & Chinese). However, the polity is overtly pro-Malay. The constitution guarantees freedom of worship but forces Islam on all ethnic Malays & treats them under the ambit of Sharia law. While Indians & Chinese can seek justice in civil courts, the Malays perforce have to go through the rigours of Sharia courts. And this Malaysia proudly describes as its unique form of pluralism, distinct from the European discourse on multiculturalism. It is this very distorted form of secularism, which has prevented Najeera from conjoining with her husband.Earlier in May 2007, the country’s apex civil court had denied Lina Joy to remove ‘Islam’ from her identity card. The court had denied her the right to convert to Christianity on the grounds that “You can’t at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another.” All these laws and actions of the Malaysian state are only widening the racial fissures in the society. The government cannot go on endlessly appeasing the cohorts of political Islam and then take refuge under the fact that their definition of Human Rights is different from that of the Europeans. The defiant Malaysian couples should continue their struggle humming the English poets words – “One who falls in love without taking it to the final conclusion, is like one who goes on a sea voyage only to become sea-sick.”

B&E

US Military

published in Indian Express- Saturday, July 23, 2005- URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=74919


Tough, getting them to sign up

Atul Bharadwaj

The most powerful and technologically advanced army in the world is unable to make it attractive to its citizens to join the all volunteer force (AVF). The US army’s target is to recruit 80,000 troops by the end of 2005, but it is ‘‘more than 15 per cent behind its year-to-date goal’’. In addition to lowering its enlistment standards, the army has unleashed new TV ads targeting reluctant parents — offering sign-up bonuses of up to $20,000 to lure youth to serve in the national army.
The result is that the recruiters are under intense pressure to meet the quota requirements. Among the victims of this stress-laden drive, for instance, are Corporal Pat Tillman’s parents. In the wake of 9/11, Tillman had left his well-paying football career to serve the nation. His death last year was celebrated as an act of great patriotism. But the recent revelation of the true story — the young footballer was killed due to ‘‘friendly fire’’ by one of his buddies in Afghanistan — has shattered Tillman’s parents, who now complain that an “army worried about the crippling recruitment” concocted a story about their son’s death and lied to the country.
On May 20 this year, the US army had to suspend its recruitment drive for a day. The reason was not to give rest and recuperation to 7,500 army recruiters, but to reflect on their recruitment techniques which have come under intense scrutiny due to allegations of regular misconduct. The immediate context for the one-day suspension was a recruiter threatening to call the police to arrest a young man who had resisted recruitment.
Coercion and intimidation is not only being employed against individuals resisting enlistment but also against academic institutions and student groups involved in anti-war protests. Earlier in November 2004, the Federal Court of Appeals in Philadelphia blocked the government from enforcing the Solomon Amendment. According to this law, universities which refuse to allow military recruiters on campus could be denied federal funding.
The law was originally passed by Congress in 1996 but was not actively enforced before the beginning of President Bush’s administration. A network of 25 law schools and about 900 law professors had filed a complaint against the Solomon amendment, which violated the free speech rights of schools that restricted on-campus recruitment in response to the US military’s ban on gays and lesbians. The army’s discrimination against women and homosexuals is not the only reason for the low levels of recruitment. According to Jamie Weinstein, a right-wing scholar, the protest against discriminatory policies is just a facade. The anti-war Left radicals are primarily campaigning because they consider the army to be perpetuating the interests of US imperialism.
If this proposition is true, the civil society’s refusal to provide the foot soldiers to its army represents a growing civil-military divide. To obviate this civil-military gap, the US has three options. The first is the reintroduction of conscription. This option may not appeal to the neo-cons because of their ideological opposition to mass conscript armies containing reluctant soldiers. The second option is to follow the prescription proposed in Samuel Huntington’s book, The Soldier and the State (1957) — instil conservative values in a liberal society in consonance with military needs. This the neo-cons are pursuing through various measures, including the heightening of the fear element. However, this is a long-term option and cannot be easily achieved in US society, with its strong liberal moorings. The third option — Rumsfeld’s ‘military transformation’ doctrine — means maintaining a lean, mean and thin fighting machine.
But it is important to understand the “unknown unknowns” in this doctrine. Disregarding General Eric Shinseki’s advice, Rumsfeld sent a comparatively small number of fighters to Iraq. The shortfall was filled by raising the Iraqi armed forces. It is primarily as a result of this policy that compared to 700 Iraqi casualties, only 70 US soldiers were killed in the one month of violence that had erupted after the formation of Iraq government.
More numbers of Americans in the war zone means more casualties and therefore greater resistance to war at home. Making the Iraqi soldiers man the frontlines against insurgents and keeping the US forces to rear-guard action posts is a sound policy to keep the US casualties at manageable levels. For instance, had the US succeeded in getting one army division from another country, like India for instance, the US casualties in Iraq might have been lower than 1,700. But that did not happen. In many ways, then, the US army’s recruitment problems become the world’s concern too.

The writer is a war studies scholar at King’s College, London

London football

Published in Indian Express- May 24, 2005-URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=70902

Football, for love or for money?

Man Untd fans have been vociferously protesting the takeover by an American

Atul Bharadwaj

Besides the firebrand MP George Galloway, the other person who has been hogging the headlines in Britain is Malcolm Glazer. He is an American sports tycoon, whose claim to fame is that much against the wishes of football fans, he has managed to take over the ‘‘crown jewel’’ of British football — the Manchester United club. The tension generated by the liberalisation of football trade in Britain is almost a repeat of the stories one hears whenever foreign capital encroaches upon locals’ rights.
Last week, Malcolm Glazer became the owner of Man Untd., after securing 75 per cent of the club’s shares. He has bought the club at a cost of 800 million sterling pounds. Glazer has mortgaged the club’s assets, notably the Old Trafford stadium, to borrow 265 million from the US investment bank JP Morgan. Man Untd fans have been vociferously protesting the takeover by an American. The main point of contention between Glazer and fans is that the new owner is seen to be an outsider, with no love for the sport. Glazer is viewed as a profit seeking monster, whose quest for making millions out of the club is likely to ruin the club’s fortunes and future.
Six years ago, Rupert Murdoch had attempted to take over the club. Murdoch’s bid was thwarted by the anti-monopoly rules which are no longer in place. Therefore, the only option left with fans in a free market set-up, (apart from burning Glazer’s effigies) is to boycott the club, akin to not consuming coke to protest against the MNC. They are planning a Gandhi-esque sit-down in the middle of the pitch during next week’s FA cup final.
How far this will be feasible is difficult to assess primarily because football along with associated club activities is almost like opium for the British football fans. Glazer is not the first to commercialise the British working class game. Last year, a 37 year old Russian business tycoon Roman Abmramovich bought the Chelsea club for 250m pounds. Abmramovich is one of the chosen few Russian entrepreneurs who took advantage of the privatisation of Russia’s state assets in the mid-1990s. He is the core shareholder of Sibneft, the Russian oil company that owns the burovaya in western Siberia and 9,999 more oil rigs like it. His company Millhouse Capital is registered in Weybridge, Surrey, UK. According to The Guardian, Abmramovich has close connections with the British elite and Kent aristocracy. After Putin’s drive against the beneficiaries of the post-Soviet sell-out of state assets, Abmramovich shifted base to London.
Abmramovich is not as detested in Britain as Glazer is. One reason for this is that the Russian has invested in the club not for profit motive. May be, it is a gesture to the British, who may have backed the young man to be counted in the list of richest men in the world. Glazer, on the other hand, is seen to be using the club to fill his own coffers. Moreover, it is felt that the Russian may be more easily tamed.
The Russian owner of Chelsea invested huge sums to buy players from football markets around the globe. The result is that Chelsea has won the British Premiership league for the first time in 50 years. This should signal to the fans that free market mechanisms do act in the interest of the sport. However, the basic fear stems from the fact that the market’s penchant for procuring talent from other countries to boost profits adversely impacts on the growth of local talent. Quentin Letts argues in The Wall Street Journal that such an attitude of the Man Untd fans is a result of their failure to ‘‘accept the realities of capitalism’’.
This suggests that the fight is not just about football rights but also about principles of ownership of land and resources. Football is no longer a poor man’s game. It is a part and parcel of the global political economy, where oil is a precious commodity and hegemony is often resisted. It is neither the players nor the manufacturers of sports goods who form the backbone of the sports industry. People’s sentimental attachment and unqualified love for the sport is the basic raw material. It is this love which nurtures future players and takes it to the heights of popularity.
The problem is that the insatiable quest for profits leads one to neglect this support base forgetting that public involvement is a perishable commodity. Neither capital nor technology is capable of sustaining the continuous flow of this raw material. For example, the current communication technology brings the best global football actions into our drawing rooms. But has this been able to sustain Kolkata’s love for football? Kolkatans do watch the game, but with indifference. The result is that they have switched their loyalties to cricket, where their local hero Sourav Ganguly fulfills their spiritual needs.

The writer is a scholar at King’s College, London

Indian Politics & Cricket

Test or Twenty20 ?

The days left to go for next election coming closer

When the Congress and the Left got together in 2004, the BJP had thought that the two would play a 'Twenty-20' game at best- the inherent contradictions in their ideological posturing, would make the UPA government unstable. The Congress on the other hand was confident-Congress-Left alliance were in for a 5-year long test match. The non-committal left, extending issue based support said that they would be in the field for as long they did not feel exhausted of supporting the neo-liberal policies of the Congress. Interestingly, the Left seems to be fast approaching their 'prudent limit of endurance' and the possibilities of the UPA alliance completing the test match (full term) seem remote.
With the 12th man (the Left) just refusing to catch the Indo-US nuclear deal, and openly declaring it's dislike for the Captain's (Manmohan Singh) strategy of subverting the Indian national interests at the altar of economic gains from the US, the odds are certainly tilting against the UPA. This was made abundantly clear by the CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat (an orthodox batter). Using the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he warned the Prime Minister to be more judicious in selecting shot (read friends)- Abe, Pervaiz Musharraf, John Howard, friends of US President George Bush were all on their way out, primarily because they had compromised their teams (nation's) interest and tried to play extravagant shots at the insistence of Bush administration. What this literally meant was that unless the captain mended his match-fixing ways in cahoots with the global empire-the left fast approaching its saturation level would precipitate, leading to the fall of UPA government.
Both cricket and politics are so much in common with the chameleon, which changes colour at the drop of a hat, merely to camouflage its existence & enhance chances of survival in a highly competitive jungle environment. Now, whether Manmohan bids bye Bush or Karat walks out of the field only time will tell, but one thing is certain the Congress- Left alliance would not complete the test match in the true cricketing spirit.

Both cricket and politics are so much in common with the chameleon, which changes colour at the drop of a hat, merely to camouflage its existence & enhance chances of survival in a highly competitive jungle environment. Now, whether Manmohan bids bye Bush or Karat walks out of the field only time will tell, but one thing is certain the Congress- Left alliance would not complete the test match in the true cricketing spirit.

Business & Human Rights

WILL GRANT OF INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY TO TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS PROMOTE THEIR RIGHTS TO USE ORGANIZED VIOLENCE?


Atul Bharadwaj
September 2005


Dissertation submitted for MA in War Studies
King’s College, London

Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………… 3
What is International Personality?..................................................... ………7
The Purpose of Study…………………………………………………………… 10
Structure and Research Method………………………………………. 11

Chapter 2: Understanding Corporate Personhood……………………..13
Legal Theories………………………………………………………………….. 13
Political Dimensions of Corporate Personhood……………………………. 16

Chapter 3: Corporation- A Greedy Man…………………………………….22
The Congo Conflict and Corporations…………………………………………22
Are Corporations Different From Other Greedy Actors?..............................26
The Columbian Example……………………………………………………….. 30
Why Do Corporations Incorporate the Means of Coercion?........................31
The East India Company and Military…………………………………………33
Is East India Company’s Example Relevant Today?..................................37
Chapter4: Corporations and International Arena………………………..43
Corporation as a Political Person……………………………………………… 43
Making Corporations Responsible………………………………………………49
Problems Associated with Treating TNCs as ‘Subjects’………………………52
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………57
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….. 61

Chapter One: Introduction


Individuals and companies take advantage of, maintain and have even initiated armed conflicts in order to plunder destabilized countries to enrich themselves, with devastating consequences for civilian populations.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Aanan [1]

This essay argues that the grant of international personality to transnational corporation (TNCs) will lead to their greater participation in the international politics and provide them with the legitimacy to use organized violence.

There has been an exponential increase in the global reach and range of TNCs in the past two decades. This has been even more pronounced in the 1990s.[2] Global business actors encounter myriad forms of friction in the course of their pursuit of profits. It is alleged that TNCs on occasion use illegal and harsh means to overcome such friction generated by local forces opposed to their operations. The means that TNCs are known to adopt are two-fold: one, the appropriation of local military forces provided by the states; and secondly, the use of warlords and own security agencies to secure their business interests. This is one of the causes for economic conflict, and often leads to human rights violation. The not-so-benevolent corporations have consequently been attracting protests from civil societies in advanced countries and backlash from natives in the developing world.[3]

Civil rights movements, aided by modern communication technologies, have been quick to spot the human rights violations, especially in the developing world, where TNCs engaged in the business of extracting of mineral resources are active. This has raised the level of concern within the international community, on how to balance the TNCs quest for profits with their social responsibility.

A moderate attempt at regulating the TNCs global activities is based on moral appeal. The endeavour is to instill a sense of social responsibility in corporations. The not- so-moderate proposal aims to make TNCs subjects of international law and hold them accountable for any violation of human rights.[4] That there is something amiss in the way corporations are operating is duly acknowledged by some corporate leaders. Some scholars view this challenge as a threat to the sustainability of corporations and capitalism.[5] According to Klaus M. Leisinger of Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development, ‘If they [TNCs] do not observe these most essential elements of their social responsibility, they surely risk their societal (if not legal) license to operate’. [6]

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), has gained salience over the past few years.[7] CSR is a voluntary attempt by corporations to cater to public concerns about environmental degradation; violation of labour rights; use of child labour and abuse of human rights, while still retaining its primary obligations towards its shareholders. CSR is therefore, seen as a moral effort towards increasing the shelf life of corporations in the wake of the growing backlash against TNCs. However, the regulatory response to the human rights violations by corporations envisages bringing them under the ambit of international law for criminal offences against humanity. The basic difference between the two view points is that the former sees it as a force capable of solving the social and environmental problems through its moral capabilities and organizational skills, while the latter sees TNCs as a necessary evil. It is this belief in the omnipotent powers of the corporations that leads to the argument that the TNCs should fill the political void in nations, where the state has failed to meet the expectations of good governance.[8]

It is important to see the underlying assumptions in both the above mentioned efforts to tame corporate behaviour. Both the moderate and not-so-moderate responses to mend corporate behaviour are based on the assumption that TNCs are the primary engines of the global economy and they are needed to spread economic benefits to the under developed parts of the globe. The second assumption underpinning both propositions is that the relationship between the regulator and the corporations will remain static at current levels and the corporations will continue play a subordinate role to the regulatory bodies (national or supranational).

The essay will discuss these assumptions in detail to show that the basis for both these assumptions is flawed, primarily because; it is inherent in the nature of corporations to grow bigger and ultimately gain political powers in order to manage their possessions and property. Here the essay will use the example of the East India Company and its relationship with the British parliament to show how corporate bodies form alliances with the political elite in their home base to perpetuate their empire elsewhere. The pace at which the state-market relations have altered in the past decade should be indicative of the power and potential of the TNCs to gain greater political leverage in the international political arena.
At one level, majority of the corporations are now beginning to pay due cognizance to environmental and social concerns in their areas of operations. However, at the other end of the spectrum, one observes that corporations are enhancing their lethal powers through acquisition of greater stakes in the means of conducting organized violence.[9] These efforts to enhance the corporate appeal and armoury are not unprecedented. As will be shown later, both these methodologies were adopted by corporations in the past to increase their power base. The concern now, however, is will the TNCs grow big enough to challenge the very essence of statehood and the prerogative to make war?

What is International Personality?

Alexander Wendt is credited with bringing the subject of ‘state as person in international theory’. Wendt suggests that ‘states are real actors to which we can attribute anthropomorphic qualities like desires, beliefs and intentionality’.[10] Wendt recognizes three kinds of persons: ‘psychological person (with mental attributes), legal person (with rights and obligation) and moral person (accountable to a moral code)’.[11] He considers state to be a psychological person but denies this distinction to corporation, which is merely a moral personality.[12] Contesting the division of an individual along psychological, moral and legal lines, Peter Loams says that ‘in actual human beings these identities are undivided’.[13] Defending his argument Wendt posits that ‘even in individuals empirical (psychological) and normative (legal and moral) personhood are separate and irreducible to each other’.[14] Lomas is right in saying that a person is an undivided personality. However, which particular personality trait of a person predominate his behaviour is what defines his relationship to the society. For example, according to corporate citizenship concept, corporate person is a good moral being. However, when we see the corporation from close quarter we find that it is greedy and selfish and it is this particular personality trait, which overshadows its good conduct. Therefore, when we talk about granting corporations with international responsibilities, its dominant trait has to be borne in mind.

CSR aims to highlight the moral aspects of corporate personality, primarily to gain international legitimacy and therefore, international personhood for corporations.[15] Under the international legal regimes states are the only entities with a legal personality. States are subjects of international law. More recently, the formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has conferred this status on individuals, who are now liable to be tried internationally for crimes against humanity. Apart from States and individuals, transnational corporations are the other main international actors that communicate at the global level; however TNCs do not enjoy the status of subjects under international law. One cannot say that throughout the Westaphalian era only states have enjoyed this exclusive status, because, earlier even non-state entities like ‘Holy See, charted companies and belligerents’ have enjoyed this status.[16]

The argument that TNCs should be treated as subjects of international law is aimed at holding them accountable for human rights violations or crimes against humanity. Majority of the argument for subjecting TNCs to international legal jurisdiction, talks only about their obligations under the international law, while neglecting the rights that will accrue to TNCs through this legal mechanism. The question is- will the obligation of preserving ethical business practices and care for human rights by the TNCs, also lead to legitimization of their right to use organized violence for protection of their business interests in a globalized world?

Upgrading the MNCs from the status of being ‘objects’ to ‘subjects’ under international law could directly bring them in competition for international legal rights, which currently are the sole preserve of the states.[17] This essay attempts to discuss the dilemma associated with conferring international legal personhood upon TNCs. As Mark B Taylor argues,

On the one hand, we find it absurd that there are few norms and no mechanism through which companies can be held accountable for participation in human rights abuse. On the other hand, it seems ridiculous that companies should be held to account for violations that have always been the responsibility of governments to control and that have thus been none of their business.[18]

The Purpose of Study

Corporations are playing an important role in the global economic milieu. Will they continue to be benign economic players or occupy an increasingly greater political space? According to John Ruggie, TNCs will play an increasing role in the international public domain, where states are failing to meet the challenges.[19] What will be the nature of engagement of TNCs within the larger political space thus – will they be granted the legitimacy use organized violence to protect human rights? Will the grant of public space lead to greater privatization of security?

The essay is based on the study of negative aspects of corporate personality rather than its positive aspects, because it is the negative aspects of this personality which are more germane to the issue of use and misuse of organized violence. In short this essay will emphasizes more on the ‘masculine’ aspects of the corporate personality, which give it a propensity to indulge in use of violence rather than on its more ‘feminine’ characteristics commonly associated with social responsibility. The essay does not discuss the privatization of security normally associated with the increased role of contractors in war. It is a discussion about the next stage in privatization of war- the grant of legitimacy by international authority to corporations to operate independently as a protective force.
‘
Structure and Research Method

The first part of the essay attempts to understand legal and the political dimensions of the concept of corporate personhood. It is considered important to explore the legal person status, which the corporations enjoy under the domestic laws of Western countries, because this leads us to a better understanding of its emerging personality in the international context.

The third chapter begins by exploring the negative side of the corporate personality and its propensity to appropriate the means of coercion by taking up the examples of corporate involvement in human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Columbia. We then ask the question as to why does a typically business enterprise need the support of coercion to advance its interests? The essay compares the East India Company with modern TNCs to show that expansionist tendencies are an inherent part of any economic organization.
Chapter four discusses the corporation as a political person and moves on to explore the current debates about expanding their international responsibilities. In the end the essay discusses whether the TNC involvement in international governance structures and protection of human rights will lead towards granting them the legitimacy to use private military means?

Chapter 2: Understanding Corporate Personhood

Legal theories

Corporations have been in existence for over 150 years. This economic body has shown tremendous resilience and withstood numerous attacks, questioning the very legitimacy of its being. The fact that it has weathered the onslaught of political forces to re-emerge as a dominant historical actor intending to once again play a critical role in shaping human history in the 21st century, demands that its past and emerging personality be subjected to intense academic scrutiny. Corporate law recognizes business corporations as a legal person.[20] This view considers corporations to be entities independent of the members, who own it. The independent identity conferred on corporations by law has been a subject of debate over the past century. Is corporation, an imaginary or an artificial person? Is it a creation of the state or a progeny of markets? Is it merely an economic actor or does it harbour political ambitions too? Does corporate personality remain static or is it subject to evolutionary changes in the politico-economic landscape on earth? Is it a benign peace loving personality or a violent pathological person? A survey of the existing theories and debates about corporate personhood will help us throw some light on the above mentioned questions.
.
A ‘person’ in the legal world is understood as a human being endowed with economic, civil and political rights.[21] According to an American lawyer’s article in Harvard Law Review, 1911, the ‘scientific and metaphysical’ study of corporate personality was first undertaken by Savigny in Germany.[22] The basic question which Savigny posed was who owns the corporate property? Savigny’s answer was that the property belonged to a ‘fictitious being and not to any real person or entity’. This fictitious being devoid of a ‘will’ was corporation itself.[23] Later French writers accorded the fictitious being with a modicum of reality by imputing its origin to the will of the state. Without contesting the basic concept of a fictitious corporate personality created by the state, another German, Brinz propounded the “Zweckvermogen” theory which argued that the fictitious property belonged to none-‘it is not a property of a person but of a purpose’.[24]

Soon a rival theory emerged, which contested the basic tenets of fiction theory and argued that corporations were ‘real and natural persons, recognized but not created by law’[25] The realist theory even went to the extent of ascribing sex to the corporate personality, by suggesting that some ‘corporate bodies were feminine like church and others were more masculine like the state’.[26] Another school of thought simply dismissed the realist theory and propounded that the ‘corporation is merely an abbreviated way of writing the names of several members’.[27]

The realist conception of corporation comes closest to understanding the nature of corporation as politico-economic player, because corporations in the past have managed colonies and exercised their masculinity by indulging in violence. However, the realist theory which defined corporations in unambiguous terms was ignored and the terms of reference of the debate were altered. The current debate on the subject revolves around the question- should the corporation’s chief concern be shareholders or stakeholders?[28] According to Kent Greenfield for the last half a century the corporate scholarship has been dominated by the property theorists and the contractarians.[29] To understand the shift in the debate, it is important to understand the political context in which it is conducted.

Political Dimensions of Corporate Personhood

David Million offers a convincing understanding of the subject of corporate personhood by locating the debate in the political context. [30] According to Million, the questions which need to be addressed with regard to corporate personhood are, ‘individual responsibility and obligation, distribution of wealth and state power’.[31] By failing to address these questions the legal debates about corporate personhood remain devoid of any conclusive evidence of corporate behaviour and the very nature of the corporate person.

Million traces the history of the corporate personality debate from 1886, when the identity of corporations was meshed with the identity of its owners. The ‘aggregate theory’ denied that the corporation is a person created by the state. According to Million, the ‘aggregate theory’ was a response to 19th century state regulatory mechanisms, which defined the limits on ‘corporate size, wealth and longevity’.[32] However, by the end of the 19th century, with the expansion of business activity, state restrictions were considered inimical to the growth of corporations. It is during this particular stage that the aggregate theory with its ‘anti-regulatory stance’ began to gain currency. However, the aggregate theory too was found to be a hindrance to the growth of large enterprises, because of its insistence on viewing corporations as large partnership firms. Corporations as partnership firms meant that the shareholders were liable to bear the losses in case of insolvency of the firm. This was the concept of ‘unlimited liability’ of the shareholders, which acted as deterrence against investments.[33] Moreover, the excessive involvement of shareholders in the management of the firm was not conducive for its expansion.

The emergence of economies of scale in the late nineteenth century led to the demand for reduced state controls. This marked the emergence of fresh ideas about the corporation being a natural person created by the market forces as opposed to an artificial person created by the state. This conceptualization of the corporation as an entity also reflected the altered relationship between the shareholders and the company. To encourage risk-free investments, the ‘unlimited liability’ clause in respect of the shareholder was changed to ‘limited liability’, making the shareholder a passive investor in a company. Therefore, the conceptualization of corporation as a natural and private identity helped it to break two regulatory bonds imposed on it by the state and the investors. This primarily meant that the corporation was no longer an artificial person, remote controlled by the dictates of the state nor was it a ‘thing’ tied to its owners (investors). It was now a free flowing person with unlimited ambition to achieve its growth objectives. [34]

These changes in legal conceptualizations were much in tune with changing dynamics of the global economics. The corporation as a free flowing natural person coincided with the high growth in free trade and industrialization. However, with the advent of the great depression in the early 1930s different tunes on the subject began to appear. In 1932 E. Merrick Dodd, a professor at Harvard Law School, advocated greater social responsibility without tampering with the concept of the corporation as a natural entity. Associating the need to alter corporate behaviour to meet challenges to the longevity of corporations, Dodd argued that:

Recent economic events suggest that the day may not be far distant when public opinion will demand a much greater degree of protection of workers. There is a widespread and growing feeling that industry owes its employees not merely the negative duties of refraining from overworking or injuring them, but the affirmative duty of providing them so far as possible with economic security. [35]

Dodd’s concerns grew from the political and economic conditions prevalent at that juncture in history. The workers’ movements were acquiring greater militancy against the big business. This was also a time when the US President Franklin D Roosevelt, designed the ‘New Deal’ aimed at restricting the powers of the corporations.[36] In the 1960s with the ideology of socialism gaining salience in political thought, the concept of corporate social responsibility with an added emphasis on environmental concerns began to surface. During the 1970s the shareholders concern and their stake in corporate profits came up high on the agenda. The logic was that after the post war lull, business needed to expand and expansion required investments, which could be procured only by restoring the confidence of the shareholders in markets. During the 1980s and early 1990s corporations adopted an approach to silently leap ahead without advertising their ambitions. Milton Friedman, along with other ‘nexus of contract’ theorists advocated shareholder primacy in all corporate dealings and has tried to de-reify corporate personhood by showing it to be devoid of any moral or societal obligations.[37]
As opposed to contractarians, the communitarian brand of theorists see corporate interest as laying in the good of the much larger corporate community, covering the whole gamut of corporate activity rather than limiting it to shareholders. The communitarians believe that corporation is an aggregate of interest holders in the company rather than being a single entity.[38] Both the communitarians and contractraians defy the corporate personhood concept, the only difference between the two being that the former includes workers, shareholders, sub-contractors and others remotely connected with the corporate activities within its ambit, while the contractarians limit themselves to the wealth maximization of shareholders. The communitarians come closer to the concept of corporate social reasonability than the contractarians. The contractarians present an isolationist face of the corporations; the communitarians depict expansionist traits. Our main concern here will be with the corporate expansionists, because it this stream of thought, which is most likely to endeavour for political legitimacy to use organized violence and demand an increased role in global public domain.

Advocates of CSR, the UN Global Compact mission, OECD, World Bank, IMF and many concerned NGOs (like Amnesty International, Oxfam, etc.) consider corporations to be a Janus-faced person. The people involved in promoting the idea of CSR and corporate involvement in promotion of human rights are fully aware of the fact that corporations do behave awkwardly sometimes, and they therefore need to be regularly imparted with lessons in good behaviour. Their efforts are directed towards toning down the negative aspects of the corporate personality, in order to project its more responsible face, which according to these organizations is endowed with great potential and capabilities to perform critical missions to save the world.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have left activists and some NGOs (Corporate Watch, Counterpunch, Platform etc), who define the corporate personality in unambiguous terms by identifying it as a ‘pathological person’ engaged in ‘pursuit of power and profits’. This essay uses this negative aspect of corporate personality to show their behaviour in conflict zones and tendency to appropriate military forces to achieve their ends. Here we take up the example of economic conflict in Congo and Columbia to bring home the point, of corporate involvement in conflict.


Chapter 3: Corporation- A Greedy Man


The Congo Conflict and Corporations

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), an erstwhile Belgian colony, gained independence in 1960. It has currently been in news, not for being a most preferred destination for foreign direct investments or for registering any stupendous economic growth, but for internal war and gross violations of human rights. Its current history, since the early 1990s, continues to be plagued by war associated with loot of its natural resources. It is estimated that the death toll in its recent ongoing war is roughly four million.[39]

There are three major players involved in the game to extract gold from Congo’s mine. One is the vast majority of people segregated along tribal and ethnic lines. The second crucial player is the elite formations in Congo (government officials, political and rebel leaders) aided by their own mercenary or militia forces. The third player in this resource war matrix is foreign transnational companies. People palpably lie at the bottom of this pyramid. They fill the militia army as warriors and TNC- run mining industry as workers. Paradoxically, it is the same people and their families who either get exploited as workers or become victims of war related killings and atrocities. Incidentally, it is same exploited masses, which feed the global media with their horrific stories and provide the international community with a reason to intervene. The other two players sit in the position of power and enjoy the maximum benefits of Congo’s gold reserves.[40] Therefore, when we discuss war in DRC our focus will be on the role of these two players in causing the war.
In 1996, Mobutu Sese Seko, Congo’s leader since 1965 was forced out of power through an armed invasion by Rwandan and Ugandan forces.[41] Laurent Desiré Kabila acquired the reins of power. In July 1998, Congo got engaged in a second war against the combined strength of Rwandan and Ugandans forces. With Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia joining the war to support Kabila and Burundi proving support to Rwandan and Ugandan, the scope of the war enlarged, resulting in numerous killings. In November 1999, the UN established a peace keeping force in Congo after brokering a peace agreement between the warring countries. In June 2003, a transitional government was established. Despite the efforts of international organizations, lasting and durable peace continued to evade large parts of Eastern Congo.[42] The war in the northeastern part of Congo, specifically in Ituri, got exacerbated due to ethnic divisions and the support that some of these factions received from across the border.[43] These ethnically based armed groups were continuously engaged in a power struggle, to gain monopoly rights to exploit the natural resources in region. According to a UN report, two phases were distinct during the resource war – ‘mass scale looting and the systematic and systemic exploitation of natural resources’. Mass looting was resorted to by the armies of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, which transferred the loot to their respective countries and exported it to international markets. [44] The systemic exploitation was carried out using pre-existing channels and the main players in this organized loot were primarily top army commanders and businessmen and government structures.[45]
We now come to the role of TNCs in exploiting both the conflict situation as well as the Gold resources in Congo. The Multinational Company, Anglo Ashanti Gold has emerged as one of the main actors in the Gold exploitation game.[46]. The company had been active in trying to procure mining contract since 1996, when the process of disinvestment in the state-owned gold mining agency OKIMO had started to gain momentum.[47] In 2003 after the formation of transnational government, the company along with many other international companies entered into the fray for mining rights. The company discussed gold exploration work in Mongbwalu region with the transitional government. However, this region had come under the de-facto control of Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI) and the transitional government did not exercise any control in the area. Furthermore, FNI was known to be causing atrocities against the civilian populations. Knowing this fully well the company started negotiating with FNI to begin mining in the area. The charge leveled against Ashanti Gold by human rights groups is that, the company hobnobbed with a known human rights abuser in the region just to make profits. It is also alleged the company paid a sum of US$ 9000 to FNI. The company has acknowledged that these payments to FNI,[48] which it stated were made to protect its staff.[49]

Are Corporations Different From Other Greedy Actors?

The issue raised by most of the human rights watchdogs and UN reports is about the company’s complicity in human rights abuses in the region by paying money to local warlords. The questions which obviously flow from the above discussion are-what is the role of corporations in fuelling conflicts? Are these human rights violations and their illicit connections with warlords’ mere ‘externalities’ associated with business activity? Does their illicit involvement prove their complicity in human rights violations? Are TNCs any different from other local economic players? These questions become important to our discussion, because of TNCs connection to the emerging global power structure. What role will corporations be assigned in the new power structure? Will they be pampered or pushed to conform to international legal and political norms?

A World Bank study on the factors leading to civil wars suggests that it is the greed rather than grievances which increase the risk of civil war.[50] As opposed to the political science literature, which ‘explains conflict in terms of motive’ (high inequality; lack of political rights; or ethnic and religious divisions in society), the study develops an econometric model to explain the ‘rebellion in terms of opportunity (the scope for extortion of natural resources, and for donations from a diaspora population). Firstly, the main problem with the study is mixing of the term rebellion with conflict. According to the World Bank report:

The political science literature explains conflict in terms of motive: the circumstances in which people want to rebel (emphasis added) are viewed as sufficiently rare to constitute the explanation… contrast this with economic accounts which explain rebellion (emphasis added) in terms of opportunity.[51]

Rebellion is against an authority, whereas conflict is between two or more opposing forces. Rebellion is by the oppressed against the oppressor, whereas, conflict often involves the elite who may not be oppressed. Furthermore, ethnic and religious divisions can be used by the elite to reduce the chances of a rebellion. Ethnic divisions do aid the conflict environment but they are counterproductive to the forces seeking to rebel against an established order. Homogenous societies have a greater potential to rebel as opposed to divided societies. The World Bank study is confusing, because it liberally misuses the concept of ‘class conflict’ and rebellion based on grievances and juxtaposes it with ‘predatory conflict’ in which both the ruling elite and people’s predatory quest for seeking rents from natural resources becomes the main reason for conflict. Therefore, both the oppressed and the oppressor become conflated into one category.[52] The World Bank study by Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler’s also brings out the dependence on primary commodity export; support by hostile governments in the neighbourhood; and money provided by the diaspora. Surprisingly, the study completely omits the role of international business players in fomenting conflict. The UN Panel’s report on the subject named 85 companies considered to have been a part and parcel of the conflict, including American-owned Cabot Corporation, Eagle Wings Resources International, Trinitech International Inc, Kemet Electronics Corporation, OM Group Inc, and Vishay Sprague. The report, published in October 2002, brought out how “elite networks” consisting of key political and military elites and business persons plundered the country’s natural resources and public finances with impunity.[53]

The World Bank report gives an impression that the cause of conflict in Congo lies in the predatory nature of the locals to garner natural resources for their selfish ends. This shows that the outside players, barring neighbouring predators (Rwanda and Uganda in this case) no other international business players have any role in the conflict.[54] Such reports tend to prove that the involvement of TNCs in human rights violations in such conflict zones are merely externalities associated with operating in conflict zones. Such arguments make the local people engaged in war crimes appear as savages. On the other hand, TNCs operating behind the scenes are made to appear merely as errant individuals, for violating ‘OECD Guidelines’ on good corporate behaviour.[55] Their powerful personality often helps them to be pardoned, after all to ‘to err is human’. One common factor among all the persons’ party to the crime against humanity in Congo, is that they are all driven by greed, therefore why should one differentiate between FNI and Anglo Ashanti Gold? The former directly used coercion to secure its business motives, the latter hired coercion to provide security to its business.[56] Before discussing as to why company’s often get embroiled in violence, we take another example to show the military- market nexus.

The Columbian Example

Columbia is an oil rich country in Latin America. Majority of its oil production is directed towards US markets. Currently more than fifty foreign companies are operating in Colombia in the oil and extractive resource sector’. Apart from the U.S. oil corporation Occidental Petroleum the other companies active in Colombia include Harken, Triton, and BP-Amoco (a U.S.-U.K. merger)[57] Add to this mixture of foreign business corporations, the Colombian business and military elite and you get a perfect recipe for conflict garnished with human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

The military-market in Columbia is simple to understand. We discuss here one such case in which the multinational corporation used the local military and paramilitary forces as well as a private military company to secure and promote their interests. A widely publicized case has been aerial bombardment of civilians in the village of Santo Domingo, Arauca on 13 December 1998. 17 people, including six children were killed in the attack. The bombardment was carried out by Columbian helicopters, which dropped a cluster bomb on the village, the coordinates for which were transmitted by the AirScan (A private military Company) pilots, flying the plane provided by Occidental. This coordinated attack was planned in the operations rooms of Occidental’s Caño Limón complex ostensibly to save a military unit entrapped by rebel gurillea forces.[58]
This is not the only incident in which private military company was used in Columbia. Earlier in 1992, BP-Amoco, Colombia’s largest foreign oil company hired a London based Anglo-American security company, Defence Systems Limited. DSL’s subsidiary in Colombia-Defense Systems Colombia- provided training to Colombian security forces in counter-insurgency tactics and also supplied arms to them.[59]
According to the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) report, Occidental aided by the U.S. Colombia Business Partnership consortium has lobbied with the U.S. government to increase military aid to Columbia.[60] In short, multinational oil corporations provided funding to all of the armed actors in the Colombian conflict, thus not only aiding it but fueling the conflict in the region.

Why Do Corporations Incorporate the Means of Coercion?

The two brief examples give us evidence about the corporations’ involvement in using and maintaining the means of coercion. The question is- do TNCs follow conflict or conflict follows them?
Minerals are considered a precious commodity by the locals to improve their living conditions. The natives consider this to be nature’s gift to them for their survival and well being. TNCs see mineral extraction as a lucrative source for profits. The foreign corporations enter the oil rich areas promising to extract minerals for mutual benefit of their company as well as the natives. However, soon the natives discover that they are being shortchanged. The natives begin to protest. To contain dissent, the powerful forces often divide the natives along ethnic or religious lines. Corporations aid this process by feeding the greed of few and distancing them from the common cause of the natives, forming an elite class, which identifies its interests to lay in the well being of the company. These elite groups are empowered through money and arms to act in the company’s interests. The process of militarization leads to the growth of small scale war industry, which breeds many local warlords too. Conflict thrives in a situation, where society is divided and war industry is growing.[61] With the natives busy in making war, corporations profit by extracting more minerals from their soil, while continuously feeding the local war industry. If the locals become united and peaceful, they will demand more and dent the company’s profits considerably. This situation cannot be conducive for business. Let us take a historical example to substantiate our argument that companies have a particular affinity to adopt military means.

The East India Company and Military

The history of imperialism is replete with examples of the ugly face of corporations operating in cahoots with military forces to extend their metropolitan property rights to various parts of the world. Business personality is always shaped by aggressive instincts to continuously add wealth into its coffers. If the East India Company had been devoid of these instincts, it would never have ventured into the high seas to reach India. According to business logic everything and anything can be used to create wealth. Who would have thought a few decades ago that drinking water would be sold in bottles? To understand this let’s see the East India Company’s forays into India.

The company moved into India in the 17th century, maintained a low profile initially because it was a late entrant into an area where the Dutch and Portuguese had already established themselves. The company befriended the Mughal ruler to establish its first settlement in Surat in 1613, and declared that it was different from Dutch businessmen because of its firm belief that war is incompatible with trade.[62] Gradually the company started expanding to the peripheries of the Mughal empire and setting up the basic infrastructure for settlements. As the Mughal rule weakened, the true colours of the company began coming to the forefront. Soon the company realized that the time had come to use the ‘sword’ to manage their commercial transactions.[63] In the mid 17th century, the company began its quest for greater control through indulgence in wars on Indian land in the name of protecting its trade.
The 1661 Charter emboldened the company to extend its power in India under the guise of ‘delegated sovereignty’.[64] In 1680, under the stewardship of Sir Josia Child the company had embarked on a military mission against the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, but was defeated. After this the company followed a more measured political approach. The mid 1700s marked a shift in the company’s agenda; it began to strengthen its commercial foothold through the acquisition of territorial control. Territorial control required the displacement of the established political configuration. This required the use of violence. The company was engaged in wars with the Mughal ruler Siraj-ud-daula during this period. The ongoing tussle with the Mughal ruler in Bengal prompted the company to send one of its veterans from the Seven Years’ War, Robert Clive, to take control of the situation. The timing of Clive’s arrival and his subsequent military adventures were a part of the company’s policy and the changing political equations in its home country rather than any peculiarity in Clive’s personality.[65] According to Douglas M Peers, the penetration of the Indian body politic by the army was a result of the growing militarization of the British ruling eliteThe period 1790 to 1815 witnessed the emergence of new mentalities and institutions that came about following an alliance between traditional landed interests, the monarchy and the church and the increasingly powerful commercial and financial interests… One of the consequences of this was the militarization of British elite… Hence domestic changes reinforced the values of Anglo–Indian society.[66]

Elaborating on the primacy of violence in monopolistic structure, Mukerjee argues: Violence it must be emphasized, was an essential element of the British presence in India, It was violence that served as the ultimate imprimatur of colonialism…… A dominant power is always uneasy with violence directed against it, since non-reciprocal violence is one of the necessary conditions of its reproduction. The right to violence is, therefore, everywhere a privilege that authority enjoys and refuses to share with those under it: power always insists on violence as its exclusive monopoly.[67]

It is to be understood that acquisition of political power and the monopoly over the means of coercion by the company in the 19th century was not just a means to discipline people; it was also a source of revenue and knowledge. The 1813 and 1833 amendments to the charter opened trade to India, which hit the company’s monopoly over Indian trade. Under such circumstances, the revenue from taxes became the mainstay of company’s profits. According to Douglas M Peers, in order to protect their main revenue base, the company’s reliance on military support increased, resulting in the development of a ‘symbiotic relationship between the army and the territorial revenues’. The army insured stability and timely collection of revenue and in turn large chunks of revenues were dedicated for its upkeep.[68]

The increase in importance of the army within the company was not something, which happened unexpectedly. It was not an outcome of the violent nature of the natives, which forced the company to monopolize the means of violence, rather it was a policy. Just as ships help the trade to wade through the resistance offered by sea, similarly the army is needed to overcome the resistance caused by the multitudes. The East India Company used the military to not only secure but also to enforce trading monopoly. However, to maintain the extensive military infrastructure, the company needed to expand its revenue base and this could happen only by acquiring political power.[69] In addition, the army was also of immense value to the company as a knowledge force to establish its political hold.[70]

Is East India Company’s Example Relevant Today?

It could be argued that modern TNCs are vastly different from the East India Company. For one, modern means of communication enable corporations to monitor the activities of their managers more minutely. Moreover, modern companies are willing participants in social up-liftment; human rights and environmental protection movements across the globe. Furthermore, TNCs have no intention of using either politics or violence to serve their business. Therefore, the history of East India Company has no relevance in the 21st century. In the succeeding paragraphs we will see the similarities between the East India Company and modern corporations.

To say that the East India Company and its managers were totally oblivious of the importance of social responsibility and the dangers of mixing business and politics would be wrong. In 1767, speaking to the British Parliament, the Secretary of the East India company had categorically mentioned that ‘the general tenor of companies orders were not to act offensively… We don’t want conquest and power; it is the commercial interests only that we look for’.[71] Just as modern TNCs are fully aware of the problem of bribing the corrupt regimes, the East India Company too was aware of the benefits and problems associated with such modes of business transactions.[72] Even in the seventeenth century the British were seized with the issue of corruption among company officials, who were commonly known as ‘nabobs’. But nothing much could be done about this issues, primarily because, the power of the company was so strong and its agents were so deeply entrenched within the political structures of British politics that it was difficult to control it.[73] According to Marshall, in 1767 and in 1783, the British state was prevented from openly declaring its authority over the new provinces, because of the internal political equations.[74] The argument forwarded by the supporters of the company’s charter rights were no different from the arguments we hear today in support of virtues of privatization of industry. [75] This parliament –company nexus can be understood using the theory of ‘gentlemanly capitalism’. Douglas M Peers explains the theory of ‘gentlemanly capitalism’ as:

The political, social and economic hegemony that the landed, commercial, financial and some service and professional elites in Britain obtained at home and pursued abroad…. It was an alliance that was based upon the diffusion of benefits of financial capitalism and held together on a cultural plane by the values and codes of English gentleman.

When we look at the situation in present day context, things are not vastly different. A lot is being written about the growing reach of TNCs and their efforts to make inroads into positions from where they can exercise control over government policies. George Monbiot, in his book Captive State (2000) provides an extensive list of corporate heads represented in the British government institutions. [76] Similarly, Noreena Hertz has argued that since the 1970s the TNCs have been silently taking over the powers of the state. The over dependence of politicians on corporate money to meet their election expenses has rendered them powerless against corporate might. [77] The most recent example of the corporate power’s influence over policy matters is provided by the revelations about Exxon Mobil’s role in persuading George Bush to refrain form signing the Kyoto Protocol. [78]

It would be wrong to say that East India company managers could easily monopolize the means of violence in India, because there were no human rights activists keeping a sharp eye on company’s activities, as human rights watchdogs do in the 21st century. There were many concerned British citizens, who opposed the oppression of native Indians by the company. One such, a poet William Cowper wrote in 1784:

The potentates of this country they dash in pieces like a potter’s vessel, as often as they please,, making happiness of thirty millions of mankind a consideration subordinate to that of their own emoluments, oppressing them as often as it may serve a lucrative purpose.[79]
Another interesting example of the anti-corporation consciousness among the public and how a giant Japanese multinational corporation incorporated the growing dissent into its own scheme, shows the similarities between approach of companies then and now. In 1907, The Japanese South Manchurian Railway Company (known as Mentetsu) set up a research department to study the Chinese socio-political environment. The research department based in Manchuria was staffed with leading anti-colonial Marxist intellectuals from Japan.[80] Why did an imperial company tolerate and nurture left intellectuals? One reason could be to gain whatever little it could from their intellectual expertise. Another reason could be to keep them away from influencing the home country, because any revolution in the home state could have adversely affected the company’s longevity in the foreign land. Therefore, it was best to keep them under a watchful eye away from the homeland. This strategy of managing dissent through funding education and NGO activities is followed by many TNCs even today.[81] Since the 1970s a small group of privately funded organizations have been active in the field of shaping the public opinion on international security matters. These privately funded think-tanks include ‘Ford, Mac Arthur and W Alton Jones Foundations; the Rockefellers brothers fund and John Merck Fund and the Carnegie Corporation of New York.’[82] This private involvement in military software industry is now being expanded to make inroads into direct military operations through private military companies. The stupendous growth of private military companies in the mid 1990s is another phenomenon which takes the 21st century TNCs closer to their imperial-era predecessors.
Summing up our discussion of TNCs now and then, it is argued that just as modern day service industry is now engaged in the whole gamut of functions, which were previously considered to be the sole preserve of the governments (for example, policing, tax collection, maintaining prisons, national security etc.). Similarly, the erstwhile imperial companies expanded from being mere trading companies to become large service company managing a country as vast as India and a continent as large as Africa. The only difference is that while the East India Company and other Multinational companies acted on behalf of the British Crown and their respective home governments, the modern service industry is yet to acquire the legal legitimacy to overtly exercise its military muscle in the third world countries.


Chapter4: Corporations and International Arena


Corporation as a Political Person

Do corporations get sucked into the political mess and are forced to monopolize the means of coercion or do they deliberately unleash the coercive forces and control the political process for their own benefit? According to Daniel Litvin, corporations often get sucked into local politics. He gives examples of the East India Company and United Fruits and argues that financial success and ‘strong internal culture also blinds a company to the effect of its actions on local societies’.[83] Much of Daniels argument rests on the belief that there is nothing inherently wrong with the corporation as a person. It is mainly in the bad hands of overambitious managers that it gets diverted from its core competencies to dabble into politics. He therefore, largely lays the blame for the excesses committed by the East India Company, on Robert Clive’s ‘unstable personality’ and Cecil Rhode’s ‘unrelenting drive’ in Africa.[84] Daniel presents a typical liberal view point, which considers politics and economics to be two distinct spheres, that need to refrain from encroaching into each others domain. As Claire Cutler argues:

Liberal Thinking works against recognizing the authority of private corporations. The liberal faith in free economic markets and in representative democracy presents barriers to conceiving private relations or entities as politically authoritative or representative. [85]

Commenting on the pluralistic nature of the liberal state and why it is hard for such a state to contain the growing power of corporations, Stephen Gill, argues that the liberal state is subordinated to the civil society in which the rule of law based on ‘freedom of enterprise’ determines the actions of the state. In the context of the global political economy, Gill further argues that since ‘in a liberal constitution the state is subordinated to civil society…. it cannot monopolise power and authority’ over the ‘vast corporations operating in oligopolistic markets’.[86]

It is primarily because of this constructed distinction between liberal politics and economics that the developed capitalist world is identified by twin names in international politics. According to Barkawi, in ‘matters of culture, war and peace, or human rights and liberation’ the world identifies the capitalist economies as the ‘West’, when it comes to the ‘issues of wealth and power’, the identity of the West changes to that of ‘global north’.[87] Sandra Halperin clarifies the relationship between liberalism and capitalism using Karl Polyani’s analysis to explain ‘embedded and dis-embedded markets’.[88] Before the end of the 18th century, market exchanges were largely regulated through society and politics and therefore, the markets were embedded. In the 19th century the industrial expansion in Europe reduced state regulations on markets, which began to dis-embed itself from politics. By World War II the collapse of the 19th century free market system led to a new equation between capital and labour. This compromise resulted in the markets re-embedding to societal needs. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the defeat of communism have once again emboldened corporate capitalism to dis-embed itself from state controls and emerge as an independent player in the global public domain.

In order to emerge as an independent player, transnational corporations need to discredit the old system based on state-centrism and displace the state from the position of pre-eminence that it occupies in the international political discourse. This is achieved by dis-embedding from the state controls and by appearing to be apolitical. As Suman Gupta, commenting on the evasiveness of corporate capitalism to political philosophy, explains:

In fact, the system and processes of contemporary corporate capitalism are such that they undermine politics, subvert political philosophy, and disable the political philosopher and political activist in some essential sense, even when appearing not to. [89]

That transnational corporations have a global political agenda is borne out by the fact that they have been able to consolidate the transnational capitalist class.[90] This class occupies the ruling positions in large parts of the world and is the main driver of neo-liberal globalization. It advocates a reduced role for the state in almost all spheres of activity. States still appear to be present as main actors on the international stage for two reasons. One, the entire state bureaucracy has not yet been converted to serve the interests of corporations and secondly, corporations do not have a legal cover to operate as legitimate international political actors.

Elaborating further on the political project of neo-liberal globalization, Stephen Gill posits that the 1990s has witnessed a counter-revolution by the capital against the weak on a global scale. This counter-revolution is being protected through ‘disciplinary neo-liberalism’ (its dominant socio-economic form) and constitutionalism (its dominant political-juridical form)’[91]. The primary agents spearheading the neo-liberal political agenda are organizations like The Global Economic Forum, international finance institutions, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and transnational corporations. These organizations are the meeting grounds for the global capitalist class to design and formulate policies on a global scale.

However, to say that states have been relegated to the dustbin of history would be wrong. The state in its present form is being reconfigured to meet the demands of the markets. Members of the global capitalist class in the developing world are aiding the process by transforming the states as security provider to the corporations. In sharp contrast with the developed world, where the government is outsourcing certain security functions to private security corporations, in the developing world a reverse trend is visible, here corporations in addition to creating their own security networks are also outsourcing security jobs to state armies and police. For example, in Myanmar, the state military is directly involved in protecting the corporation’s property as well as ensuring that the local labour behaves in the manner expected of them by the investing company.[92] Similarly, in Aceh, a predominantly Muslim province of Indonesia, the Indonesian state military has dovetailed its corporate interests with that of the foreign oil company, Exxon Mobil to discipline the native labour force from causing disruptions to TNCs interests in the region.[93]

The story in Nigeria is no different. In the oil rich Niger Delta, a constant struggle is on between the local population and the TNCs. The local population sees the companies encroaching upon their land without giving them adequate economic benefits flowing from the oil trade. The result is protests and agitations by locals, which sometime disrupts the company’s work. Locals also complain that TNCs operations in their area are the cause of environmental degradation. What did the Shell oil company do to contain these agitations? It hired the Nigerian military and police to discipline the people and stop them from causing delays and monetary losses to the company.[94]

The national military and state police (primarily created to protect the interests of the weak against the powerful) are continuously being profaned by acting at the behest of the powerful economic players. This represents a break from the traditional role of national security and also the growing power of the TNCs vis-à-vis the weak states. Therefore, while the corporations are seen to be dis-embedding themselves from regulatory mechanisms in their home country (predominantly Western countries) to expand their power into the global arena, in the less developed part of the world corporations are embedding the weak governments into following their agenda.

Making Corporations Responsible

The international community is well aware of the problems associated with corporate bad behaviour. Therefore, one finds two kinds of responses emerging from corporations as well the international community including the international civil society represented by NGOs.
In 1999 the UN Secretary General, Kofi Aanan established the Global Compact mission which laid down nine guidelines, which the corporations operating in foreign lands should follow to protect the human rights. All these measures are aimed at inducing a sense of voluntarism in corporate minds towards concern for the larger good of humanity.[95] More recently The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has appointed John Ruggie, a Harvard professor as the special representative on human rights and transnational corporations. [96]

On August 13, 2003, The United Nations Sub-Commission on the promotion and protection of Human rights adopted a resolution approving the ‘Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprise with Regard to Human Rights’.[97] According to David Weissbrodt and Muria Kruger, these norms are more elaborate and ‘more focused on the human rights than any of the international legal or voluntary code of conduct drawn up by the ILO, OECD, the European parliament and the UN Global Compact’.[98] Unlike the Global Compact principles, these norms are not voluntary in nature. The norms are involuntary to the extent that they envisage NGOs and other agencies to report the non-observance of norms by the companies. However, the norms do not constitute a treaty and can therefore be considered as ‘soft law’, which may or may not metamorphose into customary law.[99]

Abandoning the soft approach, the other response rests on imposing greater regulatory mechanisms on the corporate actions and determining their criminal liability in cases of human rights violations. Corporation escapes falling under the purview of international legal jurisdictions because it is considered a legal person as opposed to a natural person. This means that only natural persons (managers of the company) can be held accountable under the international law and not the company as an entity. Although many developed countries like the U.K. and U.S.A have laws to treat violations of human rights by corporations but these domestic legislations are considered inadequate as an international response.[100] As Fafo study indicates that ‘unless the international norms are formally integrated into domestic legal system …. Some of the most important jus cogens violations cannot be applied to private sector malfeasance’.[101] The study reveals that countries do not pursue the criminal cases against TNCs with the same vigour as they deal with individual offenders.[102] Furthermore, ‘piercing the corporate veil or following the liability upstream, beyond the acts of individual within the corporate subsidiary to the parent multinational company’ is often the most difficult job’.[103] Under such circumstances ‘complicity’ is the only clause under which the companies can be held liable to international crimes.[104] The US courts have been using the international law to define corporate complicity. However, the general feeling is that corporations are wielding power without any accountability.

Problems Associated with Treating TNCs as ‘Subjects’

Although the option of holding corporations criminally liable under international law seems to be the most attractive proposal to contain the growing power of the corporations, but it is also fraught with some dangers of enhancing the TNCs powers in the process. Firstly, making the corporations answerable to international jurisdictions would make them ‘subjects’ under international law. As we have seen in the case of states, subjects of international law are also granted certain rights. It could be argued that individuals have also been made the subjects of international law, but this does not grant them the rights to challenge the powers of the state.[105] Therefore, TNCs as subjects of international law too would not pose any challenge to the state authority. The problem with this argument is that it compares an ant with an elephant. The power of an individual vis-a-vis that of a state is minimal. An armed individual can create only limited chaos and mayhem. Such an errant individual can easily be contained by the use of state force. However, if a powerful TNC, (which in many cases has become more powerful than many of the states), decides to use a legitimate army then it would raise an altogether different situation. It would cause a far bigger international crisis than what an individual is capable of creating.

A powerful international personality, subjected to certain obligations can also demand certain rights. TNCs as an international person can demand the guarantee of its own human rights. It can demand the legitimization of the use of force in self defence. Here it could be argued that private military companies (PMCs) are already operating in the world and they are adhering to the norms laid out by the party (mainly states) hiring them. These PMCs are operating under contract from the states and international organizations primarily because they do not enjoy the political legitimacy to act independently. If granted an international personality, TNCs will demand right to use coercion to protect their body (property) as well as the human rights of those falling within their ‘sphere of influence’. [106] It would be naïve to imagine that this ‘sphere of influence’ would remain limited to their employees, workers, shareholders, suppliers, sub-contractors. As argued earlier, TNCs ‘sphere of influence’ will continuously increase to take maximum portions of earth under its sovereign command. The issue is that an international personality conferred upon TNCs would give rise to an alternative sovereign power. Whether this new sovereign power will eventually displace the state or not is beyond the purview of this essay. What is of relevance is that an armed entity other than the state will emerge with legitimate rights to use the means of violence.

That there exists a possibility for such an international entity to emerge is not merely a figment of a paranoid anti-imperial imagination. International theorists are already talking in terms of enhancing the scope of TNCs to play a larger role in the international public domain. Theories about private government and governance are already floating in the academic literature. Critical theorists are also concerned about these developments. Much of the resistance in accepting the growing and the future role of TNCs in international politics is related to the dominant discourse being shaped by the realist paradigms based on the Westaphalian world order. As Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey posit:

Sovereignty and statehood, as understood in disciplinary narratives derived from Westphalia, apply only to limited periods of history and in particular regions, principally Europe. The central categories of IR have been developed without sufficient attention to the nature and character of the international relations governing most of the planet and its populations at one point or another, namely imperial relations of diverse kinds.[107]

What, the critical theorists, identify as the re-birth of imperial tendencies, other international theorists like John Ruggie see it as ‘the beginnings of a fundamental reconstitution of the global public domain — away from one that equated the ‘public’ in international politics with states’.[108] Unlike Susan Strange, (who sees the ‘retreat of the state’ under the growing power of the TNCs) Ruggie sees the state getting ‘embedded’ in the widening web of transnational networks.[109] According to Ruggie this transnational space is not only guided by states but also by other transnational influential actors like civil society organizations (CSOs) and TNCs. The problem with Ruggie’s formulation is that it clubs the CSOs and TNCs together. Irrespective of their funding sources, CSOs are primarily seen as pressure groups speaking on moral issues through the internet, public protests or street action. TNCs, on the other hand, are more sophisticated actors, whose influence in the global arena is directly proportional to their financial power. Unlike the CSOs, TNCs primary motivation is not to fight for a more humane world. A fact which Ruggie ignores is that it is this public domain or politics which created the states and endowed it with legitimate powers, whereas TNCs want to buy an entry into this space merely to legitimize their existing power. How can one disregard history and forget that merely half a century ago it is the same TNCs, which were driven out of this public domain and confined to economic arena.

Ruggie understands that TNCs have the propensity and power to harm, but what he fails to acknowledge is that this power to harm will not subside with added responsibility to protect human rights.[110] The most critical right granted to the occupants of the international public domain is the right to make war. A forced entry into the political domain through the UN doors could legitimize the corporation’s right to maintain and use military force. Ever since the end of World War I, first through the 1928 Kellogg Briand pact and then through the 1945 UN charter, the international community has been trying to proscribe war. Acceptance of state monopoly of violence was considered to be one the best methods of reducing violence. The entry of armed TNCs into the public domain will splinter the state monopoly over organised violence[111]. How this will impact on international peace and security has to be dealt separately.
Conclusion

Using the past and current history of corporate behaviour, this essay has tried to analyze a particular negative trait in the corporate personality, which is detrimental to the establishment of peace and security in the world. Though corporate involvement in environmental degradation is an aspect closely related to human security, the essay has steered clear of it for lack of space; and the issue demands a separate treatment.

Corporate potential to exercise power without accountability on the global stage has grown exponentially over the last decade. It is now in the process of playing a more proactive role in the international political domain, According to Robert Davies, the chief executive of the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum:

Clearly business is not a stranger to conflict; conflict and business seem to have gone together ever since there was international trade; but the role business can play in conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction I think is something which is a much newer idea.[112]

As discussed earlier, the talk of making room for TNCs in the public domain is no longer confined to academic and corporate circles; it is being discussed by corporate leaders and policy makers at highest levels.[113]

This demands that the ambiguity surrounding the corporate persona be clearly defined, to enable the international community to determine the degree of legitimacy which can be accorded to TNCs within the public domain. The basic question, which needs to be addressed is should the corporations be entrusted with protecting or respecting human rights?[114] Protecting human rights may involve the use of coercion.

The crucial issue related to use of force is one of political legitimacy and democratic accountability.[115] Who will grant this political legitimacy to TNCs to maintain stability and peace in a troubled region of the world or a failed state? For obvious reasons a failed state cannot be expected to hire a TNC to resolve its problems. An international organization like the United Nations may hire a TNC to run the administration in a failed state on its behalf. But how will this arrangement be different from the one adopted by the British crown of delegating sovereign powers to a company in distant lands?

The question is why would a corporation, which does not have a business interest in a conflict ridden country, like to venture into harm’s way? It could be argued that a corporation dealing purely in the provision of security and administrative services may like to get such a contract for business purposes and prove its worth in order to get more contracts. The problem is that the corporate personality defies all such altruistic and simplistic expectations. Corporate DNA strands are networked to provide it with extra sensory perceptions to multiply money. It is for this reason that one cannot trust a service company to maintain the purity of its business.[116] What can stop a security company from acquiring stakes in the mining or oil industry in a troubled region entrusted to it? Again it could be argued, why should there be any limits on the growth of the company? If a service company diverts from its core competencies, then it may find itself in a situation similar to what the East India Company faced, when from a trading company it became a private military company exploiting the Indian military labour market.

To overcome this problem, the UN could lay down stringent conditions in the contract. But can we forget that we are living in a world, where the corporate world is known to use tax havens, ‘flags of convenience’, and network of contract with subsidiary companies to avoid taxation and criminal liability for its actions. A corporation legitimized to use arms would feel emboldened to duck more rules to earn more profits. Therefore, to think of granting entry to corporations in the public domain could turn out to be an egregious folly. Despite its best efforts to proscribe war the UN has been unable to fully contain state bellicosity. Then how would the entry of an additional actor authorized to use coercion help in maintaining global peace is the moot?

Entry into the international public domain is the equivalent maturing of a person. This person then acquires an international personality, which is expected to maintain certain standards of grace and compassion, because such an international person is granted the right to protect humanity. Can we entrust this responsibility to a corporate person sans grace, filled with insatiate desire for profits. Such an uncompassionate personality is most likely to misuse the right to bear arms.






Bibliography


Primary Sources


1. Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), ‘Computer Sciences Corporation completes acquisition of DynCorp’, CSC press release, 7 Mar. 2004, http://www.csc.com/newsandevents/news/2025.shtml, 21 May 2005.

2. Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council, Para 58, ‘The Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’, S/2002/1300, 26 November 2002,

3. Chatham House publishes, ‘Norms on the Human Rights Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations: where next? A brief summary of discussion, at the International Law Programme Discussion Group, 17 June 2004, http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/il/ILP211004.pdf. 19 June, 2005

4. House of Commons, Select Committee on International Development, Minutes of Evidence, 20, October 1998, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmintdev/55/8102010.htm#n10, 15 July 2005

5. UNO Special report on the events in Ituri, January 2002-December 2003, Letter dated 16 July 2004 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, document, S/2004/573.

6. UN Security Council publishes, ‘Report of the Panel of Experts on ‘The Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo’, , S/2001/357,12 April 2001..

7. UN Security Council publishes, ‘Report of the Panel of Experts on ‘The Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo’, S/2002/1146, 12 April 2001

8. Investment Division, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishes, ‘The UN Global Compact and The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Complementarities and Distinctive Contributions’, 26 April 2005, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/2/34873731.pdf. 27 June 2005

9. Statement of Earth Rights International Regarding Chevron Texaco’s Acquisition of Unocal, 12 Apr 05, http://earthrights.org/news/Chev_Unocal_Merger.shtml, 12 June 05

10. World Economic Forum in association with IBFL, U.K. and John F Kennedy School of Government publishes, ‘Partnering for Success: Business Perspectives on Multistakeholder Partnerships’, January2005, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/content/NewsDocs/EHRBP.pdf, 23 June 2005

11. The United Nations Sub-Commission on the promotion and protection of Human Rights Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprise with Regard to Human Rights, UN Doc . E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/Rev.2(2003), http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/55sub/55sub.htm, 24 July 2005



Secondary Sources

12. Alpa, Guido(2004),‘The Meaning of ‘Natural Person’ and the Impact of the Constitution for Europe on the Development of European Private Law’, European Law Journal, Vol. 10, No.6, November 2004, pp, 734-750

13. Alavi, Seema (1998), The Sepoys and the Company: Tradition and Transition in Northern India 1770-1830, (Delhi: Oxford University Press)

14. Amnesty International publishes, ‘Democratic Republic of Congo: Arming the East’, AI Index: AFR 62/006/2005, 5 July 2005

15. Amnesty International publishes ‘Nigeria Are Human Rights in The Pipeline?’ AI Index: AFR 44/020/2004, 9 November, 2004, http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440202004, 16 June 2005

16. Bakan, Joel (2004), The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, (London: Constable).

17. Barkawi, Tarak (2004), p.167-168, ‘Connection and Constitution: Locating War and Culture in Globalization Studies’, Globalizations, December 2004, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 155–170

18. Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark (2002), ‘Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2002,Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 109-127

19. Benner,Thorsten (2005), ‘The UN Can Help Business Help Itself’, International Herald Tribune, 18 August, 2005.

20. Buchholz, Jörg and Klein, Eberhard (2004), ‘Corporate Personality in National and International Legal Practice: Report for Germany’, XXIVTH International Congress of The International Union of Latin Notaries in Mexico 2004, pp.1-70., http://www.bnotk.de/Veranstaltungen_Termine/cdmexiko04/Dokumente/pdf/THEME%20III_KLEIN_BUCHHOLZ_EN.pdf, 12 July 2005

21. Machen Jr, Aruthur W (1911), Corporate Personality, Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXIV, No.4 , pp.253-260

22. Collier, Paul and Hoeffler, Anke (2001), ‘Greed and Grievance in Civil War’, A Working Paper published by World Bank, October 21st, 2001, http://wdsbeta.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer, 15 June 2005

23. Cochrane, Joe, “The Military Market Mix’, Newsweek , 26 August, 2002

24. Cutler, Claire A (2001), ‘Critical Reflections on the Westaphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization: a Crisis of Legitimacy’, Review of International Studies, 27, pp. 133-150.

25. Weissbrodt, David and Kruger, Muria(2003), , ‘Current Developments: Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprise with Regard to Human Rights’ , The American Journal of International Law, vol. 97:901, pp 901-922

26. Dine, Janet (2005), Company Law, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan)

27. Dodd, E. Merrick (1932), ‘For Whom are Corporate Managers Trustees?’, Harvard Law Review , May 8, 1932 Vol. XLV, No.7 pp.1145-1163.

28. Elkington, John (1999), , Cannibals With Fork: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, (U.K. :Capstone Paperback)

29. Evans, Jenni, ‘Anglo messed up in Congo’, Mail and Guardian Online, 02 June 2005,http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/&articleid=242206, 10 July 2005

30. Frey. Bruno S (2001), ‘.A Utopia? Government without Territorial Monopoly’, The Independent Review, v.VI, n.1, summer, pp. 99–112.

31. Gill, Stephen (2000), ‘The Constitution of Global Capitalism’, paper presented to a panel: The capitalist World past and present at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, Los Angeles. Pp.1-20, http://www.globalsite.ac.uk/, 25 June 2005.

32. Gillard, Michael, Gomez, Ignacio and Jones, Melissa, ‘BP Hands Tarred in Pipeline Dirty War’, Guardian, 17, October.1998

33. Grant, Ruth W. and Keohane, Robert O (2005), ‘Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 1, February 2005, pp.29-43

34. Gordon, Sanford C. and Hafer, Catherine (2005), ‘Flexing Muscle: Corporate Political Expenditures as Signals to the Bureaucracy’, American Political Science Review, May 2005, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp.245-262

35. Greenfield, Kent (2001), ‘From Metaphor to Reality In Corporate Law’, Stanford Agora: online Journal of Legal Perspectives, Vol.2 Issue 1, Winter, 2001, pp.59-76.

36. Gupta, Suman (2002), Corporate Capitalism and Political Philosophy, (London: Pluto Press)


37. Halperin, Sandra ‘The Eternal Return: Imperialism and ‘Globalisation' Reconsidered’, First Press: Writings in Critical Social Sciences, http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/global-library/, 23 June 2005

38. Hertz, Noreena (2001), The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism And The Death of Democracy, (London: William Heinemann)

39. Hills, Jr., Roderick M (2001)., "The Constitutional Rights of Private Government". U of Michigan Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 003; Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper No. 01-002. January 31, 2001 http://ssrn.com/abstract=258629

40. Holmqvist, Caroline (2005), ‘Private Security Companies: The Case for Regulation’, SIPRI Policy Paper No. 9, (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), January 2005, pp. 1-60, http://www.sipri.org/contents/publications/pp9.html, 7 Feb 2005


41. International Peace Academy (IPA) and Fafo AIS publishes, ‘Business and International Crime: Assessing the Liability of Business Entities for Grave Violations of International Law’, A joint project of the IPA & Fafo, December 1, 2004

42. Jacobs, Lawrence R. and Page, Benjamin I (2005), ‘Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?’, American Political Science Review February 2005, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp.107-123

43. John, Vidal, ‘White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto Stance’, The Guardian, 08 June 2005,

44. Kaldor, Mary (2000), p.2, ‘Cosmopolitanism and Organised Violence’, Paper prepared for Conference on ‘Conceiving Cosmopolitanism', Warwick, 27-29 April 2000.

45. Kamminga, Menno T. (2004), ‘Corporate Obligations under International Law’, paper presented at the 17th conference of International law Association in Berlin on 17 August 2004. It was also submitted to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sep 2004, as a contribution to UN stakeholder consultation on business and human rights. Pp. 1-5
46. Leander, Anna (2002), ‘Conditional Legitimacy, Reinterpreted Monopolies: Globalization and the State Monopoly on Legitimate Violence’, paper presented at the annual convention of the ISA, New Orleans, 24-27 March 2002, pp.1-38

47. Leisinger, Klaus M (2004), ‘Business and Human Rights’ in Embedding Human Rights in Business Practice, A joint publication of the United Nations Global Compact Office and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Global Compact Office pp50-60, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/content/NewsDocs/EHRBP.pdf, 23 June 2005

48. Litvin, Daniel (2003), Empires of Profits: Commerce, Conquest and Corporate Responsibility, (New York: Texere).

49. Lomas, Peter (2005), p. 354, ‘Anthropomorphism, Personification and Ethics: A Reply to Alexander Wendt’, Review of International Studies, 31, pp. 349-355

50. Lunde, Leiv, Taylor, Mark and Huser, Anne (2003), ‘Commerce or Conflict: Regulating Economies of Conflict: Economies of Conflict Private sector Activity in Armed Conflict’, Fafo Report , 424

51. Marshall, P.J (1968), p.17 Problems of Empire: Britain and India, 1757-1813, (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd)

52. Million, David (2001), ‘The Ambiguous Significance of Corporate Personhood’, Stanford Agora: online Journal of Legal Perspectives, Vol.2 Issue 1. Pp.39-58, http://agora.stanford.edu/agora/cgi-bin/article2_corp.cgi?library=millon, 17 June 2005

53. Miller, C (2002), ‘A Colombian Town Caught in a Cross-Fire’ Los Angeles Times 10 March 2002, http://www.colombiasupport.net/santodomingo.html, 12 June 2005

54. Muttitt, Greg and Marriott, James (2003), ‘Line of fire BP and human rights abuses in Colombia’, http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/chapter11.pdf, 23 June 2005

55. Monbiot, George (2000), Captive State: The Corporate Take over of Britain, (London: Pan Books)

56. Morgan, Dan ‘Mercenaries For Big Business: Corporate Funding of Think Tanks Raises Question of Credibility, San Francisco Chronicle, February 16, 2000, http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/issues/170200.htm, 15 July 2005.

57. Mukherjee, Rudrangshu (1990), ‘Satan Let Loose Upon earth: The Kanpur Massacres in India Revolt of 1857’, Past and Present, no. 128, Aug 1990, pp.92-116


58. Olsson, Ola and Fors Congdon, Heather (2003), ‘Congo: The Prize of Predation’, working paper in Economics, No. 97, Department of Economics Göteborg University, http://www.handels.gu.se/epc/archive/00002808/01/gunwpe0097rev.pdf, , 15 June 2005

59. OHCHR Briefing Paper on The Global Compact and Human Rights: Understanding Sphere of Influence and Complicity, in Embedding Human Rights in Business Practice, A joint publication of the and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Global Compact Office pp15-26

60. Peers, Douglas M (1995), Between Mars and Mammon: Colonial Armies and The Garrison State in Early Nineteenth Century India, (London: Tauris Academic Studies, I.B Tauris publishers)

61. Phinney, Richard, ‘A Model NGO?’ Radio Netherlands, 05 December, 2002, http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/fund/2002/1205model.htm,, 15 July 2005

62. Pinto, Amanda & Evans, Martin (2003), Corporate Criminal Liability, (London: Sweet and Maxwell)

63. Revkin, Andrew C., ‘Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming’, The New York Times, 08 June 2005,

64. Ruggie, John Gerard (2004), Reconstituting the Global Public Domain: Issues, Actors, and Practices’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10(4): 499–531

65. Sklair, Leslie (2002), Globalization: Capitalism &Its Alternatives, (Oxford University press)

66. Stilglitz, Joseph (2002), Globalization and Its Discontent, (Penguin Books)

67. Singer, P.W (2001/02), ‘Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and its Ramifications for International Security’, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 3, winter, pp. 186–220

68. Singer, P.W. (2004), ‘War, Profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 42:521 pp.521-550.

69. Sutherland, Lucy S (1952), The East India Company In Eighteenth-Century Politics, (Oxford: Clarendon Press)

70. Strange, Susan (1996), The Retreat of the State: Diffusion of power in World Economy, (Cambridge University Press)

71. Taylor, Mark B (2004), ‘Corporate Fallout Detectors and Fifth Amendment Capitalists: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Abuse’, in Embedding Human Rights in Business Practice, A joint publication of the and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Global Compact Office, pp44-48

72. The Human Rights Watch, publishes ‘The Curse of Gold: Democratic Republic of Congo (2005)’, http://hrw.org/reports/2005/drc0505/, 25 July 2005

73. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) publishes, ‘The Costs of Doing Business: How Oil, U S. Militarization and Corporate Activity Intersect in Colombia’, AFSC Peace Fellowship Project (2003) http://www.afsc.org/colombiaoil/CostsofDoingBusiness.pdf, 20 July 2005

74. Van der Pijl ,Kees, (2004), The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class, http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/, http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/global-library/, 02 July 2005

75. Wendt, Alexander (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

76. Wendt, Alexander (2004), ‘The State as a Person in International Theory’, Review of International Studies, 30, pp. 289-316

77. Wendt, Alexander (2005), p.360 ‘How to Argue Against State Personhood: A Reply to Lomas’, Review of International Studies, 31, pp. 357-360

78. Wheeler, Sally (1994), ‘The Business Enterprise: a Socio-Legal Introduction’ in Wheeler, Sally ed., A Reader on The Law of Business Enterprise, (Oxford University Press)

79. Wallerstein, Mitchell B (2002), ‘Whither the Role of Private Foundations in Support of International Security policy?’, The Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2002, pp.83-91

80. Wells, Celia and Elias, Juanita (2003), ‘Holding Multinational Corporations Accountable for Breaches of Human Rights’, Discussion Paper: Centre for Business Relationships Accountability Sustainability and Society, Cardiff University May 2003, pp.1-9 ,http://www.ccels.cardiff.ac.uk/pubs/wellspaper.pdf, 21 July 2005.



[1] UNO publishes Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council, ‘The Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’, Para 58, S/2002/1300, 26 November 2002.
[2] Sklair (2002), Pp. 36-37.Less than sixty countries out of a total of around 200 have GNP of more than US$ 20 billion. By contrast 245 TNCs had annual revenues in excess of US$ 20 billion and the top 50 exceeded US$ 50 billion.
[3] Stilglitz (2002)
[4] International Peace Academy (IPA) and Fafo AIS publishes, ‘Business and International Crime: Assessing the Liability of Business Entities for Grave Violations of International Law’, 01 December, 2004
[5] Elkington (1999), p.17-41
[6] Leisinger, (2004), p.51
[7] World Economic Forum in association with IBFL, U.K. and John F Kennedy School of Government publishes a Report ‘Partnering for Success: Business Perspectives on Multistakeholder Partnerships’, January2005.

[8] Leisinger, Klaus M (2004), p.56
[9] Singer (2001/02)
[10] Wendt (1999), p.197,
[11] Wendt, (2004), p.294
[12] ibid, P.294
[13] Lomas (2005),p. 354
[14] Wendt (2005), p.360
[15] Grant & Keohane (2005), p.35. The authors describe three sets of ‘informal norms’ which grant legitimacy to ‘power wielders’ in international arena. These are ‘conformity to human rights norms’, adherence to ‘normative principles inherent in democracy’ and lastly acknowledging the ill effects of global inequality. By addressing these three issues through CSR initiatives corporations attempt to gain international legitimacy.
[16] Cutler (2001), p. 135
[17] Chatham House publishes ‘Norms on the Human Rights Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations: Where Next? A brief summary of discussion at the International Law Programme Discussion Group, 17 June 2004.
[18] Taylor (2004), p.48.
[19] Ruggie (2004),p. 500

[20] Million (2001), p.39. According to the United States constitution, ‘The corporation can own property in its own right; it can sue or be sued, in contract or trot or any number of other causes of action; it can be prosecuted or punished for criminal activity; it enjoys various rights under the and it is subject to tax liability. In these respects (and others), the corporation bears the legal attributes of a persons who participate or have an interest in the corporation’s activities’. Also see Buchholz & Klein (2004), p.4. The authors describe a legal person as a ‘supra-individual organizational unit, which is assigned its own legal capacity by the legal order. The legal person derives intellectually from the physical person, the human being’

[21] Alpa (2004), p.734
[22] Machen Jr. (1911) p.255
[23] ibid, p.255
[24] ibid, p.256
[25] ibid, p.256
[26] ibid, p.256
[27] ibid, p.257, the names associated with this school was Ihering in Germany, M.de Vareilles Sommiers in France and Schwabe in Switzerland.
[28] Elkington (1999), p.298
[29] Greenfield (2001), p.59-60. ‘Contractarians’ who consider corporations as property opine that ‘corporate surplus’ spent on social causes tantamount to spending the shareholders money and thus ‘imposing an ‘illegal tax on them’. Contractarians define corporations to be exclusively guided by the terms of the contract and are therefore considered free from any ethical duties which do not form a part of the contract.
[30] Million ( 2001), p.40. According to Million the debate about shareholders interests versus the social costs involved in operating a firm is cast in such a legalistic matrix that ‘a descriptive assertion (“the corporation is X”) is advanced on behalf of a normative claim (“therefore Y should follow”) ,. In this way what might otherwise appear to be abstract, purely academic debates about corporate legal theory in fact support controversial political agenda’.
[31] ibid, p.41 Aggregate theory meant that corporation was guided by the aggregate interests os its owners.
[32] ibid, p.42, Also see Bakan (2004), p.6-9. In 1720, the British Parliament banned corporations after the collapse of English South Sea Company through the ‘Bubble act’. ‘Bubble act’ was repealed in 1825, allowing the corporations to reappear in the business world. .
[33] Wheeler (1994), p.9
[34] Bakan (2004), p.16. The end of 19th century marked the resurgence of corporation as a free natural person, ‘Gone was the centuries old “grant theory”, which had conceived corporations as dependent upon government… Along with the Grant theory had also gone all rationales for encumbering corporations with burdensome restrictions’.
[35] Dodd (1932), p.1151
[36] van der, Pijl (2004), p.9
[37] Million (2001), p. 42. Also see Dine (2005), pp.25-26. The usual ‘philosophy underlying the UK company law generally adheres strictly to a contractual theory of companies regarding the company as primarily if not the sole property of and co-extensive with the owners’.
[38] Million (2001), p.44
[39]Amnesty International publishes ‘Democratic Republic of Congo: Arming the East’, AI Index: AFR 62/006/2005, 5 July 2005. The report states that ‘by April 2004 the DRC conflict had cost the lives of nearly four million people, or 31,000 people per month, since the outbreak of fighting in August 1998’
[40]‘The Curse of Gold: Democratic Republic of Congo (2005), A Report published by The Human Rights Watch, http://hrw.org/reports/2005/drc0505/, 25 July 2005. The report provides an insight into the military-market nexus and its adverse impact on human rights. It shows how local armed groups fighting to benefit from exploiting gold mines and trading routes have committed war crimes using the profits from gold to fund their activities and buy weapons. The report provides details about a leading gold mining company, AngloGold Ashanti, part of the international mining conglomerate Anglo American, links with one armed group, the Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI).
[41] ibid, p.14. The whole story of intensification of internal war in DRC begins in 1990s. This was also a period marked by economic reforms in which prescriptions laid out in the ‘Washington consensus’ were being adopted. According Human rights report ‘In the early 1990s the state owned company OKIMO started entering into arrangements with multinational corporations to exploit the large mines of northeastern Congo using industrial methods and also licensed local miners to work other areas by artisanal methods’.
[42]UNO publishes Special Report on the events in Ituri, January 2002-December 2003; Letter dated 16 July 2004 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2004/573.
[43] The Curse of Gold: Democratic Republic of Congo (2005)’, p.8-9. Ethnically armed groups sprang up. The important ones were northern Hema group (UPC), the Lendu faction (FNI), the southern Hema group PUSIC and the more mixed FAPC. Each of these groups received military and political support from either the DRC, Ugandan or Rwandan governments at different times making the region of Ituri into a war zone.
[44]ibid, p.3., The report clarifies the final destination, where the Congo’s gold reached via Uganda. In 2003, an estimated $60 million worth of Congolese gold was exported from Uganda, to Switzerland. A leading Swiss refinery Metalor Technologies was Uganda’s biggest client. The chain of Congolese middlemen, Ugandan traders and multinational corporations formed an important funding network for armed groups operating in northeastern Congo.
[45] UN Security Council publishes Report of the Panel of Experts on ‘The Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo’, S/2001/357,12 April 2001..
[46] AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. is one of the largest gold production companies in the world with the majority of its shares owned by the international conglomerate, Anglo American plc
[47]‘The Curse of Gold: Democratic Republic of Congo (2005)’, p.56 The competition for the control of mining concessions throughout the DRC was intense during the first and second Congo wars in 1996 and in 1998.
[48] Evans, Jenni, ‘Anglo messed up in Congo’, Mail and Guardian Online, 02 June 2005.
[49] The Curse of Gold: Democratic Republic of Congo (2005)’, p.65. The report states that, ‘while AngloGold Ashanti representatives may have been provided with security assurances, the local populations were not. Throughout February 2004 and in the months that followed, FNI combatants frequently arrested civilians for failure to pay ‘taxes’ or participate in forced labor, often beating and torturing their victims’.
[50] Collier & Hoeffler (2001)
[51] ibid, p. 25
[52] Olsson & Fors Congdon (2003)
[53]UN Security Council publishes Report of the Panel of Experts on ‘The Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo’, P. 7, S/2002/1146, 12 April 2001
[54]Lunde, Taylor& Huser (2003), p 15. The report discusses the integration of private military companies with economic activity.
[55] Investment Division, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishes ‘The UN Global Compact and The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Complementarities and Distinctive Contributions’, 26 April 2005.
[56] UN Security Council publishes Report of the Panel of Experts on ‘The Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo’, P. 12, ,S/2002/1146, 12 April 2001. The report shows how the facade of corporations is used to indulge in criminal activities.
[57] The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) , publishes ‘The Costs of Doing Business: How Oil, U S. Militarization and Corporate Activity Intersect in Colombia’, p. 10,‘ , AFSC Peace Fellowship Project (2003)
[58] Miller, C (2002), ‘A Colombian Town Caught in a Cross-Fire’ Los Angeles Times 10 March 2002
[59]Gillard, Gomez & Jones, ‘BP hands 'tarred in pipeline dirty war'’, Guardian, October 17, 1998
[60]AFSC Peace Fellowship Project (2003), p. 11. The report states that between 1996 and 2000, Occidental spent more than $8.6 million lobbying the U.S. government. This included pressing for increased U.S. military aid to Colombia.
[61] Muttitt & Marriott(2003). Commenting on the issue of British petroleum’s involvement in Columbia, five British development agencies CAFOD, Christian Aid, CIIR, Oxfam GB and Save the Children Fund UK said, ‘BPXC (BP Exploration Colombia) has seriously underestimated the implications that its Investments in a region of violent conflict would have for the security of the poor in the region… the company’s presence risks polarizing local society, thereby a) creating victims of the armed conflict and b) contributing to increasing poverty, as a result of disputes over distribution of revenues.’
[62] Sutherland (1952), p.2. Sir Thomas Roe James I, the ambassador to Mughals had made a statement that ‘war and traffic are incompatible’.
[63] ibid, p.2
[64] ibid, p.4. The charter gave the company the territorial rights and power to declare war against all non Christians.
[65] Litvin (2003), p.15-18
[66] Peers (1995), p.4 Douglas has identified the symbiotic relationship between army and territorial revenues as ‘military fiscalism’
[67] Mukherjee (1990), p.93
[68] Peers (1995), p.4
[69] Alavi (1998), p. 7
[70] ibid, p.4 The recruitment of soldiers from various backgrounds in India added to the company’s knowledge about the local customs and tradition, which in turn helped in designing political policies.
[71] As quoted in Marshall (1968), p.17
[72] Litvin (2003), p. 21, The Company not only offered bribes to Indian rulers and middlemen but also ‘slipped a payment of £20,000 to King James I in order to dissuade him from granting a charter to rival group of Scottish merchants’
[73] Marshall (1968), p.29 A level of harmony prevailed between the company and the parliament. In 1754-61, two company directors were in parliament. From 1761-68 eight Directors were in parliament and by 1768-74, thirteen company directors sat in the parliament.
[74] ibid, p.22. Numerous attempts were made by the British Sate to contain the company, but all failed.
[75] ibid, p.22, ‘In 1783 one of the company’s defenders warned the house of commons that if the East India Company’s charter were invaded, that of Bank of England would follow and then “what security could any individual have of his private property”.
[76] Monbiot (2000), p.208-224
[77] Hertz (2001), Also see Jacobs &. Page (2005)
[78] John ,Vidal, ‘ White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto Stance’, The Guardian, 08 June 2005, Also see Revkin, Andrew C., ‘Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming’, The New York Times , 08 June 2005, Before joining the White house as the chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Philip A. Cooney, was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. Also see Gordon, & Hafer (2005)
[79] Marshall (1968), p.150. The letter of William Cowper to Reverend William Unwin, 03 January 1784, published as appendix
[80] Litvin (2003), p. 97-98
[81]Morgan, Dan ‘Mercenaries For Big Business: Corporate Funding of Think Tanks Raises Question of Credibility, San Francisco Chronicle, February 16, 2000, http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/issues/170200.htm, 15 July 2005. NGOs are considered by many as a ‘part of a rent-a-mouthpiece phenomenon or as mercenary groups that function as surrogates when industry feels it's not advantageous for it to speak’. Also see Phinney, Richard, ‘A Model NGO?’, Radio Netherlands, December 5, 2002, http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/fund/2002/1205model.htm,, 15 July 2005. Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee is the headquarters of the largest NGO in the world, with over 100,000 people on the payroll, all of them Bangladeshi. In addition to their schools and the thousands of teachers, BRAC employs health workers, computer analysts and thousands of bankers. Fazle Hasan Abed, founder of BRAC, was a company executive for Shell.
[82]Wallerstein (2002), p.83
[83] Litvin (2003), p. 75
[84] ibid, p. 5 and 45
[85] Cutler (2001), p. 149
[86] Gill, (2000), p.6
[87] Barkawi (2004), p.167-168
[88]Halperin, Sandra, ‘The Eternal Return: Imperialism and ‘Globalisation' Reconsidered’, First Press: Writings in Critical Social Sciences, http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/global-library/, 23 June 2005 .‘Throughout the nineteenth century, external markets were developed in lieu of internal ones; capital was largely invested either abroad or in home production that was chiefly for export. It was chiefly in this sense that economic relations were ‘dis-embedded’ in the nineteenth century; and it is in this sense, too that, today through ‘globalisation’, they are becoming dis-embedded, once again’.

[89] Gupta, Suman (2002), p. 5
[90] Sklair (2002), p.98-100, According to the author, transnational capitalist class consists of four fraction: (a) TNC executives and their local affiliates (corporate fraction), (b) globalizing state and inter-state bureaucrats and politicians (state fraction), (c) globalizing professionals(technical fraction) and (d) merchants and media (consumer fraction). ‘The concept of transnational capitalist class (TCC) implies that there is one central transnational capitalist class that makes system-wide decisions and that it connects with the TCC in each community , region and country’

[91] Gill (2000), p.3 & p.9 The author explains, ‘Disciplinary neo-liberalism’ as a new form of disciplinary structure is being exercised directly and indirectly through market mechanisms. The states are directly targeted by making them yearn for capital investments by proving the ‘credibility and consistency of their policies according to the criterion of the confidence of investors’ And indirect influence is exercised on other elements of the society, for example, dominance of capital over labour, goading or coercing governments to amend labour laws to encourage foreign direct investments. The ‘new constitutional frameworks include multilateral investment agreements and bilateral investment treaties… These agreements have quasi-constitutional status at the global level … – in ways that subordinate the state to elements in civil society, in this case investors and private corporations. Thus new constitutionalism is the primary political project of globalization today’.
[92] Statement of Earth Rights International regarding Chevron Texaco’s acquisition of Unocal ,12 Apr 05, http://earthrights.org/news/Chev_Unocal_Merger.shtml, 12 June 05. Earth Rights International is co-counsel in the human rights case filed against Unocal in American courts. In Mar 2005 Unocal agreed to compensate the plaintiffs in the lawsuit Doe v. Unocal, which challenged Unocal’s complicity in gross human rights abuses associated with the Yadana pipeline in Burma. Unocal was charged with assisting and encouraging the torture, murder and rape of Burmese villagers by government soldiers to assist the Unocal to build a gas pipeline
[93] Cochrane, Joe,’ The Military Market Mix’ , Newsweek , 26August, 2002
[94] Amnesty International publishes ‘Nigeria Are Human Rights in The Pipeline?’ AI Index: AFR 44/020/2004, 9 November, 2004, http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440202004, 16 June 2005
nner,Thorsten, ‘The UN Can Help Business Help Itself’, International Herald Tribune, 18August, 2005.
[97] The United Nations Sub-Commission on the promotion and protection of Human Rights Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprise with Regard to Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/Rev.2(2003), http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/55sub/55sub.htm, 24 July 2005
[98] David & Muria (2003), p.912.
[99] ibid, p. 913-914
[100] Wells & Elias (2003), p.4 US federal courts apply the ‘agency principle under which the corporation is responsible for anything any of its employees does’. In US ATCA (Alien Tort Claims Act) considers corporations to be natural persons. In UK the ‘identification doctrine’ is applied ‘where liability arises only through the culpability of an individual director. For a detailed discussion on ‘identification doctrine’ see Pinto & Evans(2003), p.39-44
[101] International Peace Academy(IPA) and Fafo AIS, publishes, ‘Business and International Crime: Assessing the Liability of Business Entities for Grave Violations of International Law’, 01 December, 2004, p.9
[102] Ibid, p.9
[103] ibid, p.9
[104] ibid, p.22
[105] Kamminga (2004) ,p. 4.
[106] OHCHR Briefing Paper on The Global Compact and Human Rights: Understanding Sphere of Influence and Complicity, p. 17 ‘The concept of sphere of influence is not defined in detail by international human rights standards; it will tend to include the individuals to whom the company has a certain political, contractual, economic or geographic proximity.’


[107] Barkawi & Laffey (2002), p.110
[108] Ruggie (2004), p.501 Public domain, Ruggie explains is a ‘property of the people’, where authority flows from the mixture of power with legitimate social purposes, this is a space where entry to various ‘sectors and actors’ is granted after thorough scrutiny. He further explains that irrespective of the forms and nature of states and government, which come to occupy it from time to time, this public space, remains intact. The states were the sole occupants of this public property for past half a century, but since the 1990s there are more actors jostling for space within this public arena.
[109] Ibid, p. 504 According to Ruggie, ‘in many instances of ‘private governance’ there has been no actual shift away from public to private sectors. Instead, firms have created a new transnational world of transaction flows that did not exist previously’. Also See Strange (1996)
[110] ibid, p.512.
[111] Kaldor, Mary (2000), p.2. The author brings out the establishment of public monopoly over the means of violence flowed from concentration of taxation of property and income of individual under the central social authority. For continued relevance of State monopoly on legitimate Violence (SMLV) in the sphere of politics Also see Leander (2002)
[112] House of Commons, Select Committee on International Development, Minutes of Evidence, 20, October 1998. Robert Davies accompanied the Chris Gibson-Smith, managing director (policies and regions), British Petroleum, called for enquiry of evidence regarding BP’s connection with the Colombian consortium which bought and supplied military equipment to a Colombian army brigade which was implicated in the massacre of civilians.
[113] For discussion on private governance see Frey (2001), P.100. Also see Hills, Jr. (2001),p.2 Hills explains the concept of ‘private government’ and says that phrase would have been regarded as an oxymoron a century ago. Today, it approaches a Realist truism’.
[114] The first principle of UN Global Compact states that, ‘Businesses should support and respect the protection (emphasis added) of internationally proclaimed human rights’.
[115] For a detailed discussion on political legitimacy and democratic accountability of PMCs see Holmqvist, Caroline (2005)
[116] Singer, P.W. (2004), p.522. Also see. Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), ‘Computer Sciences Corporation completes acquisition of DynCorp’, CSC press release, 7 Mar. 2004, http://www.csc.com/newsandevents/news/2025.shtml>, 21 May 2005. The Programme of acquisition and mergers of private military companies and their incorporation into firms engaged in other businesses is picking up momentum. Military Professional Resources Inc., (MPRI) a private military firm based in Virginia, has been purchased by a Fortune-500 corporation L-3. In 2003, DynCorp, another major PMC , was acquired by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) .