When The Corporations Exploiting 3rd World People Are Also 3rd World
April 12, 2016 9:59 PM Subscribe
The face of corporate exploitation in the third world is increasingly local, and thus even more invisible than usual. Most land in Africa is technically owned by "local chiefs," and bribery and collusion between chiefs, state and corporations are dispossessing huge numbers of rural families of their land, health and livelihoods.
On the other hand, this article highlights something too rarely enunciated, which is that the capitalist "architecture" of markets & investors & media &c. "is one of the greatest international human rights triumphs of the last 50 years."
State-run or state-colluded enterprises like Green Fuel discussed in the article are a long way from "pure capitalism."
“We’re here on the orders of the president,” the driver said. “If you have a problem, take it up with him.”
posted by chavenet at 2:44 AM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
State-run or state-colluded enterprises like Green Fuel discussed in the article are a long way from "pure capitalism."
“We’re here on the orders of the president,” the driver said. “If you have a problem, take it up with him.”
posted by chavenet at 2:44 AM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think the article begs the question a little: I think only a quite ignorant person would, in the 20-teens, think that only western multinationals are the source corruption and crime in the developing world. By the same token, I think the author is a bit naive - Multinational western companies facilitate, covertly embrace, and aid the generation of corruption and exploitation by shell companies - often aligned to state run enterprises e.g in Angola, and a plethora of dodgy state-owned Chinese companies.
Indeed, I chuckled at mention of Rio Tinto. Whilst you could argue they are one of the better big miners in terms of corruption I suppose (note: still corrupt), they are hardly ingenues when it comes to facilitating exploitation in developing countries. Their record in Africa is dominated by how they lost the Simandou mine rights in Guinea; but few questions are asked of how they got them in the first place.
More broadly, this kind of intra-country corruption and exploitation has, sadly, been the norm in many African countries for decades. Indeed, it's a pattern that pre-exists independence in many places, e.g Kenya, and I feel like the author elides the key lever in making these transactions happen - it would be if not impossible, than certainly very hard, without buy-in from the elite political leadership in these countries.
I mean, I think it's bigger than that - a lot bigger - this is a decades old problem, leading back in many cases to cultural norms and literal tribalism - but there are countries in Africa performing a lot better in this regard, and the relative lack of corruption in government is the big difference, imho.
posted by smoke at 3:09 AM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Indeed, I chuckled at mention of Rio Tinto. Whilst you could argue they are one of the better big miners in terms of corruption I suppose (note: still corrupt), they are hardly ingenues when it comes to facilitating exploitation in developing countries. Their record in Africa is dominated by how they lost the Simandou mine rights in Guinea; but few questions are asked of how they got them in the first place.
More broadly, this kind of intra-country corruption and exploitation has, sadly, been the norm in many African countries for decades. Indeed, it's a pattern that pre-exists independence in many places, e.g Kenya, and I feel like the author elides the key lever in making these transactions happen - it would be if not impossible, than certainly very hard, without buy-in from the elite political leadership in these countries.
I mean, I think it's bigger than that - a lot bigger - this is a decades old problem, leading back in many cases to cultural norms and literal tribalism - but there are countries in Africa performing a lot better in this regard, and the relative lack of corruption in government is the big difference, imho.
posted by smoke at 3:09 AM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
A drive along the western limb of the Platinum mines in South Africa brings this home pretty starkly. Places where the tribes that received the royalties from the miners and used them for the good of community are some of the better areas around in terms of infrastructures and schools. The areas where the tribal leadership pocketed the cash are some of the most god forsaken places I've ever seen, and now the big miners there have ended up providing the infrastructure. It is striking.
Although something to keep in mind about any chatter about western mining companies be good actors, is that it is mostly a reaction to them being truly horrific actors for a century (said Platinum mines were essentially slave labor until the 90's) combined with lots of cash to spend on being a good guy from 2005-2013 or
With the downturn watch for some of that to unwind - especially in places where if the project doesn't get built there are no jobs. Or as a Chilean Copper miner told me "'indigenous rights' tends to be cyclical"
though about the only person being exploited in the Grasberg thing was Freeport, as all of the cash RIO paid for that mine went to Freeport's bondholders, not to Suaharto. 20 years later Freeport is still livid about the price they were forced to sell at
posted by JPD at 7:04 AM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Although something to keep in mind about any chatter about western mining companies be good actors, is that it is mostly a reaction to them being truly horrific actors for a century (said Platinum mines were essentially slave labor until the 90's) combined with lots of cash to spend on being a good guy from 2005-2013 or
With the downturn watch for some of that to unwind - especially in places where if the project doesn't get built there are no jobs. Or as a Chilean Copper miner told me "'indigenous rights' tends to be cyclical"
though about the only person being exploited in the Grasberg thing was Freeport, as all of the cash RIO paid for that mine went to Freeport's bondholders, not to Suaharto. 20 years later Freeport is still livid about the price they were forced to sell at
posted by JPD at 7:04 AM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
@smoke,
well said. in a similar vein I remember (before CAFTA) learning about how much business in Central America was owned by "Mexican companies" (due to regional trade privileges) then finding out that said Mexican companies were in fact owned in large part by US investors (possible through NAFTA).
shells within shells.
I guess the point of the article should be more on the special types of leverage that need to be developed to affect this "developing" kind of exploitation... the whole thing seems like just one more proof of the need for functioning and enforceable human rights laws (including as UN conventions already claim, economic rights).
posted by blankdawn at 9:36 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
well said. in a similar vein I remember (before CAFTA) learning about how much business in Central America was owned by "Mexican companies" (due to regional trade privileges) then finding out that said Mexican companies were in fact owned in large part by US investors (possible through NAFTA).
shells within shells.
I guess the point of the article should be more on the special types of leverage that need to be developed to affect this "developing" kind of exploitation... the whole thing seems like just one more proof of the need for functioning and enforceable human rights laws (including as UN conventions already claim, economic rights).
posted by blankdawn at 9:36 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Dreaming of Mars, again | that bad that hard that street Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:33 AM on April 13, 2016 [6 favorites]