Another leading example of the political influence of MNCs on how the corporations undermine the sovereignty of a nation-state occurred between 1970 and 1973 in Chile when, an American corporation, ITT (International Telegraph and Telecommunications), in conjunction with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assisted in the overthrow of the government of Salvador Allende.
ITT's major investment in Chile during the early 197Os was Chiltelco, a telephone subsidiary valued at $153 million. The government under the leadership of Allende, a Marxist, duly elected by the people of Chile, decided to nationalize the company without compensation. ITT was infuriated and colluded with the ClA-sponsored military coup that led to the overthrown of Allende on October 11,1973.9 Further example of the political mechanisms of corporate rule occurred in Nigeria. This is one country that was designed by corporations for corporations and they simply disregard the people who live there. In 1937, a well-known monstrous multinational corporation called the Shell Petroleum (shortened for Shell) emerged on the scene. Owned jointly by the Dutch and the British, Shell by 1956 had discovered crude oil in commercial quantities in the central part of the Niger Delta. By 1958, large quantities of oil had been produced in Boma oil field where the Ogoni people live; the same happened in Andoni, Urhobo, Itsekiri, and so on. It was not until 1967 that the cruel hands of the multinational corporations became apparent. There is a misconception about the Nigerian civil war by most people in Europe and America that the war was caused by ethnic rivalry, but that was not simply the case. While ethnicity was a contributing factor, the onus of the problem was external. It was an oil war, engineered by the multinational corporations in particular Shell Petroleum.10 The Igbo of Eastern Nigeria cried out against persecution by another ethnic group, Hausa-Fulani in the Northern Nigeria in 1966/1967. However, the Igbo thought that they could survive because of the numerous oil reserves in parts of their territory and decided to secede. But secession would have meant that the oil that was then under the control of Shell would probably have moved away from the British control, particularly since the corporation was uncertain about the intentions of the defunct secessionist Biafran leader, then Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. So, Shell moved swiftly to advise the British government never to back secession. The secessionist government's subsequent actions led to a civil war in which over one million innocent lives were lost between 1967 and 1970.11
Also, the oil multinational corporations including Shell, Mobil, Exxon, AGIP, Chevron, Texaco, etc., in Nigeria have fashioned a new vision called Vision 2010.12 This Vision was first sold to the late military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha, who in an attempt to shore up legitimacy, was a lackey of the MNCs. The Vision was designed to apply the coercive military power against any opposition to the exploration and drilling of oil without regard to the health of the local inhabitants who are marginalized and endangered by the ecological degradation. The corporations had reportedly been heavily involved in the importation of weapons and arms for protection of their interest against the incursion of the indigenes of the Niger Delta whose land had been devastated by the oil exploration and drilling under the concessions provided by the government. The oil corporations retained their own police force, and through their immense economic clout they plundered a lot of places and displaced the people. In the late 198Os, the Ogoni land was turned into a killing field rather than a drilling field. The Ogoni people, including the international known human rights activist, Ken Saro Wiwa, who spoke against the environmental degradation caused by the drilling of the oil as well as lack of compensation to the indigenes of the oil-rich areas, were killed for resisting the continued destruction of their land. In a move reminiscent of the mercantilist era, the MNCs seek for protection from their governments in their quest for capitalist hegemony. Such is the case of Nigeria, an oil-rich country. The United States and Nigeria have entered a military defense pact called "Operation Focus Relief designed to protect American geopolitical and economic interests as well as safeguard the new democratic dispensation in Nigeria. The "Operation Focus Relief is therefore aimed to ensure the uninterruption in the flow of the country's oil to the industrialized world. In a recent address to the Association for Good Governance and Productive Leadership in Benin City, Nigeria, Professor Festus Iyayi captures this perspective:
Nigerians like to boast that their country has the biggest (and) strongest army in Africa. But today, there is a feeling in informed circles that this army may have suffered a defeat without going to war. Even top serving Nigerian generals are getting to grips with this idea. The government of President Olusegun Obasanjo has entered a military pact with the United States of America. Code-named "Operation Focus Relief, the agreement grants concessions to the United States Army to engage in activities that no foreign army has undertaken in Nigeria since the country became independent in 1960. Information made available to CRYSTAL Magazine by the Untied States Embassy in Abuja, describes "Operation Focus Relief as a historic and unprecedented bilateral agreement between the U. S. and Nigeria. CRYSTAL gathered that the American soldiers currently stationed at NlCON Hilton and Sheraton hotels are also engaged in espionage activities on Nigeria's military capabilities.13
In another article, Laolu Akande has confirmed the above findings by indicating that the United States may have been developing a clear definitive military blue print for the protection of its citizens and those of its prime ally, Great Britain, and their oil investments in Nigeria in case there is the need to do so, if and when the security of the oil producing Niger Delta is once again threatened. A workshop, under the auspices of the Army War College in Carlisle in the State of Pennsylvania, U.S. A., designed exclusively forthe U.S. citizens included the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria as well as personnel from the U.S. State Department, CIA and other military intelligence, representatives of oil companies that operate in Nigeria and other civilian experts. A topnotch U.S. consultancy firm, Cohen and Woods, organized the workshop for the Defense Department. Henry Cohen was a U.S. secretary during the presidency of George Bush, Sr., and James Wood is a retired Pentagon policy chief for Africa. They both own and run the firm.14 The handover of Nigeria's military institution to the Americans is unprecedented especially when viewed against Nigeria's past. It should be noted that the massive protests in 1963 to the proposed Anglo-Nigeria Defense Pact under Balewa and the horrendous Nigeria's civil war that the country fought with imported arms and political support did not involve any defense pact with any foreign power. There are two compelling explanations why President Obasanjo has entered such an agreement? One theory is that the present government under the new democratic dispensation in Nigeria was uncertain about the intention of the military given the history of Nigeria's military coups to forestall democracy. Another theory may relate to America's desire to see a balance of power in the region. By balance of power, we mean the notion that the United States did not want to see the country become more powerful than its neighboring West African states to ensure the political stability of the region. In any case, the objective is clear: the local elite as an appendage to the exploitation of the oppressed in Nigeria is allied with global capitalism under the tutelage of MNCs for the protection of their oil investments in the country.
Some apologists for globalization contend that MNCs are so angelic that they would be willing to transfer technology to their host countries (mostly the underdeveloped countries). One of the most noted examples of this myth involved the Indian government and the Coca-Cola Corporation. The Indian government demanded that if Coca-Cola wished to continue operating its subsidiary in India, it had to provide India with the composition of the closely guarded secret formula for the cola syrup that Coca-Cola used in its most famous product. Coca-Cola declined and ended its Indian operations.15 Common sense dictates that technology is never willingly transferred but is either stolen or self-acquired. What would have happened if Coca-Cola had shared the secret formula with India? The government of India would have then established a similar corporation to compete with Coca-Cola. That would have undermined the goal of Coca-Cola of accentuating monopoly so that it can achieve the bottom line, i.e., maximization of profit. More importantly, the relationships between the MNCs and the underdeveloped countries are usually asymmetric. The underdeveloped countries want to have joint ventures and thus attain equal partnerships, but the corporations such as the Coca-Cola in India preferred the host countries to play a subordinate role, or even no role at all.
Source :http://findarticles.com/p/articles
ITT's major investment in Chile during the early 197Os was Chiltelco, a telephone subsidiary valued at $153 million. The government under the leadership of Allende, a Marxist, duly elected by the people of Chile, decided to nationalize the company without compensation. ITT was infuriated and colluded with the ClA-sponsored military coup that led to the overthrown of Allende on October 11,1973.9 Further example of the political mechanisms of corporate rule occurred in Nigeria. This is one country that was designed by corporations for corporations and they simply disregard the people who live there. In 1937, a well-known monstrous multinational corporation called the Shell Petroleum (shortened for Shell) emerged on the scene. Owned jointly by the Dutch and the British, Shell by 1956 had discovered crude oil in commercial quantities in the central part of the Niger Delta. By 1958, large quantities of oil had been produced in Boma oil field where the Ogoni people live; the same happened in Andoni, Urhobo, Itsekiri, and so on. It was not until 1967 that the cruel hands of the multinational corporations became apparent. There is a misconception about the Nigerian civil war by most people in Europe and America that the war was caused by ethnic rivalry, but that was not simply the case. While ethnicity was a contributing factor, the onus of the problem was external. It was an oil war, engineered by the multinational corporations in particular Shell Petroleum.10 The Igbo of Eastern Nigeria cried out against persecution by another ethnic group, Hausa-Fulani in the Northern Nigeria in 1966/1967. However, the Igbo thought that they could survive because of the numerous oil reserves in parts of their territory and decided to secede. But secession would have meant that the oil that was then under the control of Shell would probably have moved away from the British control, particularly since the corporation was uncertain about the intentions of the defunct secessionist Biafran leader, then Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. So, Shell moved swiftly to advise the British government never to back secession. The secessionist government's subsequent actions led to a civil war in which over one million innocent lives were lost between 1967 and 1970.11
Also, the oil multinational corporations including Shell, Mobil, Exxon, AGIP, Chevron, Texaco, etc., in Nigeria have fashioned a new vision called Vision 2010.12 This Vision was first sold to the late military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha, who in an attempt to shore up legitimacy, was a lackey of the MNCs. The Vision was designed to apply the coercive military power against any opposition to the exploration and drilling of oil without regard to the health of the local inhabitants who are marginalized and endangered by the ecological degradation. The corporations had reportedly been heavily involved in the importation of weapons and arms for protection of their interest against the incursion of the indigenes of the Niger Delta whose land had been devastated by the oil exploration and drilling under the concessions provided by the government. The oil corporations retained their own police force, and through their immense economic clout they plundered a lot of places and displaced the people. In the late 198Os, the Ogoni land was turned into a killing field rather than a drilling field. The Ogoni people, including the international known human rights activist, Ken Saro Wiwa, who spoke against the environmental degradation caused by the drilling of the oil as well as lack of compensation to the indigenes of the oil-rich areas, were killed for resisting the continued destruction of their land. In a move reminiscent of the mercantilist era, the MNCs seek for protection from their governments in their quest for capitalist hegemony. Such is the case of Nigeria, an oil-rich country. The United States and Nigeria have entered a military defense pact called "Operation Focus Relief designed to protect American geopolitical and economic interests as well as safeguard the new democratic dispensation in Nigeria. The "Operation Focus Relief is therefore aimed to ensure the uninterruption in the flow of the country's oil to the industrialized world. In a recent address to the Association for Good Governance and Productive Leadership in Benin City, Nigeria, Professor Festus Iyayi captures this perspective:
Nigerians like to boast that their country has the biggest (and) strongest army in Africa. But today, there is a feeling in informed circles that this army may have suffered a defeat without going to war. Even top serving Nigerian generals are getting to grips with this idea. The government of President Olusegun Obasanjo has entered a military pact with the United States of America. Code-named "Operation Focus Relief, the agreement grants concessions to the United States Army to engage in activities that no foreign army has undertaken in Nigeria since the country became independent in 1960. Information made available to CRYSTAL Magazine by the Untied States Embassy in Abuja, describes "Operation Focus Relief as a historic and unprecedented bilateral agreement between the U. S. and Nigeria. CRYSTAL gathered that the American soldiers currently stationed at NlCON Hilton and Sheraton hotels are also engaged in espionage activities on Nigeria's military capabilities.13
In another article, Laolu Akande has confirmed the above findings by indicating that the United States may have been developing a clear definitive military blue print for the protection of its citizens and those of its prime ally, Great Britain, and their oil investments in Nigeria in case there is the need to do so, if and when the security of the oil producing Niger Delta is once again threatened. A workshop, under the auspices of the Army War College in Carlisle in the State of Pennsylvania, U.S. A., designed exclusively forthe U.S. citizens included the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria as well as personnel from the U.S. State Department, CIA and other military intelligence, representatives of oil companies that operate in Nigeria and other civilian experts. A topnotch U.S. consultancy firm, Cohen and Woods, organized the workshop for the Defense Department. Henry Cohen was a U.S. secretary during the presidency of George Bush, Sr., and James Wood is a retired Pentagon policy chief for Africa. They both own and run the firm.14 The handover of Nigeria's military institution to the Americans is unprecedented especially when viewed against Nigeria's past. It should be noted that the massive protests in 1963 to the proposed Anglo-Nigeria Defense Pact under Balewa and the horrendous Nigeria's civil war that the country fought with imported arms and political support did not involve any defense pact with any foreign power. There are two compelling explanations why President Obasanjo has entered such an agreement? One theory is that the present government under the new democratic dispensation in Nigeria was uncertain about the intention of the military given the history of Nigeria's military coups to forestall democracy. Another theory may relate to America's desire to see a balance of power in the region. By balance of power, we mean the notion that the United States did not want to see the country become more powerful than its neighboring West African states to ensure the political stability of the region. In any case, the objective is clear: the local elite as an appendage to the exploitation of the oppressed in Nigeria is allied with global capitalism under the tutelage of MNCs for the protection of their oil investments in the country.
Some apologists for globalization contend that MNCs are so angelic that they would be willing to transfer technology to their host countries (mostly the underdeveloped countries). One of the most noted examples of this myth involved the Indian government and the Coca-Cola Corporation. The Indian government demanded that if Coca-Cola wished to continue operating its subsidiary in India, it had to provide India with the composition of the closely guarded secret formula for the cola syrup that Coca-Cola used in its most famous product. Coca-Cola declined and ended its Indian operations.15 Common sense dictates that technology is never willingly transferred but is either stolen or self-acquired. What would have happened if Coca-Cola had shared the secret formula with India? The government of India would have then established a similar corporation to compete with Coca-Cola. That would have undermined the goal of Coca-Cola of accentuating monopoly so that it can achieve the bottom line, i.e., maximization of profit. More importantly, the relationships between the MNCs and the underdeveloped countries are usually asymmetric. The underdeveloped countries want to have joint ventures and thus attain equal partnerships, but the corporations such as the Coca-Cola in India preferred the host countries to play a subordinate role, or even no role at all.
Source :http://findarticles.com/p/articles
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar