In your paper you write about promoting public sector governance initiatives and including the government in private sector processes to promote a mutually beneficial relationship. I agree that the public sector is essential in enabling growth in the private sector. It seems to me that it is easy to identify the public sector as a problem preventing stability and growth, but much more difficult to actually fix the problem.
I studied abroad in Argentina and noticed a prevalence of corruption in and distrust of the government. It seemed that there was no potential for citizens or businesses to fully prosper or to take advantage of growth opportunities until confidence was re-established in the markets and in the banks.
What specific measures can you take to combat the corruption preventing growth in the privates sector? What can be done if the government of the country is unwilling to change because these individuals are benefiting from this corruption? How can you change a government in which corruption has been prevalent for decades, if not centuries? And how can you go about measuring these small steps in the right direction? Or, is there any action that businesses can take to combat this corruption and attempt to re-instill confidence in the country’s people?
This British law seems to be progressive and definitely a step in the right direction. However, I think it would be more effective if one or more of these companies involved in industries within conflict zones took the initiative to provide this information not for legal compliance purposes, but as a part of their CSR practices. This proactive approach could attract shareholders that are concerned about the practices of MNCs within conflict zones. If several large companies choose to engage in these practices, it may become a industry standard without government intervention.
Also, providing this information before a law is passed requiring this information is a way for businesses to address this concern before it becomes an issue that merits regulation. Avoiding formal regulation would be beneficial to businesses because it would allow them to distribute this information how they choose to, instead of being required to comply with specific regulations or information requirements.
Should it be a legal requirement or the decision of the business to provide this information? Which is more effective and complete? Do the benefits of voluntarily providing this information outweigh the negatives, or vice versa?
I think a main aspect for business to focus on when conducting business in conflict zones remains in the trust between all people involved. As seen in Igor Abramov’s “Building Peace in Fragile States – Building Trust is Essential for Effective Public-Private Partnerships” It is important to acknowledge just how large of a community business affects.
Igor- my question to you is in regard to the “best” ways for companies to instill confidence and trust throughout its native people. There are certainly vast barriers to overcome, and just by acting in a responsible way will not necessarily lead to this trust. Due to the general government’s failing to act appropriately I would think this is a huge problem that the Private Sector faces. In your paper you cite four-phase protocols as a good framework for the Private Sector to follow. In your research have you found this is the “best” way, and if so, are there regions or particular commerce that will promote the greatest acheivement of commerce and peace in such zones.
Thanks, Dexter. . . .Yes, the ‘state secrets’ doctrine has largely paralyzed federal courts (which hear most of these claims against U.S. contractors), unless it is clear that the company was acting on its own without “hand in glove” coordination with government forces. The Montreux Document has no force to over-ride that doctrine in U.S. courts; however, in my paper, I outline how a non-government organization could act as a broker between private military security companies and by contract put accountability into an arbitrated setting where ‘state secrets’ cannot be invoked by either the contractor or the government. If, e.g., a PMSC were hired by the government of Congo, the African Union, or the U.N. - either through a brokering NGO as I suggest, or outright - the contract should specify dispute resolution in which the contractor cannot and will not raise ‘state secrets’ as a defense. And if the case is not heard in the U.S., the state secrets defense would be ineffective.
Hello Lily, and thanks for your questions and comments. My reaction, too, was shock; it was hard to believe how little effective contractual and/or judicial oversight there is. Much of the problem is that there is no international civil court to hear these cases, that cost-plus no-bid contracts have been created in the urge for efficiency (get the job done ASAP) and have no provision for holding contractors and their employees accountable, and that an array of arguable defenses in US courts leave plaintiffs with sporadic (at best) remedies.
Congo raged for a long time before I came to understand how truly horrific it was. One approach to the number of humanitarian crises is to let people who care contribute to an NGO that would monitor and supervise humanitarian interventions and work with governments and regional authorities(or the UN) to find the “right” private military/security company to do what is necessary. In addition to monitoring and supervising, the NGO could accept donations from folks like you and me - if we cared about Darfur, e.g., and wanted to help repel the Janjaweed (and their Sudanese governmental support) we could send money to the NGO and create a demand for legitimate authorities to hire the “right” PMSC for the job, using the NGOs other services. Sounds unconventional, and is. Sovereignty issues arise, but see a previous post on this.
To answer the next to last question, then, I’d say that budgets can be expanded in this way, and that the most serious humanitarian situations can be responded to by ordinary folks through a special NGO that would only maintain credibility by using funds responsibly and making sure that PMSCs and their employees were truly accountable. [You would not, for example, want to contribute to an NGO that hired a firm like Blackwater that shot with impunity, and the NGO did not see to it that culpable folks were held to account.] So, it’s not “regulation” in the usual sense that I’m talking about here, but clear contracting with PMSCs who understand that their ‘repeat business’ depends on hiring good people who can exercise restraint and who are willing to be held accountable. It seems entirely possible that more accountability for PMSCs would also increase their use and the number of people willing to financially support the use of their supervised activities.
I also agree with Timothy’s and Adam’s ideas. I believe that using local workforces does improve the sense of peace that helps to attract tourists and foreigners to an area. But in places once burdened by conflict, it is especially important to use local workforces as a means of improving the local economy and conditions, and employing locals who may otherwise not be able to obtain jobs. The presence of basic amenities and structures in a tourist destination vastly improves the likelihood that travelers will choose that particular vacation spot. When businesses come into an underdeveloped area, they improve the local economy and conditions by installing this necessary infrastructure. Also, when businesses hire local workforces, they not only create jobs for local economies, but they attract local peoples towards other business activities, where some may otherwise obtain employment through criminal means.
To a lesser extent than in Dubai and other Middle Eastern nations as in Adam’s example, some African nations have also enjoyed greater economic prosperity through the growing prevalence of local businesses and industry. In some of these African nations, the use of local workforces for reasons that deter crime is especially important in order to set precedents for community behavior, and rising community members. Tourism’s role in rebuilding post-conflict ridden societies is great, especially when they involve sustainable practices that help to stimulate interest and demand for these exotic, but troubled, places, and employ local peoples to improve local economies and conditions.
I respect your opinion, but I would have to disagree. Ukraine is currently on the brink of bankruptcy and cannot afford any of the infrastructure development that it needs for the 2012 Euro Cup. However, the country is receiving funds that are being raised by the UEFA and is also receiving support from investors around the world, who see this as a lucrative opportunity.
If the OC faced enough pressure to start going into countries with economic and social hardships, these countries would receive money from all kinds of sources and have to put up a minimum amount of funds. I’m not sure if there are any organizations that exist with the specific goals of bringing major sporting events into conflict areas, but there should certainly be a push.
Daniel, you state that it is important for all actor involved to have trust. And while I agree that some degree of trust is warranted, I think that before a stakeholder can be trusting of a company that they need to see some reason to develop that trust. If a firm does not have a CRS and does not prescribe to CSR then what reason should a stakeholder have to trust that firm?
Igor, you talk about public-private partnership and grassroots programs to address corruption. What I am wondering is how you think that these programs could be applied to developed nations. While this was built for developing nations where corruption is more widespread, do you think that it could as easily applied to the developed world where corruption is not as systemic but still a problem that sometimes comes up?
It is extremely difficult to conduct correct strategy to enter into conflict zones. It clear from watching videos that building strong trusts between entering party and the accepting party. Figuring out what they need, developing common mandate, developing co-participation to figure out ways that both parties can make a profit. It is important to develop ways entering party does not exclude accepting party’s culture. In most cases, those cultures between two parties will be different in many ways so bringing in expertise to figure out the right ways to communicate between different cultures seems very important.
I agree that the Mexican tourism industry has the ability to fully recover after the Flu outbreak and drug war fizzle out. However, I do question at what point an area’s tourism value is completely diminished? (That is if an area’s tourism value can be completely diminished). Both recent and historical events have shown that no matter how tarnished a destination may be, profits from tourism remain. For example, despite being the location of 1.1 million genocidal deaths, Nazi Concentration camp Auschwitz is a major tourist destination in Germany. It seems that even after a location is tarnished it often takes on historical significance.
Is there any example or reason why of a destination’s tourism value would completely diminish or does history always provide demand?
Maybe further research can be carried out in order to find how to accelerate the gradual change of perception, as I believe, with the widespread negative perception (mainly because of the increase in media attention after 9/11 and the faults of these corporations in Iraq), even the legal process might be held back.
Since becoming involved with the war on terror, private security firms have played a public role in the debate on interrogation and human rights, which often evokes negative opinions from citizens. As a result, private military firms in the US have become known for aggression and unethical practices. One U.S. private military firm felt so much domestic outrage, its firm’s board of directors chose to rename, re-brand and completely reintroduce the firm. The Firm formally known as Blackwater came under considerable scrutiny after it’s aggressive interrogation techniques used in Iraq became public. Now under the new name Xenon, the firm looks to re-enter the private security market with a more positive image.
My question is, should private military firms work to re-brand public image or does public opinion not a priority to such firms?
In terms of addressing recurring issues that businesses can address as part of their overall strategic focus, it seems that businesses need to address the issues of creating trust and goodwill among stakeholders. These stakeholders not only include suppliers, employees, and customers, but the public sector as well. In all countries, but especially in conflict zones, trust and cooperation between the sectors (both public and private) and their constituents seems to be the key to long term profitability, sustainability, and the creation of harmony.
Dr. Riddle’s research on diaspora communities and diaspora investment in their home countries is extremely important. Dr. Riddle raises many important questions about diaspora investment in her paper from last week’s discussion, but adding tourism-related investment to this list is certainly relevant. Are there any opportunities (which are sustainable and well-functioning) for people living in diaspora communities to promote tourism (other than members of their same community) to their home countries? What kind of mechanisms and/or organizations can these countries set up to assist their citizens living in diaspora to promote tourism and tourism-related investment? Trying to understand and answer these questions can provide countries with a large percentage of their citizens living abroad with a new source of funding.
I believe Mexico’s tourism industry will get affected by to an extent and limit, due to the Swine Flu. Although the flu has borken out as a level 5 threat level by the World Health Organization, its being controlled by a great extent. Since treatment has been working for people who got the flu, this should not increase to a level six pandemic level. I think that by spring break next year, most people especially students will forget about what had happened witht the flu and continue crossing the border into mexico, with its attractive beaches and what it has to offer.
The recovery phase might take a while but their peso will increase in value and their economy will gain strength in the future.
Its very interesting what David mentioned about Iraq and their struggle to increase their tourism industry. Now this countries tourism would need a significant support by other countries, as well as the local communities will to develop the country after their massive conflicts with in their community.
I believe that the only way Iraq will re-establish a succesful tourism industry is with the help of their neighboring countries that include: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, and Qatar. Iraq is in need of help in order to boost their tourism, and neighboring countries such as these have the will and power to do that.
But whats even more important is for the people of Iraq to get a long together, since they are divided mainly into Sunnis Shia’s and Kurds. They still maintain hatred of one another and continually fight each other. This is the main problem in Iraq that should be the first issue that should be resolved.
Ali~ how do you feel about women’s role in business in Bahrain? How has that changed throughout the years and do you think that those changes have contributed to furthering peace?
I am very interested to learn more about your country.
The main incentive for MNC’s to involve themselves in conflict countries is typically due to the existence of natural resource-based assets for extractive purposes. MNC’s enter a conflict country and often times strip the country of its own wealth… the diamond industry is a good example. Governments and world regulators need to instate regulations that prevent MNC’s from stripping these countries. Rules need to be established that require these MNC’s to give back to the countries that they are profiting from.
I totally agree with this idea. I learned a lot from the video lectures posted before and the papers written especially about the peace through tourism that most people who personally experience the culture from traveling and communicating with local people will have postive impression about the country and people.
The businesses, therefore, can be the middle manager who can tell how their cultures are different from the local cultures to the communities while the corporates can go back to their country and show people what they have experienced and how the real local communities are different from the stereotype. By understanding each other through communication, they can reduce the cultural gap between those two countries, which will ultimately lead to the efficiency. Furthermore, the corporation can help promoting education in the local citizens. and even economic growth.
However, as it is mentioned in the building public private partnership, all these can be achieved only when the corporation listen to the local citizens about their issues and learn domestic cultures. Therefore, developing trust between them will allow the business to naturally transform themselves into a domestic business ethic group.
I agree that when corporations enter conflicted countries they are aiding in the effort to “drive our crime” and to promote peace as well as reduce poverty. All of these things are being done because they allow for industrialization as well as enabling even greater job creation. The tourism industry is a great example of this. Although it is risky for many countries to enter a new country, especially ones that may not be as stable, I believe that there are some advantages to it - in an economical and “non fiscal” way. In Theme 2, Steve Kaplitt discussed a program that he is a part of, EESR - The Economic Empowerment in Strategic Regions Initiative. In this, private companies are able to invest in businesses of entrepreneurs and capitalists that are in these conflict regions. EESR finds these capitalists, aids them in formulating a proposal, and then they send these out to private companies who think they may want to invest. If companies did this, not only are they fulfilling their CSR duties and investing in foreign projects, but they are also not taking as great of a risk by simply entering into a conflict region with the hopes of being successful.