Yet Beijing continues to try to compel foreign companies to take a separate stance from their home governments on divisive issues , or at least ensure neutrality . Many US companies already generate larger revenues in China than domestically and are not willing to ostracize the world ’ s second-largest economy and largest consumer market .
While multinational companies have historically operated under deference to the US during the last few decades of neoliberal globalization , the challenges to the US-led international order have made many reconsider their positions .
This dynamic , coupled with globalized supply chains and markets , appears to have emboldened some multinational corporations to believe that they can support multiple sides in geopolitical confrontations with relative impunity , while their products and services will likely find their way to desired destinations and partners regardless of government directives .
Instead of marching in lockstep with Washington , companies appear more willing to try to maintain ties to the US while simultaneously maintaining and building ties with countries hostile to it . This approach risks aggravating geopolitical tensions and undermining the coherence of the US-led global order , as the profit motives of multinational corporations diverge from the foreign policy objectives of the governments where they are based .
Importantly , as globalization has advanced , multinational corporations have become increasingly involved in civil conflicts and regions with fragile governance . In some cases , they have actively exacerbated tensions by supporting rebel groups and governments .
Chiquita Brands International , one of the largest agricultural companies in the world , admitted to paying money to both the FARC rebel group and rightwing paramilitary groups in Colombia in the 1990s and 2000s to ensure the safety of operations .
This practice of companies supporting multiple sides in conflicts is
86 x The Trial Lawyer particularly evident in Africa , often to secure access to resources . In Nigeria , U . S . companies Shell and Chevron have paid insurgent groups to safeguard their oil and gas interests , while also providing tax and developmental funds to the Nigerian government .
Similarly , mining companies like Afrimex ( UK ) Ltd . and Belgium-based Trademet SA have made payments to rebel groups operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo ( DRC ), as well as working with the DRC government .
Chinese mining companies are also alleged to have paid Nigerian militant groups to access mineral reserves in the country , while simultaneously conducting business with the Nigerian government .
In Myanmar , various Chinese and Thai firms have pursued a dual-track approach of officially signing deals with the military junta while covertly engaging with ethnic armed groups controlling territories rich in natural resources .
Mining , logging , and agricultural companies also paid “ revolutionary taxes ” to the New People ’ s Army ( NPA ) and other insurgent groups in the Philippines , including companies like Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and Philex Mining Corporation , prompting public disapproval by Filipino officials .
Louis Berger Group , an engineering consultancy , meanwhile paid the Taliban and other groups in Afghanistan to protect supply convoys and construction projects , while serving contracts for the US military .
Banks and payment processing networks are also indirectly facilitating or turning a blind eye to financing designated terrorist and criminal groups . The FinCEN Files , released in 2020 , also revealed how banks like the UK ’ s Standard Chartered PLC processed millions of dollars for Arab Bank customers , despite Arab Bank being found liable in 2014 for knowingly transmitting money to Hamas .
The growing direct and indirect role of corporations in conflict zones , particularly in regions with weak state enforcement , is also being led by private military and security companies ( PMSCs ). These firms are often employed by other private actors to safeguard investments and personnel but have a natural tendency to manage and prolong conflicts rather than resolve them .
Across Africa in particular , PMSCs are present to serve private interests as well as governments . The increasing use of PMSCs globally has raised concerns about the ability of multinational corporations to swiftly shift their support between conflicting sides as their strategic interests evolve , potentially taking a far more active role in fueling and prolonging conflicts .
Governments , of course , regularly support rival actors in conflicts . Competing political factions , shifting interests , political expediency , economic motives , desperation , and a desire to promote instability .
The Syrian Civil War saw Pentagonfunded Syrian rebels fighting those supported by the Central Intelligence Agency . Meanwhile , the Syrian government itself was paying the Islamic State ( IS ) to buy back its own stolen oil and natural gas while backing other rebel groups to fight IS .
But the risk of corporations more actively supporting multiple sides in conflict zones and carving up their own territories and spheres of influence is a concerning prospect , akin to the Dutch East India Company which governed its own territories through military force and trade monopolies .
While there are still waning expectations that multinational corporations pick clearer sides in interstate conflicts , there appears to be little stopping them from fueling and prolonging intrastate conflicts featuring non-state actors , as long as it serves their financial interests .
Urgent action is needed to strengthen the regulation and accountability of PMSCs and multinational corporations operating in conflict zones , as their ability to shape conflicts appears set to continue growing .