If what we've seen so far is any indication, the 21st century may well mark the emergence of the Corporate Armies. More and more, corporations are involved in all phases of warfare including supplying, arming, funding or contracting out armies for hire. These paid combatants can be used to wage battle against opponents in a civil war, rebel factions, insurgents or even protestors. Anyone deemed by a corporation or it's allies in government as threatening moneyed interests can potentially be targeted.
In Iraq, the US government uses "contractors" to carry out tasks which once fell only to military personnel. These armies-for-hire are often mistrusted and resented by members of the US military, both rank and file and at the top levels of command:
"These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force... They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place."
Brig. Gen. Karl R. Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division (US Army)
But Iraq is not the only instance...
The conflict in Iraq is but one example of corporate involvement in warfare. Whether you believe that the US military is fighting for corporate oil interests in Iraq, or whether you simply are worried about the growing number of contractors being hired to fill the traditional role of the military, the involvement of corporations in the fighting there cannot be denied.
Violence is often employed to intimidate local opposition to drilling operations. Often oil companies strike deals with corrupt goverment officials eager to take their money but not so willing to share the wealth with the local citizenry and the people affected most by drilling operations.
The Niger Delta
Consider the case of Nigeria. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, "Nigeria is the fifth largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, yet Nigeria is one of the poorest countries in the world with a per capita income of $260 per year."
Not only is the wealth derived from oil cultivation not shared with local people, but often their homes and their environments are ruined by the drilling:
(In Nigeria), [r]eports of environmental damage related to Chevron oil production include oil spills and canals that allow sea water to leach into the water supply, decreasing the supply of potable water, and that cause erosion of the land. The oil spills and the erosion devitalize the Ijaw and Ilaje peoples’ means of livelihood including forests, plant growth, wildlife, fish, mangroves, and livestock. Human rights activists report that the environmental destruction has caused entire communities in the Delta to be forced to relocate.
In the late 1990's, local Nigerians banded together to protest the destruction of their environment and living conditions wrought by Chevron's drilling operations.
The communities in the area have organized in opposition to the environmental devastation and have pressured the company to cease the destructive practices, pay reparations, and clean up the damage caused. These protests have included attempted meetings with company officials, and peaceful protests in the communities and on the offshore oil platforms.
The growing human rights and environmental movement has met with repression by Nigeria’s military, which appears to have been acting in cooperation with Chevron. Military "security" for Chevron’s operations has, in at least some communities, resulted in a military occupation, which has further prevented the indigenous people from earning their livelihood.
In May of 1998 one of the protests resulted in violence against the protesters. The San Francisco Chronicle recounts:
...military police opened fire on a Chevron Nigeria offshore oil rig that had been occupied by more than 100 people protesting the company's practices, which they said had polluted their land and water and denied employment to their people. Two people were killed and two were wounded
Lawsuit Filed against Chevron
The villagers claim that Chevron is supplying and funding the fighting forces that are attacking the protesters. And they have filed suit against Chevron for this and a second wave of attacks against them:
The other attacks took place in January 1999 in villages near oil facilities where residents had protested pollution. The plaintiffs said government troops, using a helicopter and boats supplied by Chevron, killed at least four unarmed people and burned two villages to the ground.
Last Tuesday, the Nigerian plaintiffs cleared an important hurdle in a US District court in San Francisco. Their suit will be heard:
In a series of decisions Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston narrowed the lawsuit against Chevron but said a jury could consider the gist of the villagers' claims - that the oil giant summoned troops to the protests, directed their actions and should be held accountable for the injuries and deaths of peaceful demonstrators.
...
Chevron said in a statement that it is confident a jury will "reject this ultimate Nigerian scam."... (and) said the evidence would show that the protesters had been violent, had taken hostages and attacked police who tried to rescue the captives.
No factual finding has been made in the case. But Judge Illston has ruled that there is enough initial evidence to allow the case to proceed. She has basically overruled Chevron's contention that they simply called upon the government and the military to abate protestors who Chevron claimed were threatening their workers and their oil operations:
Chevron's Nigerian subsidiary and the government troops "had a much closer relationship than the traditional relationship between private parties and law enforcement officials in this country," Illston said. "The (security forces) were on the (Chevron) payroll, and engaged in extensive security work. ... (Chevron) did not simply 'dial 911.' "
Lions Mercenaries and Tigers Contractors and Bears Terrorists, Oh my!
The Bush administration judges insurgents and fighters not fighting for any nation's flag as rogue terrorists. And it builds on that definition by deciding that these fighters are not subject to the terms of the Geneva Conventions. That's led us to torture, incarcerations without trials and even incarceration without charges, save being deemed as enemy combatants.
It seems to me that these corporate armies could fall under the same definition in some cases: not truly fighting to defend or at the behest of a country, but instead fighting to guard corporate interests or fighting because they are paid combatants, which we used to call mercenaries and which the U.S. government under the Bush administration calls contractors.
The extent of how big these private corporate armies are and how much they are being used in Iraq is unknown to the public. We may be fooling ourselves by thinking that if we pressure congress and the administration to bring home US troops, that we will be ending the war.
:: ::
The case is Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., No 99-2506 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.