12 July 2022, NIICE Commentary 8122
Dhruv Gadhavi
The traditional realist notion that anarchy prevails in International Relations was challenged by the gradual onset of global governance (albeit without a global government) centred on International Organisations. With the increasing participation of Non-State Actors like Transnational Corporations in global governance, the term ‘Global Politics’ was introduced to suit this emerging world order. The central idea was to label TNCs as independent, unbiased and professional actors which would help boost the prospects of cooperation among nations. However, the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict provides an opportunity to revisit and rethink the behaviour of TNCs in International Relations.
The flow of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda over social media preceded the first actual Russian offensive in late February this year. Influence operations were carried out to shape public opinion about any possible escalation. Within the first few days of the offensive, major TNCs became a party to the conflict by not just providing a platform for biased reporting, but by also taking tweaking their policies in parts of Europe and recalibrating their operations in Russia. Such provocative actions should be seen in the light of blatant disregard of expected behaviour from an NSA than as some form of Corporate Political Responsibility.
According to Statista, a company specializing in consumer data, all 10 of the most valuable brands worldwide have ceased, suspended or curtailed their sales, shipments or operations in Russia. It includes the likes of Google, Coca-Cola, Toyota, McDonald’s and Nike. While a number of countries rallied to impose sanctions on Russia, TNCs gave the first impression to the world of what a Corporate NATO would look like. It is important to acknowledge how platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter shape public perception of events happening around the world and influence reactions and behaviour. Media houses like CNN and BBC don’t just have a huge audience on broadcast TV but also have millions of followers on above-mentioned platforms which add to their influencing capabilities.
According to Lt. Gen. D.S. Hooda, Senior Fellow for Military Strategy at Delhi Policy Group, a New Delhi-based think tank, the key element that helped Ukraine in dominating the information sphere has been the role played by international technology companies.
Unchecked use of technology can alter various dimensions of war simultaneously. As reported by The Washington Post, Ukraine is using facial recognition technology from a US-based company Clearview AI, to identify dead Russian soldiers in order to contact their families. What experts are calling ‘classic psychological warfare’ should actually be classified as an advanced application of technology. People have avoided the issue of deployment of technology due to the type of conflicts that the world has seen in the recent past. The western intervention in the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen were largely labelled as Counter-Insurgency operations, because of which all tactically faulty operations stayed largely below the moral radar. Faulty intelligence and execution had led to numerous instances of drone strikes on schools and hospitals. The argument often put forward in such operations is that it’s difficult to differentiate between civilians, combatants and combatants using civilian infrastructures. Surprisingly, in a total war situation in Ukraine, civilian deaths do make headlines even after the open involvement of breweries arming civilians with Molotov cocktails.
Challenges to Global Governance
Anarchy, as it exists today, is more so for the TNCs rather than States. Global governance has surely evolved, but the next big challenge is to extend the governance umbrella over TNCs. Speaking at a conference organized by an Australian think tank, Lowy Institute, Dr. Samir Saran, President of Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi based think tank, rightly pointed out that the political and socio-economic threat from unregulated technology behemoths can be dangerous to those sitting outside of the geographies where they originate from. It’s an open secret that most of the TNCs that shape global norms originate from the West and that they don’t respect other value systems quite often.
The crucial question which arises from this situation is that whether global governance, where authority is not acquired by a singular entity but is shared by multiple actors, bodies and organisations, can adapt, in order to push TNCs to act with greater accountability. International laws will have to be framed and reframed with broader scope and jurisdiction to withstand such unconventional challenges which the global order is facing. For this to materialise, the regimes which are constituent to global governance should become more accommodative to the ideational factors which shape the needs and wants of non-western societies. If Global Governance fails to heed to the calls for reform, TNCs which operate so freely today in territorial States, may find themselves subject to tighter regulations domestically. Such laws can sometimes be discriminatory and unfair. However, TNCs must realise that such laws come into being as a result of the absence of consensus globally and not because of authoritarian domestic governance.
Dhruv Gadhavi is student of Politics and International Relations at School of International Studies, Central University of Gujarat, India.
