Rex Tillerson, Miss World, And The Corporatocracy

Two seemingly unrelated articles today show just how out of proportion corporate power has become not only here in the US but apparently all over the globe. The first article describes how Trump's nominee for Secretary of State and current Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson undermined the American effort to hold Iraq together in the aftermath of the Bush administration's ill-fated war in that country. US officials were pressing the Iraqi government to pass a law that would require revenue sharing of Iraq's oil wealth among all the regions in the country. The country's main oil fields are in the north of the country, largely controlled by the Kurds, and the south, a largely Shiite area. A revenue sharing agreement would have indicated that the Sunnis in the country would not be excluded from the oil revenue generated by the country. Instead, Tillerson and Exxon, against the expressed wishes of the State Department, signed an agreement for oil development directly with the Kurdish administration in the north, subverting any chance for revenue sharing and further helping to splinter the already fractured country. When confronted by the State Department over his actions, Tillerson reportedly answered, "I had to do what was best for my shareholders". With the Exxon agreement in hand, the Kurds had a stronger case for independence, while the current Iraqi government was led by Shiites, who had control of the southern oil wealth. The Sunnis felt more and more isolated and excluded. In fact, the case can be made that Exxon's deal with the Kurds was one of the elements that led to the creation of ISIS. You can read more about Tillerson's and Exxon's actions in Equatorial Guinea and Chad that also ran counter to US foreign policy here.

The immediate question that comes to mind is why the US Government is continuing to provide a company with probably billions in tax breaks and incentives when that company is actively subverting US foreign policy. Why are we continuing to give economic and even legal protections to a firm that is engaging in traitorous behavior. Is what Exxon did in Iraq significantly different than what Bowe Bergdahl did in Afghanistan. The answer, of course, speaks to the undo power that we have given to large corporations that effectively act as a government in their own right and seem to control most of our own.

The second article describes the unlikely situation of Anastasia Lin at the Miss World beauty pageant, currently being held in the Washington DC area. Ms. Lin, a Canadian beauty contestant, has been an outspoken critic of China's human rights abuses. Last year, she was barred from the event which was held in China, because Chinese authorities would not let her enter the country. This year, as a consolation, she was invited to be a contestant in the event but with certain restrictions, the most important of which is that she is basically not allowed to speak about her views on China. In addition, Ms. Lin was barred from attending the premiere of a movie in which she appeared because that movie is also critical of China's human rights abuses. When the State Department asked to meet with Ms. Lin to discuss the continued harassment of her father who still lives in China, the pageant refused to allow that meeting. Eventually, a meeting was arranged where Ms. Lin was accompanied by a chaperone, (or muzzle), from the pageant and no photos of the meeting were allowed. In case you haven't guessed by now, the Miss World pageant, although nominally owned by a British group, relies heavily on funding from Chinese advertisers and supporters.

There is no reason that people should have to lose their right for free speech simply to get a job or, even worse, enter a beauty pageant. But the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and other legal maneuvers to essentially muzzle the rights of workers is growing. Originally, NDAs were designed to protect trade secrets and sensitive negotiations. They have been expanded to essentially protect the company from anything negative an employee might be able to say. Donald Trump has used NDAs for decades in his companies and even used them for all those working on his campaign. NDAs are used to make sure whistleblowers stay silent and intimidate them from coming forward. Even more egregious is the use of NDAs in settlement agreements as the details of the original infraction are withheld from the public. Roger Ailes was able to abuse women for decades because he used NDAs in settlement agreements with the women he abused, allowing his behavior to remain unchecked. Despite one recent case where the SEC settled with contracting firm KBR to stop them from using NDAs to muzzle whistleblowers within the company, use of NDAs continues to grow. In that case, the settlement allowed KBR to admit to no wrongdoing and pay a truly pathetic fine of $130,000. For most employees, however, it is not worth the risk to their career and their pocketbooks to engage in a long protracted legal dispute about whether the NDA applies to the illegal activity the company may be engaged in.

At this point, corporations believe they are more powerful than the governments that, in theory, protect them and provide the legal framework for them to thrive. Shareholder value now trumps American foreign policy. A small beauty pageant now feels it can defy a request from the State Department to simply meet with one of its contestants. These are the defining actions of the corporatocracy that we currently live in.