Corporations -Neo-liberalism and the “Security Industry”

The aftermath of the Civil war (1861-1865) and the emergence of the industrial revolution resulted in enormous growth of corporations, but their expansion was limited by charters that regulated operations, limited capitalization and held shareholders liable for actions considered illegal under criminal or civil codes. When the Fourteenth Amendment (1866) was passed in the United States corporations legally pursued the right to be included and designated as a “person” and, to be protected under the provisions of the amendment, this designation was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The years in-between 1890-1910 saw three hundred and seven cases brought before the courts under this new amendment seeking redress, what some would argue was irony, was that two hundred and eighty eight of the three hundred and seven were brought by corporations wherein the judiciary applied 4^th amendment rights to capital and property while stripping them from people (Bakan, 2004). Eventually this new legal designation would permit corporations to engage in vastly more unscrupulous and illegal activities than they had engaged in, in the late 1800’s earning the elitist corporate owners the title of “robber barons”.

     The term “White –Collar” crime/criminals replaced the robber barons and  gained notoriety in 1939 where  it was coined by Edward Sutherland, then president of the American Sociological Society, (ASS), (and for obvious reasons the society soon changed their name to the American Sociological Association), (ASA).  Sutherland specifically associated the term “white collar crime” with corporate CEO’s, business managers, executives, politicians and professionals, (lawyers, doctors) to distinguish their offences from the confidence games of the underworld. Sutherland’s research established that many prominent corporations had been found guilty of multiple violations of civil and criminal statutes that ranged from fraud, malfeasance, unsafe working conditions misrepresentation, and product tampering (Geis, 2007).

                             The advent of globalization, technological advances, neoliberal politics and political graft contributed to the expansion of corporations becoming the dominant industry of our time.  Joel Bakan notes that transnational and multinational corporations are viewed as “soulless leviathans-uncaring, impersonal and amoral, that cause enormous hidden harms as they try to devour as much power as possible at anyone’s expense  “(Bakan 2004, p.17).  Ericson uses the image of the leviathan as representing the uncertainties created by the neo-liberal state that “begins to resemble the biblical social imaginary of leviathan as sea monster leaving death and destruction in its wake” (Ericson, 2007, p. 154). Neocleous (2008) offers a view of the unification between state and corporations as operating in collusion with each other, the leviathan having two heads representing the separate destructive forces of the corporation and the state  but the underlying “agenda feeds on and feeds the very ideology of the propagated by the security state” (Neocleous, 2008, p.159).

     Often the metaphor of a few “bad apples” has been used to describe the illegalities of a minority of corporations that have been brought to public attention often through whistle blowers, investigative reporting and even admittance of wrongdoing from CEO’s, but promptly put on the back pages attributing illegalities to the metaphor not the corporation.  Ericson notes that corporate liability for harm is treated as a problem of white collar crime, of employees acting against the corporation rather than as corporate crime, the corporation acting against a range of social interests and the public good” (Ericson, 2007, p. 151).

     Neo-liberalism was ushered in under the formation of the Mont Pelerin Society, who received a “lot of support from wealthy contributors and corporations to polemicize on the neoliberal values and beliefs of the society” (David Harvey Interview, 2006). Neo-liberalism is premised on the belief that individual liberty and freedom are the high point of civilization and can best be protected and achieved by an institutional structure made up of strong private property rights, deregulation, privatization, free markets and free trade. Further the role of the state is to refrain from interference in the economic market but should use their political influence and power to protect and preserve private property rights and the institutions of the market. In this sense the protection of individual liberty and freedom requires extensive securitization, which can only be undertaken by corporations. (David Harvey Interview, 2006).

     It is in this context of neoliberal politics that a “security industry” emerged. Under the leadership of Tony Blair the National Security Strategy of 2002 focused on the global economic policy as part of the project of national security and is founded on the idea that “if you can make something that others value then you should be able to sell it to them” (Neocleous, 2008, p. 142). Blair further stated that “Security is life’s most precious commodity who can doubt either the value of security or the belief that it could and should be sold”. Security products are tailored in such a way in which the security industry integrates its consumers into a wider culture of (in) security (Neocleous, 2008, p. 142).

If security is thought of as a commodity to be consumed and sold, corporations sell on the basis of public fear and uncertainty. Anthony Giddens,  “proclaimed that the greater the uncertainty the greater the opportunity for innovation and profit” (Ericson, 2007, p. 5). As Mark Neocleous (2008) points out in devastation there is opportunity. This sentiment was echoed after 9/11 when “one of the things supposedly devastated on that day was the established notion of security” (Neocleous, 2008, p.142).

     When it was announced that Iraq was “open for business” in 2003 billion dollar contracts were awarded to major American corporations such as Bechtel and Lockheed Martin, Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) who were granted non-competitive contracts in the billions of dollars  for the restructuring of the country and a corporate invasion was said to have occurred (Neocleous, 2008).  The “introduction of 100 orders altered Iraq law in order to implement a capitalist economic model, these orders were upheld with the passage of the constitution in 2005 ensuring the development of a private sector, this commitment to capitalism is now a constitutional requirement and have been justified in the name of security” (Neocleous, 2008, p.147).

     By imposing “neo-liberal logic across the globe the Americans can justify their actions by calling it “international security” in this end billions of dollars that was intended for the rebuilding of Iraq has been siphoned off to companies trading in something called ‘security” (Neocleous, 2008, p. 147)

     Neocleous (2008) notes that a “large amount of research has shown that the financial arrangement for reconstruction projects have been “highly dubious, less than transparent and possibly illegal. Much of the money for reconstruction has never left the U.S. and much of the Iraqi’s own money has been paid to American firms on highly generous terms. For example “15 million was paid to Custer Battles a firm to provide security for civilian flights at Baghdad airport during a period in which no civilian planes were flying” (Neocleous, 2008, p.146). There have been accusations of corporations overcharging, vast amounts of money has gone missing or has been unaccounted for and audits of corporate spending have been labelled classified and never released (Neocleous, 2008).  Contracts have gone unfulfilled, unquestioned with no accountability directed at the corporations. For these actions corporate stock prices, profits and massive revenues were greatly increased much of it under the guise of securing the nation and building international security.  If corporations are charged with the selling of security that is state approved then who polices the sellers?

     The damage and harm caused by corporations in pursuit of profit, as history reveals is not a new phenomenon, with a neo-liberal agenda and the international global market the uncertainties of catastrophic harm and the unscrupulous sale of security requires new methods of international accountability and criminalization. Ericson offers “in the sphere of corporate security, revolution and criminalization is taking place at the level of surveillance assemblages, or counter law II”(Ericson, 2007, p. 139). “.  Where the uncertainty of corporate threats and harms exist, an assemblage of security for risk management may reduce the uncertainties. In areas of medical liability, air space safety, financial threats and environmental destruction, regulators, professional associations, insurers, electronic monitoring devices, threats of lawsuits, or criminal prosecution, inspections, audits and private policing (Ericson, 2007) are pieces of the assemblage that operating together may affectively act as the policing of sellers and risk managers to reduce social, economic and environmental catastrophes caused by corporations.