Basic HTML Version
32
each of the ten corporate giants listed
above could become individual nations,
they would be among the
fifty richeJt
17tttiom
of the world.
Such "multinationals" have become
sort of international diplomats. In place
of narrow national ism, they have
created an attitude that could - along
with other vital needs - hold back the
threat of war.
History of W orld Business
Multinational corporations are no
strangers to world history.
The London merchant bankers of the
1800's financed the development of
many of today's great nations through
their multinational banks and corpora–
tions. European investment in the devel–
opment of the U. S. railroad system
financed the transformation of the
United States from an agricultura! soci–
ety into the world's greatest industrial
power. In fact, the European contribu–
tion to the U. S. in the 1800's was much
larger - proportionately - than any
U. S. investment in Europe today.
The New World was not the only
beneficiary of European money during
the Jast century. lnterestingly enough, in
the twenty years prior to 1912, Russia
received as much capital from Western
Europe as the United States put into
postwar Europe through the Marshall
Plan. Multinational aid was thus
responsible for one of the most dra–
matic industrializations the world has
ever seen, catapulting Russia from the
Middle Ages ioto the forefront of the
Twentieth Century. Neither socialism,
World War I, nor Stalin can claim sole
credit for Russia's modero power.
Rather, European multinational aid con–
tributed most to the Russian miracle.
Since 1950, such corporations have
not only helped to unite Europe -
where Napoleon, Hitler, and all other
autocrats failed - but have contributed
to development of the poverty-ridden
Third World more than foreign aid, the
World Baok, or any other governmental
program has.
Tomorrow's leaders are being built by
today's business. As a profit-motivated
engine for human development, mul–
tinationals have raised wage cates, built
better buildiogs, provided cheaper ne–
cessities, and communicated human
The
PLAIN TRUTH
needs better than all the massive hun–
dreds of billions of dollars of foreign
aid have done.
As a rule, foreign aid has been
lavished on
problemJ
(
drought, war,
and disease) rather than on
opportuni–
tieJ,
which the businessman seeks. Since
1945, $150 billion in U. S. aid has
encouraged política! corruption sizably
more than it has fundamental economic
improvement. Massive aid to areas as
divergent as Appalachia, South Viet–
nam, Pruitt-Igoe, and India have shown
that pure "aid" (or a welfare check)
destroys local initiative. Business on the
whole tends to offer Jelf-help initiatives.
In short, "The world economy needs
the multinational business," as manage–
ment expert Peter Drucker has written.
"The world economy is a great achieve–
ment - and one of business rather than
governments. It is the one positive
achievement of the period since World
War Il" (Drucker,
The Age of
DiJ–
contimtity,
p.
1O1).
And Now: A Force for Peace
Besides building up poor nations,
bringing home profits, and providing
welcome services wherever they go,
worldwide corporations accidentally are
making their greatest contribution in
tbe area of world peace.
We say "accidentally" because peace
is not the basic reason why multination–
als exist. They exist to make and sell
products. But in order to accomplish
these aims, they must function in a
peaceful environment. Multinational
corporations like IBM or Shell Oil have
a
vnted intereJI
in peace and prosperity
everywhere. Thus, they have without
realizing it contributed to peace by their
very existence.
Wages, rents, and standards of living
are being equalized in many nations by
world business (though, tragically, the
gap between the "have" and the
"have not'' nations is still increas–
ing in many areas). National stereo–
types and nationalistic pride are being
rninimized. Technological breakthroughs
are transferred to all nations.
Examples of shared aeronautic tech–
nology and development between na–
tions include the British-French Con–
corde (SST) and the Franco-German
airbus. In automobiles, Buick-Opel and
March-A.pril 1972
Chrysler-Simca are bellwethers of U. S.–
European cooperation in manufacturing
and marketing of autos. In 1963, Chrys–
ler merged with the near-bankrupt
Simca, and by 1970 Simca exported
more autos in Europe than Renault,
Peugeot, and Citroen combined. In a
larger sense, this merger solidified the
French franc and helped American busi–
ness
JO
the eyes of the French
government.
Tbe multinational company "is the
one non-nationalist institution in a
world shaken by nationalist delirium,"
wrote Peter F. Drucker. "This may well
be exactly what we need to de-fang the
nationalist monster" (Drucker,
Mm,
Ideas, and PolitiCJ,
p.
43).
Make Money, Not War
The international business makes no
pretense of altruism, self-sacrifice, or
platitudes about peace.
It
is motivated
by the desire to
get
-
get
profits
in
this case. But in order to achieve this
gain, it automatically is forced to give
in return. The "give" comes in the form
of seeking political stability. It is
because such businesses
gain more
through free trade and world peace,
that they are forced to work toward
these goals.
Turbulent social conditions, political
instability, and nationalization are all
anathema to these companies. They
need an aura of stability in which to
work. In volatile countries like Cuba,
Northern lre land, Pakistan, Libya,
Chile, and others, multinational busi–
ness has ground to a halt, and
everybody
is hurt, especially the local people.
During the recent Dark Ages for
multinationals, 1930-1950, social and
political turbulence nearly snuffed out
the multinational business trend. Gen–
eral Electric, for instance, Jost plants in
both Germany and China during that
period. They are understandably hesi–
tant in trying again. Oil companies in
the Middle East,
oc
mineral and fishing
concerns in Latín America, look to
expand in those countries which offer
the greatest hopes for permanent
stability.
One factor which can restrain war is
the massive investment which one
superpower has
imide
another super–
power. A United Europe, for instance,