Post from the Road: Dallas Morning News

I am on a mutli-city road trip for the next couple of weeks so I will take my inspiration from news stories found in the local newspapers:  As I am currently in North Texas I will comment on the Dallas Morning News cover story regarding the alleged bribery scandal at Walmart in their Mexican operations.
----------------
One significant challenge all multinational companies face is adapting their current business practices to foreign cultures.

The Walmart story is a perfect example of just such a challenge. Walmart (it is claimed) paid bribes mostly in 2005 to local government officials in order to accelerate the process of Walmart expansion in Mexico.  Obviously bribery is an illegal business practice.

The second questionable behavior is in terms of Walmart's investigation of the in incident and the subsequent silence and evasion to regulatory agencies.

This second issue reflects the requirement for transparency in private companies and is testament to the need for the "Spirit of Law" mandate I set out in a prior post (April 12, 2012).  Companies need to at a minimum attempt to play by the rules and not try to hide findings purely for the desire of avoiding poor press and subsequent drops in share holder value.  It is inherent in any fairly run organization, that shareholders have access to truthful information in order to make educated decisions in terms of financial investment.  Executive level management has to come to believe in this philosophy and "the Spirit of Law" provisions would be useful in ensuring appropriate behavior. In instances like this though whereby obviously illegal activities are being undertaken then the Executives need to be liable and subject to criminal punishment.

The bigger issue of course goes back to the first point regarding the bribes. In the era when Sam Walton was in charge, Walmart was generally seen as an extremely admirable and ethical organization in context of its operations. Walton would never have authorized or condoned bribery as he knew that was bad for business in the long run. Short-term profiteering once again is just testament to the selfishness and shortsightedness of many of today's CEO's. It is also representative of the win at all cost too many of today's boomer possess overall in their attitude towards life in general.

American companies specifically have to become the role model for appropriate corporate behavior globally. There can be no challenge to put ethical agenda as a primary objective of business expansion. American companies have to be the benchmark on how foreign companies conduct their operations and also how foreign governments learn to work with them. Economic expediency can never be the only purpose of an American company in a foreign land. The era of exploiting foreign nations is long over.

Finally, as more and more countries around the world have access to capitalism then there is more and more competition for investment dollars. American companies have to be the ones that lead the way in making their profits honestly and ethically in countries where they operate. American companies have to embrace the mindset that if they do business in a foreign land then they have to bring the experience and advanced business knowledge to those regions in order to expedite global development. Successful business practices by these American companies will have positive influence over foreign areas and aide to bring them into a positive, honest and free market environment. Under this model, American companies can thrive by opering new markets without having to embrace the poor business environment that preceded them.

The notion of "ethical capitalism" I put forth earlier (February 28, 2012) is the future for American companies. Brand value and revenue streams will flow to the companies that operate in the most humane and honorable way possible. Corporate valuation and investor confidence will be given not from just domestic operations but international as well.

Awareness is Pretty Meaningless

Awareness is never effective.

The recent KONY 2012 campaign is a very good example.  Yes, now a whole lot more people know about the situation in Uganda but nothing will change just because of this.  Lets face it, a genocidal tyrant will not disappear just because a bunch of people have tweeted, shared and hit the like button on Facebook.

In the new world of engaged democracy people must get more involved first-hand and on-ground rather than just spreading the word.  Sharing and being involved is now the easiest thing in the world.  However, it is completely useless at this point in time.  Genuine and personal on-ground action, funds and commitment are required.

The fundamental flaw with awareness is that it assumes that there is strength in numbers which we know is not an effective way to get anything done.  A few individuals that are passionate, action-oriented and well-funded have a better chance of reaching good solutions or solving problems than many "concerned and well-intentioned" citizens of the world regardless of how upset they are over the specific issues at hand.

The bottom-line for democracy and to try to really solve the world problems is to have the concept of majority rules abandoned.  Less people should be involved but they have to have more knowledge, be a financial stake-holder, an international organization, a corporation or hold a "significant" interest.  These should be the only people involved.

This approach should lead to institutional reform for our national democratic evolution.  Congress should be repurposed to oversee the process rather than be the involved in making the policies or taking action.  "Engaged democracy" works best when only those who know what is actually happening are involved and the rest of the population are left out...no matter how well-intentioned or aware.

Proper Usage of Military Forces

The American military has three primary roles:  1) to protect American interests around the world; 2) to assist nationally and internationally in times of natural disaster;  and 3) to intervene in foreign genocidal conflicts and wars of aggression.


The American military can no longer exist as an instrument of American political will unless formally engaged by the ruling government or a treaty organization.  The era of America embracing a "manifest destiny" mindset as rationale for being involved in foreign national development is over.


American intervention should no longer be used even as a threat in the modern world.  Let's face it, we no longer follow through anymore so the threat is rarely a deterrent anyway.


American interests need to be clearly defined as those with business, social or individual components.  Humane and appropriate economic treatment of corporations and citizens that are operating or living within a foreign land need to be adhered too.  If any attempt is made to nationalize businesses, inflict inequitable taxation or operating standards, or inflict personal injury upon individuals then the military has a right to defend it's institutions and citizens.  Intervention however,can only occur when these injuries are incurred outside the legal parameters of the country in which they are are incurred. Americans though, need to be cognizant of the threats inherent wherever they do business and if they choose to enter a specifically dangerous area then they assume that risk as part of their normal freedom of operations.


When natural disasters occur the American military as well as the military units of other countries should be made available in terms of manpower and resources to incur a safe zone within the affected area and to support relief efforts.


Intervention is warranted whenever tyrannical foreign leadership is utilizing genocidal tactics as instruments of control and power.  A prime mandate in the 21st century for the American military is to uphold human rights and protect civilians from persecution by their own government.  The world has to come to realize that the number one offense that any government can inflict on it's citizens is death.  Government has inherently an obligation to create a peaceful environment for it's citizens and orchestrated extermination of any portion of that population will meet with immediate intrusion by military forces.  The style of government is inconsequential.


Intervention by the American military during periods of national uprising or civil disobedience is not warranted at the outset of any conflict.  Civil uprising and governments defending their position is a natural part of nationalistic development and America has no role in disputes of that nature. However, that being said, if conflicts continue with no resolution in sight, then America can be invited to participate by the ruling government.  It is not America's role to pick sides in civil conflicts.  Let's face it, if foreign countries had decided to support the south during the American Civil War then the results may have been very different and our nations sovereignty and right of self-determination would have been severely undermined and we likely would have developed very differently.


Any act of aggressive attack by a foreign country by another nation shall meet with American intervention as well.  War of acquisition is no longer a valid form of conflict in the modern world and has to be opposed by strength.  Historical boundaries are still quite often in conflict and on occasion governments have tried to re-establish historical boundaries.  This is not a valid reason for military action against a neighbor.  The era of extending national boundaries and influence through international territorial expansion is a thing of the past.


In the future, it is is highly probable that wars of acquisition will occur in order to gain access to the world's most valuable natural resources (oil, water and precious metals). When conflicts of this nature arise America has the right to be involved as a means of protecting the assets of foreign countries and establishing a global rule or territory and ownership. America will also have the right to intervention if any valuable resource is being withheld as a means of the foreign country establishing some type of political advantage. The military however, cannot be involved if resources are being sold elsewhere as this would have to be addressed in the private and public sectors.


The bottom-line for the 21st century is that our military has a definitive role that can be utilized in a more specific roles.  The end result will be the ability for America to adopt a more consistent role in the deployment of it's military and one that will be welcome and appreciated when it is utilized. By managing the military in this manner it will give America a favored position in the world as the military becomes seen as a beneficial presence globally rather than an unwelcome intruder.