Poster for the Berlin Moot - a conference hosted in Berlin by The Berghof Foundation which focused ... [+]
With public attention focused on Russian aggression in Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, it is easy to lose sight of the many other violent conflicts that plague our planet. According to the Geneva Academy for International Humanitarian Law, there are currently more than 110 violent conflicts worldwide, a number that continues to grow.
In Sudan, a civil war erupted last year between rival elements of the military. The United Nations estimates that the clash has left 25 million people, half the country’s population, in need of urgent assistance; eight million have been forced to flee their homes in what has been called “the world’s largest displacement crisis.” Meanwhile, in Myanmar, more than 50,000 people have been killed and 2.3 million displaced since a violent military coup in 2021.
At a conference I attended in Berlin last week, 300 experts from around the world met to assess the effectiveness of peacemaking strategies relating to these and other conflicts. Organized by the Berghof Foundation, the meeting focused primarily on traditional peacemaking efforts led by government diplomats, usually working with the support of the United Nations.
A sub-theme of the meeting was the role global corporations can play in addressing conflicts. In a world where many governments are unwilling or unable to protect their own people, the influence of multinational companies is growing. They also have enormous financial resources, which is something peacemaking initiatives and post-conflict efforts are sorely lacking.
Despite various risks, many global companies operate in conflict zones, doing mining, manufacturing, or farming, often drawing on local supply chains. In many of the same areas, global banks provide financing and consulting firms offer strategic advice—both to governments and to private clients. Global companies, each in its way, balance economic interests and the lack of security in conflict zones that makes it impossible to conduct business as usual.
I took away three lessons from these discussions. First, corporate leaders have little appetite for engaging directly in peacemaking. Even outside of conflict zones, they are struggling to respond appropriately to increased pressure for them to weigh in on a wide range of political and social issues, including abortion, guns, and immigration. They struggle to decide when and how to engage in these debates. They view direct involvement in formal peacemaking efforts in countries in conflict as a bridge too far.
Second, oil and mining companies have greater responsibilities when they have direct relationships to the conflicts. Armed clashes often represent struggles over who should control the resources that global corporations seek to extract. Too often in such situations, oil and mining companies have relied on rights-violating local governments or ill-trained private security forces to protect their operations and people, to the detriment of local populations.
Twenty-five years ago, governments led by the U.S. and UK enlisted major mining companies and a small group of NGOs to create a multi-stakeholder organization called the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. The group employed an innovative collective approach to address issues related to mining. But with a paltry budget and a staff of only five full-time employees based in Canada, it does not have adequate capacity to pursue its mandate effectively. U.S. oil companies in particular have resisted efforts to adequately fund this work or to allow for the development of meaningful industry standards and systems for evaluating company compliance. The extractive industry needs to do much more.
A third role for companies is to support local peace activists and human rights defenders through their charitable arms. A 2018 report by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and International Service for Human Rights entitled “Shared Space Under Pressure” urges companies to act affirmatively to protect what the report calls “civil society space.” The report outlines a series of concrete steps companies can take to support and protect these local activists.
Two British charities with corporate roots provided crucial funding for peace and human rights activists during the so-called troubles in Northern Ireland. The Barrow Cadbury Trust and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust played an invaluable role in the pursuit of peace, a delicate task given the highly charged political environment. Both charities were created by the heirs of fortunes generated by prominent British businesses –Cadbury, the chocolate company, and Rowntree, which was once one of the largest manufacturing enterprises in Britain.
These family charities made long-term investments to support local peace and human rights activists, recognizing that many of them faced personal risks. Philanthropic support helped to validate the activists’ work, which provided them with some protection from official harassment and intimidation. The ratification of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 affirmed the value of this funding strategy. This model can and should be applied in other conflict zones.
Participants at the Berghof conference were reminded that there are more conflicts in the world today than at any time since 1945. While the private sector cannot be expected to be centrally involved in resolving these conflicts, mining companies and others with on-the-ground presence, need to ensure that their business operations don’t help finance or exacerbate strife and bloodshed. More affirmatively, companies and their philanthropic arms should support civil society organizations on the front lines. Active corporate engagement will help to achieve sustainable peace agreements and the successful implementation of follow-up measures.
