We have talked about the relationship between states and MNC. We have discussed the way in which states and MNCs can have overlapping interests especially in the global north. I am, however, more curious about the relationship between MNCs and the global south. As someone who comes from a global south country that would be considered industrially underdeveloped, I am constantly thinking about the relationship between these two entities and whether their interests can be mutually beneficial. I understand the reason why global south countries would make themselves open to MNCs. These countries have large unemployed populations and also desperately need capital to begin developing their industries. However, MNCs have been operating in many global south countries for a long time and have not improved the living standards of these countries. Therefore, I wonder what exactly the benefits are. I suppose this would depend on the way in which these individual countries define progress. Since the leaders of these countries are using neoliberal standards of development such as GDP and not paying attention to the quality of their citizen’s lives, on the surface, it can appear as if there has been positive change. However, in reality, MNCs are exploiting already vulnerable and marginalized people in the global south, especially women. Therefore, it seems as if MNCs and governments of global south countries do have interests that align, these interests just do not serve most. This is unlike in the west, where the gap between the rich and the poor is growing and yet these countries are seen as beacons of progress and development. Going forward, I wonder if the relationship between the global south and these MNCs intensifies. Evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. I wonder if global south governments can forge ahead while not conforming to neoliberal standards of development and industrialization to create a world th

In our lectures, we touched a bit on the increasing need for MNCs to appear to be socially conscious because we are in an age wherein social justice and topics related to it are in the zeitgeist. I have been thinking a lot about whether I believe any large MNCs do actually care about social justice or if they are using it as a marketing tool. I am leaning towards the latter; however, I can also see that it is increasingly becoming a successful marketing tool for them. There are examples where it has been a failure; the Pepsi commercial with Kendall Jenner comes to mind. This was a disastrous attempt by a large MNC to appear as if they are tapped in to the growing social justice movements around the world. What is more interesting, however, is when an MNC seems to get their social justice marketing correct. Nike, for example, is an MNC that has been aligning themselves with seemingly the right activists and public figures to make their messaging about social justice more believable. Most recently Nike’s ad campaigns with Colin Kaepernick and other black athletes has created the perception that they support movements such as Black Lives Matter. Since Nike’s public image was being tarnished during the height of the anti-sweatshop movement, it is interesting to see it being rehabilitated so successfully. Conveniently for Nike, less attention is being paid to its manufacturing practices and the fact that it still exploits cheap labor from the global south to make its products. The company’s social justice branding distracts from its more sinister actions but also encourages more people who are socially conscious to buy their products thereby increasing its profits. That is why it is hard to take MNCs seriously when they speak about social justice or taking on corporate social responsibility, because their actions and words do not align. It is hard not to feel disheartened when it appears that social justice movements are being coopted by MNC and public figures and activists who seem to want social change are collaborators in this process. It brings up larger questions about the possibility for real social change under a capitalist system that seems to swallow up social justice movements and use them to its benefit. Is it possible to reform our social, political, and legal institutions to better serve everyone under a capitalist system that seemingly requires an underclass to function? Is it futile to even try?

Rethinking Solutions to Trafficking and Violence

Human trafficking as well as gang and drug related violence are topics that dominate the media as well as discourses around global issues. Although these issues have dominated conversations for past four decades, we are no closer to solving or curbing them. A major reason for this is the ill-advised solutions that are prescribed that do not address the roots of trafficking or gang and drug violence. The solutions to these problems have traditionally included increased policing (Jay-Z), increased incarceration of individual drug dealers or possessors, and increased border security among other things. In addition to failing to curb these issues, these laws unevenly targeted already vulnerable communities of color. Likewise, the solutions presented to stop trafficking have included increased policing and targeting of individual trafficker or trafficking rings. The prescribed solutions have not worked and trafficking seems to be increasing not decreasing. We need to radically rethink how to solve issues of trafficking and gang and drug violence because our traditional methods have been proven ineffective, wasteful and detrimental due to the fact that address structural causes.

Drug and gang violence are issues that have remained unwaveringly present and yet the way in which they are tackled by governments and law enforcement bodies has not changed significantly in many nations. In the USA for example, as the New York Times video (Jay-Z) demonstrated, the war on drugs model that was developed in the Nixon era to curb drug use and proliferation has largely been unsuccessful yet remains the dominant model. As the video elaborates the war on drugs included incarcerating low-level drug dealers in impoverished communities as well as anyone carrying drugs in these communities. These communities were often populated by Black and Latino people who have been systemically disenfranchised in the United States. Howell and Decker (3) make mention of structural issues that saw so many Black and Latino people going into the drug trade. They explain that beginning in the 1970s, manufacturing jobs were being cut down. People of color who were heavily involved in the manufacturing sector found themselves unemployed and unable to get new employment because these jobs were outside of there are of residence. The Reaganomics policies also negatively affected these populations (Laidler and Hunt, 2). People in these communities, therefore turned to selling drugs to makes ends meet. The war on drugs, however, does not address these issues. It does not include measures for curbing poverty and unemployment or treating drug addiction. The only thing the war on drugs has accomplished is dramatically increasing the prison population, further disenfranchising marginalized communities, wasting billions of dollars and pathologizing marginalized communities.

The two pictures above are the first pictures that appear when one Google searches the term “gangs.” So often gangs become synonymous with only people of color because of their negative overrepresentation in the media when in reality there are very dangerous white gangs. People of color are, however, an easy target for a narrative that paints them as villains.

When it comes to human trafficking, like gang and drug violence, the solution presented to this problem often includes increased policing as well as targeting individual traffickers or trafficking rings (Howell & Decker, 9). It is not wrong to target traffickers because they pose an immediate threat to many especially to vulnerable peoples such as children and people in impoverished areas. Taking down just one trafficking ring could save many. However, this needs to be done concurrently with other long-term solutions that actually address the root of the trafficking issue. In order to find these solutions, we must first ask why it is that people turn to trafficking in the first place. It is known that trafficking hotspots are usually low-income areas and people who get lured into trafficking are also low-income (Adesina 167). Therefore, the correlation between poverty and trafficking must be addressed. We must address the ways in which our global neo-liberal economic system leaves so many economically disenfranchised and therefore more vulnerable to trafficking (Shah). Lower-income people in post-colonial nations who are developing their economies and infrastructure such as India and Nigeria have very high trafficking numbers. The history of colonization and neo-colonization need to be addressed if the problem of trafficking is to be curbed.

In order to curb drug addiction and violence laws that are more compassionate towards individuals need to be enacted. Solutions that focus on rehabilitation, making more jobs and quality education available to people in marginalized communities need to be foregrounded (Howell & Decker, 9). Solutions need to also address other structural issues such as the inequalities perpetrated by our global neo-liberal economic system. This has to also be taken into account when solutions to the trafficking problem are brought up. It is clear that simply targeting an individual trafficker or trafficking rings cannot permanently stop drug trafficking because there is too much of a financial incentive to continue in the trafficking industry (9). Therefore, that incentive has to be removed and the only way to do that is to address the underlying systemic problems that compel people to go into trafficking in the first place.

Works Cited

. Adesina, Olubukola S. “Modern day slavery: poverty and child trafficking in Nigeria.” African Identites, vol 12, no.2, 2014, pp. 165-179

Howell, James C. and Decker, Scott H. “The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection.” Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1999.

Jay-Z. “War on Drugs is an Epic Fail.” The New York Times.           http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000004642370/jay-z-the-war-on-drugs-is-an-     epic- fail.html

Joe-Laidler, Karen and Hunt, Geoffrey P. “Moving beyond the gang-drug-violence connection.” NIH Public Access, vol 19, no.6, 2012, pp.442-352.

Shah, Svati P. “Distinguishing Poverty and Trafficking: Lessons from Field Research in     Mumbai.” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, vol 14, no.3, 2007, pp.441-     454.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!