SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
corporations
Corporations Are Arming Militants and Threatening Global Peace
These shadowy alliances are reshaping how wars are fought, who profits from them, and why traditional peacekeeping doesn’t work anymore.
Oct 22, 2024
Picture a weapon that can level a city block, manufactured in Belgium, assembled in Dubai, financed through Swiss banks, and delivered to militants by a “logistics company” registered in Singapore. This isn’t the plot of a thriller—it’s how modern warfare works.
When a sophisticated drone strike hit Saudi oil facilities in 2019, investigators traced the weapons technology not to a nation-state, but to a complex network of corporate suppliers and militant groups.
When corporations can effectively arm and support militant groups with impunity, concepts like state sovereignty and international law begin to break down.
Welcome to the new face of global conflict, where the most dangerous relationships aren’t between countries, but between corporations and armed groups. These shadowy alliances are reshaping how wars are fought, who profits from them, and why traditional peacekeeping doesn’t work anymore.
The New War Profiteers
The old image of arms dealers as shady men with briefcases full of cash is hopelessly outdated. Today’s weapons trade runs through legitimate-looking corporations, tech companies, and financial institutions that have mastered the art of working in war’s gray zones.
Take the ongoing conflict in Yemen. While media attention focuses on state actors, private military contractors and defense corporations have formed intricate relationships with local militant groups. These companies don’t just supply weapons. They provide training, maintenance, and even operational support, all while maintaining a veneer of legitimate business operations.
“What we’re seeing is the corporatization of conflict,” explains Sarah Martinez, a specialist in non-state armed groups at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “These aren’t simple arms deals anymore—they’re long-term business relationships that create sustained cycles of violence.”
Follow the Money (If You Can)
The financial web supporting these alliances is deliberately opaque and designed to evade accountability. Private military companies, often registered in offshore jurisdictions like Dubai or Singapore, form partnerships with shell corporations based in the Caribbean. These shell entities, in turn, subcontract their operations to ambiguous “logistics companies” operating out of Eastern Europe. This elaborate system of front companies and subcontractors allows weapons and military equipment to flow freely into conflict zones without raising red flags. Responsibility is diffused across a web of corporate structures, making it nearly impossible to trace the ultimate source of arms shipments or hold anyone accountable for fueling conflicts.
In Africa’s resource-rich regions, the situation is becoming even more alarming. Here, private security firms, often funded by Western investors, forge alliances with local militant groups under the pretext of protecting valuable oil and mineral installations. What starts as a “security” operation to safeguard resources often escalates into these firms operating as de facto private armies, controlling entire regions and undermining the authority of national governments. These alliances not only destabilize local politics but also complicate international peacekeeping efforts, creating power vacuums where non-state actors can thrive. In such an environment, financial backing for these operations becomes a critical tool, turning what appears to be routine corporate transactions into a driving force behind some of the world’s most enduring conflicts.
The Tech Factor Changes Everything
Modern conflict isn’t just about guns and bombs. Today’s militant groups need sophisticated technology, which they’re getting from seemingly legitimate sources. Communications equipment, surveillance technology, and cyber tools flow through corporate channels that straddle the line between legal and illegal. These tools allow groups to operate covertly, communicate securely, and execute sophisticated cyber-attacks, which can be as damaging as conventional warfare. For instance, militant groups are using encrypted communication tools to evade state surveillance, while also acquiring drones and other high-tech surveillance equipment through corporate gray markets.
This access to advanced technology extends beyond just weaponry. It’s also about operational capacity. “The real game-changer isn’t the weapons themselves, but the support systems,” notes James Wilson, a former United Nations weapons inspector. When militant groups can access corporate-level logistics, training, and technical support, they become far more dangerous than traditional armed forces. These corporate partnerships allow militant organizations to mimic the structure of formal military forces, combining guerrilla tactics with modern technology to disrupt state control, launch cyberattacks, and even hold territories with a level of sophistication unseen in previous decades
A Pattern Emerges
The pattern repeats across regions. In Syria, corporate entities linked to Russian military industries provide not just weapons but entire support ecosystems to various armed groups. These companies deliver everything from logistical support and advanced weaponry to financial aid, creating a symbiotic relationship with local militias. This dynamic allows both the corporations and the armed groups to thrive in a perpetual state of conflict.
There is a growing call for the development of new international legal frameworks that hold corporations accountable for their roles in conflicts, particularly when they profit from or directly contribute to violence.
Similarly, in the Horn of Africa, Chinese companies, while officially involved in building infrastructure projects, are simultaneously supplying militant groups with equipment and technical expertise under the radar. These companies are benefiting financially from both sides—securing government contracts for infrastructure while also arming insurgents. According to the U.N. Security Council, these arrangements contribute to what conflict researchers call “sustained instability zones”—regions where violence is deliberately prolonged because it becomes profitable for both corporate actors and armed groups.
As a result, traditional peacekeeping missions, which were designed to manage conflict between state actors, are increasingly ineffective. These missions are often incapable of addressing the complex web of corporate and non-state alliances that fuel these conflicts. As the International Peace Institute highlights, peacekeepers find themselves irrelevant in these new conflict ecosystems, where the drivers of violence are no longer solely state actors but profit-driven corporations and armed factions operating outside the bounds of state control.
Why Traditional Solutions Don’t Work Anymore
U.N. peacekeeping was designed for a world where states were the primary actors in conflicts. But what happens when the real power lies with corporate-militant alliances that operate across borders? Traditional diplomatic tools and peace agreements often miss the real drivers of conflict.
“Peacekeepers can monitor cease-fires between armies, but they can’t address corporate supply chains that fuel conflicts,” explains former U.N. peacekeeper Colonel Maria Rodriguez. “We’re using 20th-century tools to fight 21st-century wars.”
These alliances don’t just threaten local stability. They’re undermining the entire international system. When corporations can effectively arm and support militant groups with impunity, concepts like state sovereignty and international law begin to break down.
The numbers are staggering. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, corporate-militant alliances now influence conflicts affecting over 250 million people globally. These arrangements have created shadow economies worth an estimated $300 billion annually.
What Can Be Done?
Traditional sanctions and arms embargo often fail because they target state actors rather than the increasingly influential corporate-militant networks that drive modern conflicts. Some experts argue for a completely new approach to international conflict management. First, they suggest recognizing that these corporate-militant alliances, rather than state actions, are the primary forces behind many of today’s wars. Without this shift in focus, sanctions will continue to miss their mark.
Second, there is a growing call for the development of new international legal frameworks that hold corporations accountable for their roles in conflicts, particularly when they profit from or directly contribute to violence. This would address the legal gaps that allow companies to evade responsibility when operating in conflict zones.
Finally, experts propose peacekeeping operations that disrupt these corporate-militant alliances instead of merely focus on separating armed forces. By cutting off the financial and logistical support that such networks provide to militant groups, peacekeeping efforts could become more effective in curbing conflict.
The real question is whether the international community can adapt fast enough to address this new reality, and whether global institutions are equipped to deal with conflicts that no longer fit neatly within the old rules of engagement.
The future of global conflict isn’t just about nation-states anymore. It’s about complex alliances between corporations and armed groups that profit from sustained instability. As one U.N. official put it (speaking on condition of anonymity): “We’re still playing checkers while they’re playing a much more dangerous game.” This sentiment underscores the growing complexity of global conflict, where traditional methods of diplomacy and peacekeeping are falling behind the rapidly evolving alliances between non-state actors.
The question isn’t whether these alliances will reshape global conflict. They already have, as seen in regions from the Middle East to Latin America. The involvement of multinational corporations in resource-driven conflicts, alongside insurgent and militant groups, adds layers of complexity that traditional state-based frameworks struggle to address. These alliances transcend borders, ideologies, and legal frameworks, creating new kinds of power dynamics that the international system was not designed to manage.
The real question is whether the international community can adapt fast enough to address this new reality, and whether global institutions are equipped to deal with conflicts that no longer fit neatly within the old rules of engagement. This crisis requires not only new thinking about conflict resolution, peace enforcement, and international law, but also a reevaluation of how power is distributed in a globalized world where non-state actors hold increasing sway. Until then, corporate-militant alliances will continue to challenge not just regional stability but the very foundation of the international order, undermining the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and governance that have long underpinned global relations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can Americans Come Out if Corporations Have Shut the Door? A Call for Courage
We have been seeing a concerning trend of companies, both large and small, scaling back or eliminating their DEI commitments out of fear. Instead, corporate leaders should stand up for their LGBTQIA+ employees.
Oct 11, 2024
Today, our nation celebrates National Coming Out Day. This October 11, you may see a wave of brave stories from your friends or family members, right along with messages of support from corporations touting their inclusive environments. It is a day when many of us in the LGBTQIA+ community choose to share our true selves with our loved ones, our community, our co-workers, and the world. And it serves as a reminder of the progress that has been made and how fortunate we are that so many can now feel comfortable to live openly and out loud.
After centuries of battles, whether that be on the streets outside Stonewall or in the courtrooms across our country, it is comforting to know that the efforts of our elders have helped to create a society where more people feel comfortable enough to live as their authentic selves.
Yet, the progress that we see today can, if we are not paying careful attention, belie the reality that our communities—and the progress we've made—continue to be under attack. Coming out is a deeply personal choice—a choice that becomes more difficult without cultural acceptance, and without the promises of security and protection we have increasingly begun to expect. But these hard-fought protections are, sadly, now being stripped away by the anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) movement and its pressure campaign pushing employers to backtrack on their commitment to inclusivity.
Now is the time to prove you respect your LGBTQIA+ employees as people, and that their personhood is not a fad that can be easily discarded when there is pushback.
Across the country we have been seeing a concerning trend of companies, both large and small, scaling back or eliminating their DEI commitments out of fear. One key measure of that is the number of companies withdrawing from participation in the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Corporate Equality Index, a long-time and widely used measure of companies' commitment to respecting the rights of their LGBTQIA+ employees. To maintain the progress we've made, it is important that we recognize and push back on these attacks.
National Coming Out Day was created in 1988 to commemorate the first anniversary of the 1987 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. Inspired by the visibility of that event, the day was meant to encourage individuals to live openly and make themselves visible at home, at work, and in their local communities—demonstrating the strength of the LGBT movement and promoting acceptance. By 1993, the National Coming Out Day organization had merged with the Human Rights Campaign Fund. HRC's Corporate Equality Index later grew from this sentiment and was developed to push for a world where gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer employees could be out at work without facing discrimination in hiring or on the job. This was a crucial tool for LGBTQIA+ employees at the time of its creation, and it still stands as an important resource for the community to this day.
When companies like Ford, Harley-Davidson, and Lowe's —all targeted by ultra-conservatives to sow division and fear—withdraw from participating in the Corporate Equality Index, they undermine a tool that has driven substantial progress for LGBTQIA+ employees over the past two decades.Today, the index is as crucial as ever. It's not just about acceptance or branded pride parade swag; it's about creating an environment where everyone—regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—can thrive. And thriving requires that our laws and institutions guarantee that one's livelihood, healthcare, and chance for financial security are not put at risk by choosing to live openly and freely. LGBTQIA+ employees in many states are already feeling their human rights come under attack through hateful and discriminatory state laws. The last thing they need is to have their places of employment also turning their backs on them. How can individuals feel safe coming out when the very systems designed to protect them are under attack?
The rollback of DEI programs isn't just a moral issue; it's increasingly a legal one. Lawsuits have been filed against employers claiming that DEI initiatives that work to welcome and include people of color and LGBTQIA+ folks discriminate against white people and straight cisgender people. While these suits exploit existing tensions, they overlook an important fact—legal protections exist to support inclusive workplaces.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination in the United States on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal. This was made clear in 2020 with the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. This legal framework provides a foundation for companies committed to true inclusivity and is the starting point for them to showcase an authentic commitment to equality.
To the corporate leaders reading this, now is the time to stand firm and hold strong in your values. It's easy to support diversity in times of peace, but it's during times of challenge that true commitment is tested. Companies who were early allies in the fight for equality are still remembered and respected to this day. Now is the time to prove you respect your LGBTQIA+ employees as people, and that their personhood is not a fad that can be easily discarded when there is pushback.There are legal protections to ensure your commitment to the principles of equality and inclusion are bolstered against this wave of divisive political agendas. And it is your duty to ensure DEI is cemented into your institution's core values.
National Coming Out Day is a celebration of courage. It is a reminder of the progress that has been made possible by that courage, and that every person deserves the right to live openly without fear of retribution or exclusion. But this can only happen in an environment where safety and acceptance are firmly rooted in our laws and our institutions. This October 11, let's reaffirm our commitment to equality and stand up to this hateful and divisive anti-DEI rhetoric.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm as Trump Judge Sides With Company Claiming NLRB Is Unconstitutional
"This is yet another move by a Trump-appointed judge in favor of wealthy corporations."
Sep 17, 2024
The National Labor Relations Board was prevented on Tuesday from moving forward with an unfair labor practices case against the social services tech company Findhelp, after a Trump-appointed judge granted the Texas-based firm's request for a temporary injunction.
In the Northern District of Texas, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruledin favor of Findhelp's claim that administrative law judges at the NLRB have unconstitutional protections from being dismissed by the White House.
The argument has been used by other large companies including billionaire Elon Musk's aerospace firm SpaceX and a subsidiary of the fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer, which have both also obtained preliminary injunctions from Trump appointees in Texas, shielding them from labor rights cases.
In the SpaceX case, the NLRB argued that "granting an injunction would encourage any employer or labor union unhappy with scrutiny of their labor practices to seek preliminary injunctions against NLRB proceedings."
Starbucks, Amazon, and Trader Joe's have also joined the corporate effort to strip the NLRB of its ability to carry out its duties as a federal agency tasked with protecting workers from unfair labor practices. The companies have claimed that the agency's structure, which was established by the New Deal's National Labor Relations Act nearly a century ago, violates the president's "removal powers" under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
"Prior to the New Deal, judges claimed things like overtime and child labor rules were unconstitutional," said journalist Ryan Grim.
Lawyers for the NLRB argued in the Findhelp case that the company is not entitled to relief from a court until the president tries to remove the administrative law judge assigned to Findhelp's case, but Pittman said he was "unpersuaded by the NLRB's arguments."
Pittman cited a precedent established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in 2022 that removal protections for the Securities and Exchange Commission's judges were unconstitutional.
This month, two federal judges—one appointed by former President Barack Obama and one by President Joe Biden—have rejected other corporate challenges claiming the NLRB is unconstitutionally structured, teeing up a potential U.S. Supreme Court case to settle the matter in the future.
Tuesday's ruling comes 18 months after the Office and Professional Employees International Union filed a complaint with the NLRB, saying Findhelp had illegally fired and coerced workers who were involved in organizing their workplace. The employees had voted 95-52 in favor of joining the union.
With Pittman's injunction in place, an NLRB administrative hearing on whether Findhelp unlawfully fired organizers and surveilled employees will not move forward.
"The NLRB protects Americans' right to unionize, fight unjust firings, and collectively bargain for higher wages," said the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Without it, employers can ignore labor laws and deprive workers of their rights. This is yet another move by a Trump-appointed judge in favor of wealthy corporations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular