November 6, 1974

Multi-National Companies New Government

Which deserves your greatest loyalty - your country, your company, or your union?

This is becoming an increasingly urgent decision for many Americans as larger corporations open branches in many other nations around the world.

Many of these "multi-national" companies have gross sales larger than the gross national, product of most countries in the United Nations.

They demand - and generally receive - a loyalty that supersedes an employee's personal commitment to the United States.

There is abundant evidence, for example, that Aramco - a consortium of five American companies dealing in Arab oil - joined the Arab nations in imposing last winter's embargo of oil to the U.S. and other western nations.

It was a political move against their "mother country."  Then, as the Arabs doubled the price of oil again and again, Aramco tacitly approved and reaped the profits that resulted from financial hardship on American citizens.

Of course, the circumstances that led Armco to participate in a damaging economic attack were somewhat beyond its control.

Yet, when the crunch came; the huge multi-national company stood passively by.  It shared in the gain to the great detriment of the nation that gave it its franchise to do business.

The labor unions that once were criticized - and nearly destroyed - for advocating world wide solidarity today are reexamining their position on internationalism.  They reason that they must become "multi-national" to deal effectively with huge "  corporations of world scope.

Labor leaders point out that unless they can represent workers in every plant of a multi-national company, the firm can play workers in a developing country against the more highly organized and better paid workers of the advanced countries.

There is no question that some of this already goes on.  Multi-national companies manufacturing typewriters, radios, shirts, shoes and a host of other goods formerly "made in America" have moved their operations abroad. .

Inevitably, the enormous economic power concentrated in a big multi-national company tempts it to take direct action in the affairs of the small countries where it operates.  The International Telephone and Telegraph Company participated in the political affairs of Chile to a questionable degree.

Where does normal and desirable "cooperation" become "meddling"?

And where will the direct involvement of multi-national companies in foreign governments become a threat to the security of the United States?

These questions have so perplexed me in recent months that I drove over to Akron University recently to rap with Donald A. Gaudion, board chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers.  He was lecturing there on the merits of capitalism, and is president of a multi-national medical supply company.

"What about it," I asked him.

Short pause.

""Essentially true," said Gaudion.

"We are developing a (new kind of) government!"

"It is an inevitable development for the good of mankind," he declared." it is contributing to world peace."

Gaudion said that politicians are "way behind" in adjusting to the complexities and inter-dependence of a modern, global society.

"The multi-national companies want stability and prosperity." he stated.  "They want to solve economic problems and create markets."

Gaudion urges that all nations avoid trade restrictions so the people of the world can reach comparable levels of development.  He said that natural resources are unevenly distributed and must be shared.  Trade barriers tend to isolate nations from the main stream of world commerce and inhibit their living standards.

Certainly, Gaudion's thoughts are logical and thought provoking.

The world today is dependent upon the economic health of many nations.  The United States can not guarantee its own prosperity at the expense of Europe or Asia or the Middle East.

The present inflation is a clear indication that we can not ignore the problems of other countries: or solve our own unilaterally.

Yet, I can not agree that civilization rests solely on an economic base.  We have other cultural interests shaped by geography and history.

We need world understanding and cooperation.

We also need individuality and personal freedom.

The single-minded drive of business to make a profit often conflicts with the willingness of society to sacrifice for a greater good.

The growth of multi-national companies is significant, and I have an open mind on the subject for now.

But I will resist the dismantling of the American system of politics and economy until something allegedly superior is thoroughly proven.

I may be an old fashioned patriot, but for now, "my country, right or wrong."

Author: Lindsey Williams