I still don't see the article as addressing that well at all. I re-read it fully before answering. Immediately after mentioning that we think of cash-filled e

I still don't see the article as addressing that well at all. I re-read it fully before answering. Immediately after mentioning that we think of cash-filled envelopes etc the very next paragraph says that this is not what's the problem. "The countries where they are headquartered are unable to regulate them" ... "This architecture is one of the greatest international human rights triumphs of the last 50 years." ... "they’ve raised the cost of committing human rights violations in developing countries." Well either the regulation is working well or it isn't. It's no longer a piece addressing the shortcomings of multinationals but is a piece pointing out the difficulties dealing with corrupt or overseas regimes. We're now talking of how we trade (multinationals included) with those places. Of course there is some degree of cross-over stemming from trading with. It's far more about the internals of these places "The majority — all 5,000 of them — sell clothes on the domestic market", leasing land from Zimbabwe's ARDA etc. Now I fully agree that this is an problem, but it is not the same issue. Likewise, internal regulations that he mentions. Many of those are not new. The main example, Green Fuel, in Zimbabwe has no external investors or customers. Where's the multinational angle there? So yes they're untouchable, but it's a national issue. It's been that way for a considerable number of years in some cases. So let's discuss why we're failing to make other countries more globally accountable. It's clearly important we consider that. How far can we reasonably expect to influence another nation? We don't often send a gunboat like a Victorian govt might have. Isn't that basically saying that it's not, in this case, multinationals that's the problem here? We can also talk about about shortcomings multinationals, which I already covered, probably at too much length, in the OP.