GeoLegal Weekly #46 - Political Killings and Business Risk
The Philippines is roiled by the VP threatening to kill the President, leading us to contemplate political killings and business risk.
Earlier this week the Vice President of the Philippines, Sara Duterte, made the most startling political statement we’ve seen in recent memory. And that’s saying something.
Speaking publicly, she said she had contracted a killer to avenge her death in the event she herself was assassinated by the ruling government, with which she has split. She said:
I have talked to a person. I said, if I get killed, go kill BBM (President Marcos), (the first lady) Liza Araneta, and (the Speaker of the House) Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke…I said, do not stop until you kill them, and then he said yes.
Mutually assured destruction acts as a strong deterrent, as does shining sunlight on any potential plot against her life. While she’ll face legal scrutiny for the outburst, she’s probably safer now than before making the comments.
Yet that’s not the most important point. While we may have grown accustomed to threats against politicians from lone wolves or to hearing overheated campaign rhetoric, we rarely see two actors in the same political system facing off so directly with threats of violence. It got us thinking a bit more about the role that targeting killings are playing in politics as of late, which raises a number of geolegal consequences and related business risks.
Sudden Death
While most political change unfolds slowly, targeted assassinations can happen at any moment and shake up a political system. It can switch who is in charge or cause a system to collapse. It can send a chill through law enforcement, or send it into overdrive. In most cases, such killings violate national and international law, weakening protections and opening the doors to further violence.
Moreover, if institutions become less respected and power or wealth become more concentrated in particular personalities, or are seen to be more concentrated, then the threat and potential impact of an assassination likely increases. In countries with well developed political and legal institutions, assassinations have served more as unfortunate tragedies than structural threats to the system. If the person is the system, then an assassination could change everything.
In the US, this is particularly pressing as the line between politics and business is blurring, as are the lines between business and the ownership of the media. As Elon Musk said earlier this year, “The probability that a homicidal maniac will try to kill you is proportionate to how many homicidal maniacs hear your name.” Related businesses must note the increase in “key person” risk that comes from this as well as the sheer expense of phalanxes of security to protect executives, as outlined in the Musk article.
But it’s also pressing because the means of surveilling and reaching targets is dramatically aided by advances in technology. Israel has assassinated a number of Iranian nuclear scientists, some in plots straight out of movies - like the use of an “A.I.-Assisted Remote-Control Killing Machine”. Tense politics plus technological advancements increase risk.
Categories
To try to make sense of the landscape, we’ve developed a few categories to consider political assassination as well as related business implications.
Political Rivalry: This characterizes what’s happening in the Philippines. You can trace back roots of the tactic to the Ides of March and Julius Caesar’s death at the hands of Roman senators. Setting aside live civil wars (which are literally warring factions) this type of technique is prominent in nascent political systems that have just emerged from war or have a history of civil strife. It is much less common in countries where democracy has taken hold, and in authoritarian regimes it often occurs before individuals are able to gain any prominence, so it sits in a different category. While this kind of assassination is relatively common historically–in a Monarchical system it is one of the few tactics available to change the political leadership–it is much rarer today, which is what made the Philippines incident stick out.
Business Implication: The core implication here is that it may trigger substantial instability that could threaten the system itself. So, a bolt-from-the-blue attack resulting from below-the-surface political tensions could set off something like civil war or severe disturbance. It could turn control of the system over to another faction but often in unpredictable ways. Not only do businesses have to manage the security implications of this unfolding but also policy and political ramifications on the other side.
Take-outs amid hostilities: Generally speaking, targeted assassination runs counter to international law, but countries tend to know they can get away with it in many cases. The US killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan is one example as was the recent killing of Hamas’ leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran by a planted explosive. While they raised questions about sovereignty of the countries where the assassinations took place, these were cast as the killing of terrorists and, thus, the states behind them felt they had much to gain and little to fear. But recently we’re seeing more willingness of Israel and Iran, for instance, to target political foes with brazen assassination attempts like those mentioned above. Iran has reportedly tried to kill Donald Trump in return for his approval of killing Qasem Suleimani.
Business Implication: These types of attacks can increase hostilities between all countries involved and also raise reputational risk for doing business with any of the players. The aftermath of Bin Laden’s killing, for instance, raised tensions between the US and Pakistan, leading to the paring back of economic aid from the US to Pakistan. US businesses operating in Pakistan faced boycotts and longer-term Pakistan looked more to China for partnership as a result.
State killing to silence critics: One can debate whether a nation-state, which has monopoly on the use of force, engages in assassinations or extrajudicial killings when it silences critics by trying to make them disappear. But the ramifications are generally the same. This can take place at home or abroad and can target past or present critics. The 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is one attempted example (and one can debate the circumstances of his ultimate demise). The dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi intelligence was another. This is different from the category above because in these cases the dead were not actively involved in military hostilities.
Business Implication: When these attacks become publicly known, there is a media feeding frenzy and often sanctions from countries that feel like such actions have crossed the line and must be punished. Beyond sanctions, businesses dealing with the state which conducted the attack face public pressure to speak out or to exit the country in question. In most cases, businesses hold the line and let it blow over but it creates a PR challenge if they are particularly prominent. Yet in many cases these types of killings are not publicly revealed and instead there’s simply a general sense that critics keep disappearing. In those cases, there is a greater sense of companies needing to tread lightly politically and insurance prices can rise as the operating environment looks like it's deteriorating.
Non-state actors targeting law enforcement or critics: These types of killings are frequent in countries with big mafia or drug cartel presence. In Mexico, for instance, there are many examples of cartels targeting journalists, mayors, lawmakers and others that get in their way. This type of tactic is easily extended to business leaders, either because they are politically problematic or don’t want to play ball with extortion, as the death of one state’s business chamber head showed earlier this year.
Business Implication: In these situations, companies become targets for corruption and extortion which is not only a first order problem but, of course, raises the chance of enforcement if they go along with it. They may face supply chain challenges as organized crime sabotages infrastructure for businesses that don’t participate or they may become directly targeted.
Targeting the system: Another category emerges when the assassination of individuals is meant to target the whole system. Vehicle Born IEDs (VBIEDs) in Iraq provide a good example of this. While it often seemed like a different member of parliament was killed with every week that passed, the use of non-disriminating car bombs with massive casualties was really designed to turn citizens against the system of democracy itself rather than simply the leaders who were killed.
Business Implication: This type of risk usually manifests in places, like Iraq, that are viewed as unstable to begin with. But it’s not the only place they can occur. Obviously this increases risk and instability further, particularly the chance that more authoritarian or sectarian forms of government take hold that are unfriendly to business or, at least, to foreign businesses (especially those that supported the past regime).
Lone Wolf: And, of course, there are lone wolves who try to take out leaders for their own personal reasons. The assassination attempt on Donald Trump earlier this year fit this mold. But these also occur when a lone wolf decides to target a country's embassy or a foreign business to prove a political point.
Business Implication: When these types of attacks occur or are attempted, they raise questions about the security of the system itself, leading to ramped up protocols. But it also raises reputational risk if the lone wolf worked for a particular company or if companies aren’t perceived as acting swift enough to comment and condemn the activity. When conducted close to an election (like in the case of Trump or of Jo Cox right before the BREXIT vote), it can sway results.
Stepping back, we live in a world of overlapping risks where politics is more fraught in more places than ever before. As rule of law recedes nationally and internationally, there is less of a deterrent against many of the precursors to such violence. Considering the extent to which your insurances or contracts are flexible for such types of incidents that may not rise to traditional definitions of “coup” or “war” is critical to controlling your risk.
–SW & SH