The linked rings on every Chinese Coke bottle and the leaping athletes on each McDonald’s paper bag testify to the power the world’s biggest corporations believe this summer’s Olympics wields.
But having spent huge sums, the companies sponsoring the Beijing Games are about to find themselves the targets of a new, more vigorous war on China’s human-rights record by campaigners boosted by the success of protests along the torch relay route.
On Tuesday a coalition of Tibetan groups warned Coca-Cola that it would be “complicit in a humanitarian disaster” unless it used its influence to ensure Tibet was dropped from the torch route. And on Wednesday, Dream for Darfur launched a critical “report card” on sponsors of the Games.
Campaigners are urging companies to press the International Olympic Committee and Beijing itself for change — or risk damaging their brands.
“Companies [who do not act] will get physical protests; they will get letters; we will ask people to turn off their adverts,” said Ellen Freudenheim, director of corporate outreach at Dream for Darfur, which argues that they should press China to put pressure on Sudan as its major oil buyer.
“Sponsors don’t make policy and we understand that. But combined they have about the equivalent of the GDP of Canada, the world’s eighth-largest economy; they have government affairs offices; they have lobbying firms; they have international presences — and they all do engage in politics,” she said.
TARGETING STARS
Canny activists are targeting the stars who represent the brands too — George Clooney has already said he has raised the issue of Darfur with Omega, the Olympic sponsor and watch manufacturer that he advertises. The aim is to create a domino effect as spokespeople or consumers pressure sponsors, who in turn push the International Olympic Committee (IOC) into lobbying China.
Each of the 12 global partners for this year’s event have paid £30 million (US$59.3 million) to £40 million for a four-year deal.
“A number of companies engage in partnerships with the IOC and the Olympic Movement to help us fund the work we do and spread the Olympic values. Their support is key not only to the success of the Olympic Games but also to the sustainability of the Olympic Movement,” an IOC spokeswoman said on Tuesday.
In the period 2001 to 2004, sponsors contributed US$1,459 million, 39 percent of the IOC’s revenue.
Activists believe their protests are already having an effect. The angry reception afforded the Beijing torch relay in London, Paris and San Francisco earlier this month caused acute discomfort to the relay sponsors Coca-Cola, Lenovo and Samsung.
Last week, Human Rights Watch accused “cowardly” partners of “remaining largely silent” in the face of abuses; just a few days earlier the media freedom body Reporters Without Borders disrupted Coca-Cola’s annual general meeting.
RISK FACTOR
Campaigners say some sponsors are raising concerns privately.
“Realistically, everyone who signed up for Beijing knew there were various risks involved,” said Damien Ryan, a Hong Kong-based media consultant advising several sponsors.
He acknowledged that this “risk factor has escalated.”
Activists are well aware that multinationals hope sponsoring the Beijing Games will give them privileged access to 1.3 billion increasingly wealthy people without entrenched purchasing habits.
“Almost all of the top level sponsors want to leverage the games to a better market position in China,” said David Wolf, president of Beijing-based corporate advisers Wolf Group Asia.
Olympic sponsors argue it is simply unfair to hold them responsible for every action by the Chinese authorities.
The sportswear giant Adidas, a Beijing rather than IOC partner, said in a statement it was “conscious of the exceptional importance of the protection of human rights.”
“Sponsors, however, should not be expected to solve political issues. We clearly see the limits of our influence,” Adidas said.
A Coca-Cola spokesperson pointed out that the soft drinks giant had supported the Olympics since 1928, expressed “deep concern” for the situation in Tibet and cited its support for charities working in Sudan.
Amnesty has asked all Beijing games partners to raise human rights concerns directly with the IOC and Beijing.
“The universal declaration on human rights calls on every individual and organ of society, which includes corporations, to ensure human rights are respected. Corporations do have influence, and we would call on them to exert it publicly,” said Robert Gooden, Amnesty’s Asian-Pacific campaign coordinator.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
RSS