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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS