China Olympics, Tibet Crackdown, Coke Profits

by AMIT SRIVASTAVA

Responding to a question about Coca-Cola’s sponsorship of the Olympic Torch Relay at the Coca-Cola shareholders meeting last week, Mr. Isdell, CEO of Coca-Cola, defended the sponsorship by referring to the Olympic Torch as a symbol of hope and openness.

At about the same time, the Olympic Torch was being run in New Delhi, India. On hand were over 15,000 armed security personnel, including Indian paramilitary forces and Chinese security, and the public was largely banned from attending. On hand to view the ceremonies were a very select few, including a group of children outfitted with Coca-Cola T-shirts.

Surely Mr. Isdell got it wrong? The Olympic Torch being paraded through a hastily shortened route in New Delhi surrounded by some of the tightest security the city has ever seen with the public largely kept away is hardly symbolic of the hope and openness that the Olympic Torch supposedly symbolizes.

Ongoing protests around the Olympics Torch Relay to highlight China’s occupation of Tibet is a refreshing reminder that no amount of "feel good" advertising and "brand" associations can whitewash the reality – that the Chinese government suppresses human rights in Tibet.

The Olympic Torch Relay, sponsored primarily by three corporations – US based Coca-Cola, South Korea based Samsung and China based Lenovo – are critical to the Chinese governments attempts to paint a picture of China that is open and tolerant – regardless of the pending human rights concerns.

And China is not the first government that has attempted to use the Olympic Games to gain credibility from a global audience. In 1936, the Olympic Games were held in Nazi Germany, and the Nazis had the same goal – to extract credibility from the world community.

For Coca-Cola, however, the Olympic Games and the Torch Relay provide a tremendous marketing opportunity, associating its brand with the feel good games that has arguably the largest audience in the world. Coca-Cola has reportedly invested more that US$100 million into the Games. The promise of financial returns from the sponsorship are too great for any human rights or environmental concerns to put a damper on their plans.

While China hopes to benefit politically by hosting the Olympic Games, Coca-Cola aspires to profit financially from the Olympic Games.

Coca-Cola, it seems, will sponsor just about anything, as long as it sees potential profits.

The 1936 Berlin Olympic Games were used by the Nazis to paint a picture of Germany as a peaceful and tolerant Germany, even though the persecution of Jews, Romas and others deemed undesirable by the state in Germany had already started. The first permanent Nazi concentration camp had opened in Dachau in 1933 – three years prior to the Olympics – and Jews were not allowed to participate in the Games.

Coca-Cola was a primary sponsor of the 1936 Games. And the first modern day Olympic Torch Relay was initiated in Berlin in 1936, and Coca-Cola was its sponsor at that time too.

While the magnitude of horror inflicted by Nazi Germany is unsurpassed and we hesitate to make comparisons with China’s oppression in Tibet, one must raise serious concerns about corporate sponsorships that do not take human rights concerns into account, as was and is the case with the Coca-Cola company.

In fact, Coca-Cola’s involvement in Nazi Germany went further. While the Coca-Cola company was supplying Coke to Allied soldiers on the war front, its German counterpart, Coca-Cola GmbH, was busy selling Coca-Cola to Germans. When Coca-Cola GmbH could no longer receive the syrup from the US after the US entered the war in 1941, it developed a drink using ingredients available in Nazi Germany called Fanta.

It seems that Coca-Cola had hedged its bets. If the Allies won, Coca-Cola would rule the world and if the Nazis won, Fanta would.

To be fair, Coca-Cola was not the only company to hedge its bets during World War II. But the extent to which companies will go to ensure future markets and profits, however unethical, is disturbing. And Coca-Cola’s sponsorship of the Olympic Torch Run and the Beijing Games is just that – unethical and devoid of morality.

It makes no difference whether Tibetans are murdered, tortured or intimidated by the Chinese government. Its mandate is to increase its sales in China, and it will do nothing to risk losing access to these emerging markets, particularly at a time when its sales in the US are declining as consumers become more health savvy.

The current protests around the Olympic Torch Relay are a perfect moment to scrutinize the role that corporations play in this day and age of globalization and send a clear message to the corporations that human rights must come before profits.

On the one hand, there is increased talk of Corporate Social Responsibility – which is corporation’s response to globalization – in which Coca-Cola figures prominently. Yet, when a pressing issue such as Tibet comes to the fore, Coca-Cola chooses to remain silent and endorse the Games for financial reasons, absurdly citing "openness" and "hope" to defend their involvement.

On March 20, 2008, over 150 Tibet support groups from around the world penned a letter to the Coca-Cola company labeling its sponsorship of the Games "tasteless" and asking it to ensure that the Olympic Torch does not go through Tibet.

We are not holding our breath to hear anything positively from the Coca-Cola company in this regard.

Many in India are accustomed to Coca-Cola’s doublespeak and spin to divert attention from the real issues. Ironically, the Coca-Cola company has chosen to promote "environmental stewardship" as part of its sponsorship of the Olympic Torch Relay. No matter that thousands of farmers in India have challenged the company for destroying the environment, particularly water resources, that one of its largest bottling plants in India has been shut down because of pollution, and that its own assessment has confirmed what the communities in India have been saying all along.

If we have learnt anything from the past, and the horror of the Nazi Germany era, it is incumbent upon us to demand that the Coca-Cola company act. At the very least, the company should state publicly that the Olympic Torch should not go through Tibet – an unconscionable act, according to Tibetan activists. And if Coca-Cola is serious about being a good corporate citizen and even an average student of history, it must end its sponsorship of the Beijing Olympics to send a strong message that financial profits are secondary to human rights.

Until then, we would encourage all torchbearers to cease being ambassadors for a company that is blind to everything except profits. And encourage consumers to think before they drink Coca-Cola.

Coca-Cola’s sponsorship, frankly speaking, is simply not Olympic in spirit.

AMIT SRIVASTAVA is the Director of India Resource Center, an international campaigning organization based in San Francisco, USA.

 

 


Like What You’ve Read? Support CounterPunch
September 03, 2015
Sal Rodriguez
How California Prison Hunger Strikes Sparked Solitary Confinement Reforms
Lawrence Ware
Leave Michael Vick Alone: the Racism and Misogyny of Football Fans
Dave Lindorff
Is Obama the Worst President Ever?
Vijay Prashad
The Return of Social Democracy?
Ellen Brown
Quantitative Easing for People: Jeremy Corbyn’s Radical Proposal
Paul Craig Roberts
The Rise of the Inhumanes: Barron, Bybee, Yoo and Bradford
Binoy Kampmark
Inside Emailgate: Hillary’s Latest Problem
Lynn Holland
For the Love of Water: El Salvador’s Mining Ban
Geoff Dutton
Time for Some Anger Management
Jack Rasmus
The New Colonialism: Greece and Ukraine
Norman Pollack
American Jews and the Iran Accord: The Politics of Fear
John Grant
Sorting Through the Bullshit in America
David Macaray
The Unbearable Lightness of Treaties
Chad Nelson
Lessig Uses a Scalpel Where a Machete is Needed
September 02, 2015
Paul Street
Strange Words From St. Bernard and the Sandernistas
Jose Martinez
Houston, We Have a Problem: False Equivalencies on Police Violence
Henry Giroux
Global Capitalism and the Culture of Mad Violence
Ajamu Baraka
Making Black Lives Matter in Riohacha, Colombia
William Edstrom
Wall Street and the Military are Draining Americans High and Dry
David Altheide
The Media Syndrome Between a Glock and a GoPro
Yves Engler
Canada vs. Africa
Ron Jacobs
The League of Empire
Andrew Smolski
Democracy and Privatization in Neoliberal Mexico
Stephen Lendman
Gaza: a Socioeconomic Dead Zone
Norman Pollack
Obama, Flim-Flam Artist: Alaska Offshore Drilling
Binoy Kampmark
Australian Border Force Gore
Ruth Fowler
Ask Not: Lost in the Crowd with Amanda Palmer
Kim Nicolini
Remembering Wes Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes
September 01, 2015
Mike Whitney
Return to Crisis: Things Keep Getting Worse
Michael Schwalbe
The Moral Hazards of Capitalism
Eric Mann
Inside the Civil Rights Movement: a Conversation With Julian Bond
Pam Martens
How Wall Street Parasites Have Devoured Their Hosts, Your Retirement Plan and the U.S. Economy
Jonathan Latham
Growing Doubt: a Scientist’s Experience of GMOs
Fran Shor
Occupy Wall Street and the Sanders Campaign: a Case of Historical Amnesia?
Joe Paff
The Big Trees: Cockburn, Marx and Shostakovich
Randy Blazak
University Administrators Allow Fraternities to Turn Colleges Into Rape Factories
Robert Hunziker
The IPCC Caught in a Pressure Cooker
George Wuerthner
Myths of the Anthropocene Boosters: Truthout’s Misguided Attack on Wilderness and National Park Ideals
Robert Koehler
Sending Your Children Off to Safe Spaces in College
Jesse Jackson
Season of the Insurgents: From Trump to Sanders
August 31, 2015
Michael Hudson
Whitewashing the IMF’s Destructive Role in Greece
Conn Hallinan
Europe’s New Barbarians
Lawrence Ware
George Bush (Still) Doesn’t Care About Black People
Joseph Natoli
Plutocracy, Gentrification and Racial Violence
Franklin Spinney
One Presidential Debate You Won’t Hear: Why It is Time to Adopt a Sensible Grand Strategy