Tibet Adds Pressure for Olympic Sponsors
By Joe Mcdonald, Associated Press
McDonald's, Coca-Cola and other sponsors paid tens of millions of dollars to link their names with the Beijing Olympics. Now they're trying to mollify activists pressing for change on Tibet, Darfur and other issues, without angering China.
They have expressed concern over Tibet. Some talk privately to Beijing organizers. Samsung Electronics Co. called off a Beijing news conference scheduled for Friday on the torch relay. But sponsors insist they should stay out of politics.
"We all have to be careful about how we talk about this," said Chris Renner, president for China of sports marketing consulting firm Helios Partners. Its clients include sponsors Volkswagen AG, computer maker Lenovo Group and mining giant BHP Billiton Ltd.
The Olympics almost always attract activists interested in leveraging the popular event to publicize their causes.
At the 1996 Atlanta Games, sponsors faced boycott calls after a county where the beach volleyball event was to be held enacted a measure deemed anti-gay. In Sydney in 2000, there were protests about the environment and Australian aboriginal rights.
But the Beijing Games have generated more heat, in part because of an array of activist groups long critical of China's policies - and newer ones focused on its economic and diplomatic clout.
"Everybody knows we're pretty much on the biggest platform you can pick," Renner said.
Sponsors were already on the lookout for controversy over Sudan, a diplomatic partner and Chinese oil supplier, as well as press freedom, human rights and Tibet.
After protests last week by Tibetans against Chinese rule - and Beijing's crackdown - sponsors said they were watching events closely.
A few have turned to public relations specialists for advice, said a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Coca-Cola Co., Lenovo, McDonald's Corp. and others said this week they plan no changes in strategy.
Likely to face immediate pressure could be Lenovo, Coca-Cola and Samsung, the three sponsors of the Olympic torch relay. The worldwide trek begins this month and will pass through Tibet and up Mount Everest.
Jiang Xiaoyu, executive vice president of the Beijing Olympics Organizing Committee, or BOCOG, vowed Wednesday that the anti-government riots in Tibet last week and a subsequent crackdown by authorities would not disrupt plans for the torch relay.
"We know the incidents are the last thing we want to see, but we firmly believe that the government of the Tibet Autonomous Region will be able ensure the stability of Lhasa and Tibet, and also be able to ensure the smooth going of the torch relay in Tibet," Jiang told reporters.
Abroad, Tibet activists say they will protest along the torch route in India, Britain and elsewhere to highlight complaints that Beijing is degrading the Himalayan region's distinctive Buddhist culture.
"We have no plans to change any of our activities related to the torch relay," said Christine F. Lau, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman in Beijing.
Samsung said in a statement: "We believe the Olympic Games are not the place for demonstrations and we hope that all people attending the games recognize the importance of this."
International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge said Sunday the body is "very concerned" about Tibet. But the IOC insists it is not in a position to pressure China on political matters.
The Olympics is both a premier advertising platform in the fast-growing China market and a chance for sponsors to build ties with Chinese officials by backing a national prestige event.
The companies are counting on the Olympics to raise their profile in China, increase their market share in the country, and attract local partners, and they want to avoid jeopardizing access by doing anything that might upset communist officials. Licensing in China is highly subjective, and Beijing has retaliated in the past for unwanted foreign actions by canceling contracts or restricting market access.
Sponsor payments and other marketing revenues are expected to cover the games' operating costs, about $2.1 billion - a figure that does not include spending on venues and public facilities.
Until last week, the sponsors' biggest concern was pressure over Darfur.
Fronted by actress Mia Farrow and employing disciplined public relations strategies, Darfur activists have been prodding sponsors to lobby Beijing to help pressure Sudan to end the conflict.
Director Steven Spielberg withdrew as an artistic adviser to the games after pressure from Farrow, chairwoman of Dream for Darfur, which wants companies to lobby Beijing. It has warned China that it risks having its games remembered as the "genocide Olympics" and is issuing "report cards" to rate sponsors on their Darfur policies.
Dream for Darfur issued a "report card" in June on sponsors and plans to issue an update this month.
"The companies that get a C, D or F on this next report card will be the focus of our intensive activism between now and the games," said Jill Savitt, Dream for Darfur's executive director. She said the group will picket their headquarters and appeal to TV viewers to turn off their commercials during the games.
General Electric Co. scored highest at a C-plus in the earlier report, in part for donating medical equipment and aid to UNICEF, while Savitt said 13 companies got failing grades.
"The violence and brutality committed against the people in the Darfur region is appalling," said Deirdre Latour, a GE spokeswoman, in an e-mail. Still, she said, "It is not GE's role to use the games to influence government policy."
In the top tier of sponsors are 12 companies that reportedly have paid at least $100 million each to become Worldwide Olympic Partners.
Lenovo, the only Chinese company among the 12, took into account possible activism when it made its plans, said Robert J. Page, the company's Olympics public relations manager.
"All of these potential considerations are taken into the planning process," Page said. He declined to comment on violent scenarios, but said, "The potential for people to express their opinions is certainly something we have taken into consideration, and we would work with BOCOG on anticipating."
Lenovo hopes to use the Olympics to establish itself as a global brand following its 2005 acquisition of IBM Corp.'s personal computer unit. Asked whether the company worries about damage to its image, Page said, "That's not a concern at this point."
"There is no question that the Olympic Games are a powerful force for peace," Page said. "We believe that the games will focus on all the good that is being brought to China, and we are proud to support that."
Coca-Cola, Adidas AG and Omega, a unit of Switzerland's Swatch Group, say they have talked privately to Beijing Olympics organizers.
They declined to give details, but a BOCOG employee said sponsors have asked for information on China's position on Darfur and other sensitive issues.
"They have held intimate discussions with our sponsorship department to better understand the issues and how it may affect them," said the employee, who asked not to be identified further because she was not authorized to talk to reporters.
"It's obviously a fine balancing act that every single Olympics encounters," said Michael Payne, a former IOC marketing director who now works as a consultant. "The PR departments of each of the sponsors have got to be sensible in how they respond."
Robert A. Kapp, a former president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said it's possible that popular anger, particularly among Americans concerned with human rights, may become so severe "that some companies may face a very hard decision as to whether their highly visible support of the Olympics is causing so much damage that they need to reconsider their options."
"I could imagine some companies going back to their advertising departments and external PR advisers and seeing whether there are ways in which the company's presence in support of the Olympics can be reviewed with an eye toward these recent and tragic circumstances," Kapp said by telephone from Port Townsend, Wash.
"There may be different ways of presenting messages that would still support the Olympics, (but) would not cause undue anger and disenchantment among the people of China or at the level of the Chinese government," he said.
---
Associated Press writer Lindsay Holmwood contributed to this story from New York.
---
Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games: http://www.bocog.org
Dream for Darfur: http://www.dreamfordarfur.org
General Electric Co.: http://www.ge.com
McDonald's Corp.: http://www.mcdonalds.com
Coca-Cola Co.: http://www.coca-cola.com
Volkswagen AG: http://www.volkswagen.com
Lenovo Group: http://www.lenovo.com
BHP Billiton Ltd.: http://www.bhpbilliton.com
Adidas AG: http://www.adidas.com
Samsung Electronics Co.: http://www.samsung.com
Students for a Free Tibet: http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org
Omega Watches: http://www.omegawatches.com
...
Read more
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
[+/-] : China's Genocide Olympics
China's Genocide Olympics
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The Beijing Olympics this summer were supposed to be China’s coming-out party, celebrating the end of nearly two centuries of weakness, poverty and humiliation.
Instead, China’s leaders are tarnishing their own Olympiad by abetting genocide in Darfur and in effect undermining the U.N. military deployment there. The result is a growing international campaign to brand these “The Genocide Olympics.”
This is not a boycott of the Olympics. But expect Darfur-related protests at Chinese Embassies, as well as banners and armbands among both athletes and spectators. There’s a growing recognition that perhaps the best way of averting hundreds of thousands more deaths in Sudan is to use the leverage of the Olympics to shame China into more responsible behavior.
The central problem is that in exchange for access to Sudanese oil, Beijing is financing, diplomatically protecting and supplying the arms for the first genocide of the 21st century. China is the largest arms supplier to Sudan, officially selling $83 million in weapons, aircraft and spare parts to Sudan in 2005, according to Amnesty International USA. That is the latest year for which figures are available.
China provided Sudan with A-5 Fantan bomber aircraft, helicopter gunships, K-8 military training/attack aircraft and light weapons used in Sudan’s proxy invasion of Chad last year. China also uses the threat of its veto on the Security Council to block U.N. action against Sudan so that there is a growing risk of a catastrophic humiliation for the U.N. itself.
Sudan feels confident enough with Chinese backing that on Jan. 7, the Sudanese military ambushed a clearly marked U.N. convoy of peacekeepers in Darfur. Sudan claimed the attack was a mistake, but diplomats and U.N. professionals are confident that this was a deliberate attack ordered by the Sudanese leaders to put the U.N. in its place.
Sudan has already barred units from Sweden, Norway, Nepal, Thailand and other countries from joining the U.N. force. It has banned night flights, dithered on a status-of-forces agreement, held up communications equipment and refused to allow the U.N. to bring in foreign helicopters. The growing fear is that the U.N. force will be humiliated in Sudan as it was in Rwanda and Bosnia, causing enormous damage to international peacekeeping.
Another possible sign of Sudan’s confidence: an American diplomat, John Granville, was ambushed and murdered in Khartoum early this month. Many in the diplomatic and intelligence community believe that such an assassination could not happen in Khartoum unless elements of the government were involved.
Chinese officials argue that they are engaging in quiet diplomacy with Sudan’s leaders and that this is the best way to seek a solution in Darfur. They note that Sudan has other backers, and that China’s influence is limited.
It is true that since the start of the “Genocide Olympics” campaign (www.dreamfordarfur.org) a year ago, China has been more helpful, and it’s only because of Chinese pressure on Khartoum that U.N. peacekeepers were admitted to Darfur at all. But the basic reality is that China continues to side with Sudan — it backed Sudan again after it ambushed the U.N. peacekeepers — and Sudan feels protected enough that it goes on thumbing its nose at the international community.
Just a few days ago, Sudan appointed Musa Hilal, a founding leader of the Arab militia known as the janjaweed, to a position in the central government. This is the man who was once quoted as having expressed gratitude for “the necessary weapons and ammunition to exterminate the African tribes in Darfur.”
Other countries also must do much more, but China is crucial. If Beijing were to suspend all transfers of arms and spare parts to Sudan until a peace deal is reached in Darfur, then that would change the dynamic. President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan would be terrified — especially since he is now preparing to resume war with South Sudan — and would realize that China is no longer willing to let its Olympics be stained by Darfuri blood.
Without his Chinese shield, Mr. Bashir would be more likely to make concessions to Darfur rebels and negotiate seriously with them, and he would no longer have political cover to resume war against South Sudan. That would make long-term peace more likely in Darfur and also in South Sudan.
I’m a great fan of China’s achievements, and I’ve often defended Beijing from unfair protectionist rhetoric spouted by American politicians. But those of us who admire China’s accomplishments find it difficult to give credit when Beijing simultaneously underwrites the ultimate crime of genocide.
China deserves an international celebration to mark its historic re-emergence as a major power. But so long as China insists on providing arms to sustain a slaughter based on tribe and skin color, this will remain, sadly, The Genocide Olympics.
...
Read more
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The Beijing Olympics this summer were supposed to be China’s coming-out party, celebrating the end of nearly two centuries of weakness, poverty and humiliation.
Instead, China’s leaders are tarnishing their own Olympiad by abetting genocide in Darfur and in effect undermining the U.N. military deployment there. The result is a growing international campaign to brand these “The Genocide Olympics.”
This is not a boycott of the Olympics. But expect Darfur-related protests at Chinese Embassies, as well as banners and armbands among both athletes and spectators. There’s a growing recognition that perhaps the best way of averting hundreds of thousands more deaths in Sudan is to use the leverage of the Olympics to shame China into more responsible behavior.
The central problem is that in exchange for access to Sudanese oil, Beijing is financing, diplomatically protecting and supplying the arms for the first genocide of the 21st century. China is the largest arms supplier to Sudan, officially selling $83 million in weapons, aircraft and spare parts to Sudan in 2005, according to Amnesty International USA. That is the latest year for which figures are available.
China provided Sudan with A-5 Fantan bomber aircraft, helicopter gunships, K-8 military training/attack aircraft and light weapons used in Sudan’s proxy invasion of Chad last year. China also uses the threat of its veto on the Security Council to block U.N. action against Sudan so that there is a growing risk of a catastrophic humiliation for the U.N. itself.
Sudan feels confident enough with Chinese backing that on Jan. 7, the Sudanese military ambushed a clearly marked U.N. convoy of peacekeepers in Darfur. Sudan claimed the attack was a mistake, but diplomats and U.N. professionals are confident that this was a deliberate attack ordered by the Sudanese leaders to put the U.N. in its place.
Sudan has already barred units from Sweden, Norway, Nepal, Thailand and other countries from joining the U.N. force. It has banned night flights, dithered on a status-of-forces agreement, held up communications equipment and refused to allow the U.N. to bring in foreign helicopters. The growing fear is that the U.N. force will be humiliated in Sudan as it was in Rwanda and Bosnia, causing enormous damage to international peacekeeping.
Another possible sign of Sudan’s confidence: an American diplomat, John Granville, was ambushed and murdered in Khartoum early this month. Many in the diplomatic and intelligence community believe that such an assassination could not happen in Khartoum unless elements of the government were involved.
Chinese officials argue that they are engaging in quiet diplomacy with Sudan’s leaders and that this is the best way to seek a solution in Darfur. They note that Sudan has other backers, and that China’s influence is limited.
It is true that since the start of the “Genocide Olympics” campaign (www.dreamfordarfur.org) a year ago, China has been more helpful, and it’s only because of Chinese pressure on Khartoum that U.N. peacekeepers were admitted to Darfur at all. But the basic reality is that China continues to side with Sudan — it backed Sudan again after it ambushed the U.N. peacekeepers — and Sudan feels protected enough that it goes on thumbing its nose at the international community.
Just a few days ago, Sudan appointed Musa Hilal, a founding leader of the Arab militia known as the janjaweed, to a position in the central government. This is the man who was once quoted as having expressed gratitude for “the necessary weapons and ammunition to exterminate the African tribes in Darfur.”
Other countries also must do much more, but China is crucial. If Beijing were to suspend all transfers of arms and spare parts to Sudan until a peace deal is reached in Darfur, then that would change the dynamic. President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan would be terrified — especially since he is now preparing to resume war with South Sudan — and would realize that China is no longer willing to let its Olympics be stained by Darfuri blood.
Without his Chinese shield, Mr. Bashir would be more likely to make concessions to Darfur rebels and negotiate seriously with them, and he would no longer have political cover to resume war against South Sudan. That would make long-term peace more likely in Darfur and also in South Sudan.
I’m a great fan of China’s achievements, and I’ve often defended Beijing from unfair protectionist rhetoric spouted by American politicians. But those of us who admire China’s accomplishments find it difficult to give credit when Beijing simultaneously underwrites the ultimate crime of genocide.
China deserves an international celebration to mark its historic re-emergence as a major power. But so long as China insists on providing arms to sustain a slaughter based on tribe and skin color, this will remain, sadly, The Genocide Olympics.
...
Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
