Here is an interesting article on China, Darfur and the 2008 Olympics by Bart Mongoven from Stratfor Intelligence Group:
Fidelity Investments has sold off more than 90 percent of its holdings in Chinese state-owned oil giant PetroChina, Fidelity announced May 16. Although the company declined to explain the sale, it almost certainly is related to pressure from human rights and religious activists.
Activists argue that, as the primary oil field operator in Sudan, PetroChina is propping up the Khartoum regime responsible for the genocide in Darfur, so putting pressure on PetroChina is viewed as a way to pressure the Sudanese government indirectly. Fidelity’s move marks an important strategic turning point in the battle between human rights groups and China over the Darfur region, and sets the stage for a far more powerful strategic thrust that will emerge during the summer — one in which Darfur activists move from a financial divestment campaign to one focused on the 2008 Olympic Games.
Activists have long sought effective pressure points on China, and the Olympics look to be the answer. More specifically, activists are eyeing the list of Western corporate sponsors that are investing tens of millions of dollars in the Olympics and in companion marketing campaigns designed to run before and during the Olympics.
Olympic sponsorship in 2008 means more than in most past years. For Beijing, giants such as Kodak, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and General Electric are not simply the means to put on a good show; they are integral to its efforts to radically change international perceptions of China and establish its new place in the world. Beijing can control most of the variables that come its way — the protesters, media investigations into corruption and other potential public relations problems that usually come with hosting the Olympics. And, with the sites chosen and no backup available, it can largely ignore the International Olympic Committee. What Beijing cannot control, however, are the decisions of the games’ sponsors and the pressures placed upon these companies in the West.
Through the Olympic sponsors, activists have determined that the year leading up to the Olympics offers a unique opportunity to use market mechanisms to change Beijing’s policies. The first Western movement to begin to capitalize on this vulnerability is the Save Darfur Coalition, which turned Sudan into a pariah state with which no Western company will do business, only to have its efforts undermined by Chinese state-owned enterprises. Many other issues could have taken this mantle, but it appears that Darfur-focused activists have taken the lead on exploiting Olympics-related vulnerabilities — and will manage the most effective Western campaign to change China’s policies.
The coming year will determine whether activists can actually make Beijing blink. Moreover, it will determine how groups active on issues other than Darfur deal with the likelihood that the more focused Darfur coalition will overshadow their use of this golden opportunity.
Olympic Sponsorship
The decision to become an Olympic sponsor is a strategic one for companies. The price of sponsorship is steep — estimated at roughly $55 million — but that pales in comparison to the broader investment these companies make. The largest and most familiar sponsors have attached their most valuable asset, their brands, to the games, and have built long-term marketing plans in which the Olympics play an integral part.
With so much invested, Olympic sponsorship has always brought tension. The 2004 Athens games, which were twice threatened with a move to an alternate city due to poor organization, created stress among investors. Sponsors now have established offices in future Olympic cities, where they work as closely as possible with municipal authorities to ensure that the logistics and setup are on track.
In the years since 2001, when the 2008 games were awarded to Beijing, the games have carried an added political dimension for sponsors. Beijing recruited sponsors not just as sources of money, but as partners, and for large multinational corporations trying to learn how to operate in China, the opportunity to work with Beijing was tempting. Those who signed on as sponsors see the success of these games not only as an opportunity to build their market share in the West, but also as a way to increase their presence in China. Beijing also subtly offered improved market access and other preferential treatment to companies that threw in behind the 2008 games.
Beijing, in order to assert itself on the international stage, has spent billions of dollars preparing for the games. It brought in the best stadium architects to build venues and hired Stephen Spielberg to choreograph the opening and closing ceremonies. In addition, the Chinese have razed entire neighborhoods to ease transportation and shuttered industries to clean Beijing’s air. If it can be bought, Beijing is buying.
The support and presence of high-profile Western companies provided one thing that Beijing could not buy: legitimacy. The thinking is that the participation of major corporate icons will give a degree of continuity with previous Olympics, and that by extension China will be seen as a modern country rather than a developing one or, more negatively, as the killer of Tiananmen Square, the violator of human rights and the repressor of basic freedoms. Activists who succeed in portraying corporate sponsors of Beijing’s Olympics as supporters of China’s behavior would undermine not only the companies’ marketing efforts, but also Beijing’s plan to use the games as a coming-out party
Darfur
The human rights controversy surrounding the civil war in Darfur has been growing since 1998. Khartoum’s operations in Darfur mostly target Christians, and the issue surfaced from the concerns of evangelical Christian organizations active in Africa. By 1999, Darfur had emerged as a mainstream human rights concern, and organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch joined religious groups in calling for the United States and other Western governments to impose sanctions on the regime in Sudan.
Sudan essentially was a pariah state by the late 1990s, so it was obvious even at the beginning of the movement that diplomatic pressure on Sudan would be of limited value. Instead, recognizing the country’s dependence on its southern oil production — and on the companies that turn the resource into revenues for the regime — activists focused on the corporations. With the flight of most Western companies in the first half of this decade, Khartoum, rather than lose its oil revenue, turned to China. Thus, through PetroChina the Asian giant has managed Sudan’s oil operations and kept the money flowing into Khartoum.
Beyond the funding aspect, however, PetroChina’s entry into Sudan has stood as a major symbol for Western human rights activists, who have come to view state-owned oil and resources companies as the most significant barrier to their ability to use market campaign pressure to change policies in developing countries.
In response to the globalization of corporations’ operations and the rise of the World Trade Organization, human rights groups have come to rely increasingly on codes of conduct and other marketplace initiatives, such as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, to hold corporations accountable for their activities in developing countries. Western companies in particular are sensitive to allegations that they are complicit in human rights violations. State-owned enterprises abroad, on the other hand, are insulated from these pressures, and have begun to thrive in those places that Western companies dare not operate.
In human rights discussions, this is termed the ” parastatal problem.” It is the chief unsolvable barrier to successful efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to use corporations as instruments of change in developing countries.
Genocide Olympics
Bumping up against the parastatal problem, the Save Darfur Coalition has begun to build toward using Olympic sponsors as leverage against Beijing. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article published in late March, actor and activist Mia Farrow and her husband called for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. The threat will fall on deaf ears, as the vogue of boycotting Olympics — started by U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and re-tried in 1984 by the Soviets — had no diplomatic effect and only made the boycotters’ citizens angry.
The Farrow op-ed, however, contained a more serious threat: As long as China’s state-owned enterprises remain in Sudan, the coalition aims to attack Olympic sponsors directly and rebrand the 2008 games as the “Genocide Olympics” (a term first used by Amnesty International to describe China’s internal human rights record and the human rights implications of its foreign policy). More sensationally, the coalition threatened to name Stephen Spielberg the “Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing games,” a reference to the German filmmaker whose documentary of the 1936 Berlin games glorified the Nazi regime in the broader context of the Olympics. Spielberg now publicly calls for China to change its policy toward Sudan.
The threat to boycott is idle talk, but the threat to change the perception of the games is not. The Save Darfur Coalition includes many of the most talented corporate campaign groups in the world, and the realistic opportunity to change the situation in Darfur is attractive to Western activists of almost all stripes. In addition, the public has a high level of awareness of Darfur as a controversial issue, and most U.S. consumers recognize that China has a controversial human rights record. Sponsors are likely to be sensitive to allegations that they are supporting a “Genocide Olympics” and will take their complaints to Beijing. Given these factors, then, the campaign has an excellent chance of attaining at least some degree of success.
That said, defining “success” is a difficult task. China cannot simply stop the genocide in Darfur with a wave, and it must make a move that simultaneously satisfies its critics, has a chance of changing what is happening on the ground in Darfur and results in China’s continued presence in Sudan. (Sudan supplies more than 5 percent of China’s oil.) One problem is that China remains one of the last countries with any leverage against Sudan, so it is valuable to activists and governments alike as a point of communication with Khartoum. If pushed too hard, Khartoum could simply open to another state-owned company immune to Western public condemnation, kicking China out. Ultimately, China has few options. It could agree to try to convince Sudan to allow more U.N. and Africa Union peacekeepers into Darfur, but that would end the campaign only if the Save Darfur Coalition agreed that such a deal was sufficient.
In focusing the “Genocide Olympics” campaign squarely on Darfur, however, human rights groups are using a one-time opportunity to achieve a relatively modest goal — and are passing up a unique moment to effect major change in China.
Falun Gong is another group that appears to recognize the unique opportunity the Olympics offer. This summer, Falun Gong is planning a wave of protests and actions that will bring world attention directly to China’s human rights record. Other organizations — labor, environmental, religious — also could try to swoop in and use the Olympic moment.
China might be able to manage activist campaigns effectively and relatively peacefully. However, should pressure on internal fronts — from Falun Gong or other human rights, democracy or free-expression activists — get too high for Beijing to handle temperately, it could consider using Darfur as a public relations safety valve. Giving in and basically agreeing to work with NGOs on Darfur would satisfy critics by addressing what is for Beijing a third-tier issue.
Interesting post Asa — I did not know the situation was so complex! I agree with you that a label like “Genocide Olypics” will make sponsors nervous. They know that the public responds well to controversial language and labels — would they truly want to jeopardise their sales? We will just have to wait and see. I cannot understand why China just does not co-operate anyway. If they want to do it for selfish reasons, their image would glisten if they just worked along with people. Yet political selfishness is nothing new and like you rightly noted, howChina is one of the only countries with leverage against Sudan, it will not jeopardise this relationship in regards to the plans it has for Africa in general..
Here is an extremely interesting article that I found about the Ogden people of Ethiopia.
I first heard of them bombing a Chinese factory and kidnapping a few Chinese workers, apparently in attempt to prevent the exploitation of their land by the Ethiopian government in a manner that would not benefit them.
Anyway, here is a link to the article:
http://www.mathaba.net/0index.shtml?x=554569&all_ids=1
It shows the doublespeak employed by the West for their own interests. This story exposes horrible oppression of the Ogden people by the Ethiopian government, a staunch ally of the US in the “fight against terrorism”. In my opinion Ethiopia’s Menes Zelawi is a puppet of the US government; after the Islamic groups wrested control from the corrupt war lords and restored order to the cities, Zelawi ordered the invasion of Somalia (with the help of US air support).
This presents yet another reason to not support the “Save Darfur” campaign, it should be obvious that the West has no real interest in saving the people of Darfur. The West (US/Europe) will say nothing when their African allies, like Ethiopia, commit atrocities. Quite often they are more horrible than in the countries, Sudan and Rhodesia, that they attempt to condemn. We hear nothing about the atrocities of the “Lord’s Resistance Army” in Uganda, for example, which killed indescriminately and kidnapped young children and forced them to serve in their army.
Again, I say, let us not be swayed by these lies about Sudan “genocide’ being spewed forth by the media until we can corroborate the facts for ourselves where the ‘real’ truth lies in Sudan. I will try to gather more sources on the web and possibly contact a Pan-African organization to get more feedback on this issue. Sudan must remain free of Western invasion disguised as humanitarian intervention.
I’m not stating that Al Bashir and Mugabe don’t have issues but an African solution must be sought for Africa’s problems. Believe me, history will show that they have never truly cared about the state of Africa. China and Indian have done much more to encourage infra-structure development in Africa in recent years that America or Europe. The “Save Darfur” campaign is one huge farce, and we should not be a part of it. We should seek an alternative forum in which to voice our concerns about events in Darfur to the government in Sudan.
To allow this “Save Darfur” campaign to locate UN troops on Sudan soil and to allow them launch their media campaign of disinformation will only lead to the destabilization and exploitation of Sudan for the profit of Western corporations.
Sudan, has a glorious and ancient history, the Nubians of Sudan created a more ancient culture than Egypt and are now thought to directly influence the development of Egypt. The Nubians also have the oldest known monarchy. The reason why they won’t show the picture of Al Bashir on television is because Western historians have attempted to paint a picture of White Arabic Northern Sudan (who created all of the important civizilations) and a barbaric, pagan black African population in the South who were separated from them by the Sahara desert. It is an established fact that the ancient Nubians were an African people. (The Arabs of Sudan are also black Africans). For various reasons, this myth has been disproved, but is still pertuated in popular media outlets.
This historical myth was created in order to again disassociate African people from their history, which, is of course the oldest in the world. Believe me, you won’t hear much about ancient civilizations in Sudan like the Nubian, Meroe and Kush in the media. And if you, do they will try to accord our historical achievements to another non-African peoples. By depriving us of the historical achievements of our ancestors we can never truly reach our full potential as individuals or as a people. The questions we should ask ourselves is: Why are they working so hard to remove us from history and what are we doing about it?
Maybe the ‘Field’ should look into the lack of historical knowledge that we as a people possess when he discusses the phenomenon of black on black violence. Lack of control over our own images and stories would be another issue he could look into.
INTERESTING HISTORICAL FACT:
Sudan is referred to as Ethiopia in modern versions of the bible, not to be confused with present day Ethiopia which, in English, was historically known as Abyssinia.
This historical myth was created in order to again disassociate African people from their history, which, is of course the oldest in the world. All I can say is: We need our history if we are to evolve and “emancipate ourselves from mental slavery” as Bob Marley beautifully sang it. peace…..
so long
tutaonana
An interesting debate on Darfur and China and Darfur.
http://www.jikomboe.com/
I spotted many false claims in this post but I have finals now so I’m not going to reply but I will post my reply this weekend.
I just wanted to comment on the historical fact part.
Sudan is a very recent term. Sudan was called Nubia then Ethiopia. In the 19th century, the Arabs called it Sudan meaning, Land of the Blacks.
Some sudanese think that we should change our country’s name because it is racist or offensive.
What do you think?
keep in mind: Ethiopia means Burnt Faces (I think it’s a greek term).
Kizzie
More from Pianki:
In my efforts to discover more of the reality of Sudan rather than be spoon fed corporate propaganda, I’ve dug up a couple of articles from alternative news sources. Here are the links:
http://www.counterbias.com/883.html
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=240
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/186571E4-8AAC-4FB2-925B-EDCBA9645092.htm
Here are more compelling reasons for not being pawns in the “Save Darfur” campaign. I firmly believe that the Afro-Spear and AfroSphere should come to a decision on this issue and act accordingly. This campaign has nothing to do with helping the people in Darfur, and everything to do with destablizing the Sudanese government in order to prevent China from stopping its dependence on US sources of oil. In fact, it was felt that this was one of the reasons for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan: China’s agreement to build a proposed Central-Asian pipeline, guaranteeing it an external source of oil. Cheated of Afghanistan and Iraq, with another proposed partner Iran coming under the gun, China will be very reluctant to permit too much interference in the affairs of Sudan. And anyway, it seems the ‘genocide’ is false, simplified version of what is going on. The US has supplied arms to one the rebel groups, the SPLA who have committed atrocities against innocent civilians. China has supplied arms to the Sudan army who have also attacked innocent civilians in their attempt to stamp out the rebel movement which wants to separate from Sudan.
Sudanese Janjaweed have committed attacks across the border in Chad, soldiers from Chad have crossed the border to attack targets in the Sudan, both countries have accused each other of arming each other’s rebel groups….. So you can see, it’s not as simple as the Western portrays it, but the solution must come from Africans and from the African Diaspora and definitely not from Britain and White Coporate America.
I hope we can have some discussion on this extremely important political solution in order to get to the truth and then to do something about it. Again, I can only hope that we can reach an agreement on what the reality of the Sudan really is and to divest ourselves of the groups who are not working in Sudan’s interest.
thank you
asante
Asabagana,
the articles are very interesting. I was researching more articles and I found very interesting ones
here you go…
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=607
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2592
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5714
Sara Flounders’s article (the 2nd one) is very important and interesting.
Keep in mind: Flounder travelled to the sudan after the bombing of el shifa plant in the 1990′s when sudan was accused of having weapons of mass destruction n the CIA looked for them just like the UN did in Iraq and when they didn’t find them, they decided to bomb the country to be sure.
“China has supplied arms to the Sudan army who have also attacked innocent civilians in their attempt to stamp out the rebel movement which wants to separate from Sudan.”
Business is business…the US supplied the SPLM with arms and directly and indirectly funded the north/south war.
The US is providing military aid to the Chadian president who is directly funding the Darfurian rebels so they are indirectly funding the war, how come noone pointed this out??
“So you can see, it’s not as simple as the Western portrays it, but the solution must come from Africans and from the African Diaspora and definitely not from Britain and White Coporate America.” Yes, I believe so. Pulling out the US troops out of Iraq and taking them to Darfur or bringing in UN troops is not really going to solve the conflict, it might secure the place but not solve the problem.
I just wanted to add something..
The author made a huge mistake and such a mistake reveals that he doesn’t know much about Sudan or Darfur!
He made the same mistakes other authors and journalists made when they covered south sudan.
‘Khartoum’s operations in Darfur mostly target Christians,”"
Christians in Darfur? I hope he is joking because Darfur is almost 100% Muslim if not 100% Muslim. When the North/South was covered in the Western media they kept repeating that South Sudan is mostly Christians to make it look like a Muslim/Christian conflict. Not all Southern Sudanese are Christians in fact most Southern Sudanese are Animists. Moreover, there are other Christians from other parts of sudan and there are Christian Sudanese who are actually European ( Sudan had a significant white population before the Sharia law was imposed).
“”By 1999, Darfur had emerged as a mainstream human rights concern” ” This is false information.
Instead, recognizing the country’s dependence on its southern oil production ” Sudan started exporting oil in the late 1990′s ( 1999 to be exact). However, the country’s dependence is on agriculture not oil.