International Law

Making Fun of Activists

By Stan

This is a slightly old story by now, but it gave me a giggle, so it’s worth running with it. I really don’t like self-important activists, particularly actors/singers who get involved in geopolitical issues. They almost always simplify things, have gigantic egos, and do not have either the education or training to really know how to make progress. In the case of Mia Farrow, my blunt reaction is why would anyone listen to her pontificate about anything? Anyway, enjoy reading about the corporate smackdown, as I did:

After taking criticism from activist groups over the last few months, some Olympic sponsors are starting to criticize right back.

On Thursday [last week], Mia Farrow’s activist group, Dream for Darfur, issued a report card that roundly criticized most of the major Olympic sponsors.

For months, the group has been asking the sponsors to comply with requests both tame (meet with Farrow) and more involved (contact the United Nations and the International Olympic Committee regarding Darfur).

The group is calling for pressure because the Sudanese government buys its weapons from China with the foreign currency it makes from selling China its oil. China, meanwhile, protects Sudan from excessive attention in the UN Security Council.

Even after 9 of the 19 sponsors it had singled out agreed to meet with Farrow, the group said it had seen little progress from the corporations.

In the report card, it gave 16 of 19 sponsors a D or an F. The highest marks were earned by Adidas, McDonald’s and Eastman Kodak. The group was "really not pleased with the progress," said Dream for Darfur’s executive director, Jill Savitt.

In response, some sponsors began criticizing the group’s approach.

"For an organization that has not eased the suffering of a single individual on the ground in Darfur to criticize those who are helping thousands every day is more than ironic," a Coca-Cola spokesman, Kelly Brooks, wrote via e-mail. "This is not a report card on sponsors’ good works, this is simply a report card judging companies solely on the basis of the Dream for Darfur yardstick - a company’s willingness to publicly pressure a sovereign nation to intervene in the activities of another country."

Coca-Cola’s chief executive, E. Neville Isdell, wrote a column published last week in The Financial Times with similarly harsh words.

Johnson & Johnson also issued a sharp response to the report card.

"At Johnson & Johnson, we’ve worked hard for years to help the people of Darfur, which is consistent with the commitment of Johnson & Johnson to contribute to better health around the world. Given the complexities of the tragedy in Darfur, we are disappointed that Dream for Darfur has used such a narrow context by which to evaluate the company’s response," a spokeswoman, Lorie Gawreluk, wrote via e-mail.

General Electric joined in. "We commend Dream for Darfur for raising awareness of this tragic situation, however we strongly disagree with the organization’s approach as well as the use of the Olympic Games as a political platform and the assertions made in the report card," Deirdre Latour, a GE spokeswoman, wrote via e-mail.

Full post as published by China Hearsay on May 07, 2008 (boomark / email).