Mia Farrow, Sudan, China, & CSR

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,,, at 4/04/2007 02:32:00 AM
You are looking at a picture of two of the world's worst dictators according to Parade magazine. At #1 for a third year in a row is President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan (L). President Hu Jintao of China (R) comes in at #4. In attempting to secure energy supplies, China has cultivated ties with energy-rich countries viewed unfavorably by America such as Sudan, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Iran, and Myanmar. Acquisition of energy supplies is portrayed as a zero-sum game. To ensure its future energy supplies, China chooses to deal with countries that America says are complicit in human rights abuses. According to China, it practices a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries (in contrast to a certain North American country). However, many claim that China's activities provide funds that help prop up despotic regimes. Some like Amnesty International go so far as to say that Chinese arms sold to the Sudanese government have been used in its campaigns in southern Sudan and Darfur.

Meanwhile, celebrity activist Mia Farrow has been making the rounds in the US media lately on China's Sudan involvement. She has been a strong supporter of efforts to divest American investors of holdings in Chinese energy companies. In an LA Times article, she voices her support for a movement that wants Fidelity Investments to rid its holdings of Chinese energy firms:

So you can imagine my horror when I recently discovered that I had inadvertently been helping to finance the genocide in Darfur. My own pension money was in Fidelity Investments mutual funds. Fidelity has immense holdings in PetroChina Co. and Sinopec Corp., two oil companies that have poured billions of dollars into Khartoum's coffers.

From 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the oil revenue, according to Human Rights Watch, has been used by the government of Sudan to purchase assault helicopters, bombers, armoured vehicles and small arms, as well as to train and arm the janjaweed - the people and weapons responsible for murdering Halima's and Fatima's babies, along with more than 400,000 other people.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Farrow and her son call the 2008 Olympic Games that will be held in Beijing, China next year "the Genocide Olympics":

But there is now one thing that China may hold more dear than their unfettered access to Sudanese oil: their successful staging of the 2008 Summer Olympics. That desire may provide a lone point of leverage with a country that has otherwise been impervious to all criticism.

Whether that opportunity goes unexploited lies in the hands of the high-profile supporters of these Olympic Games. Corporate sponsors like Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, General Electric and McDonalds, and key collaborators like Mr. Spielberg, should be put on notice. For there is another slogan afoot, one that is fast becoming viral amongst advocacy groups; rather than "One World, One Dream," people are beginning to speak of the coming "Genocide Olympics."

Does Mr. Spielberg really want to go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl [Hitler's film propagandist] of the Beijing Games? Do the various television sponsors around the world want to share in that shame? Because they will. Unless, of course, all of them add their singularly well-positioned voices to the growing calls for Chinese action to end the slaughter in Darfur.

Tired of the accusations being leveled at it, China shot back with this recent response critical of attempts to link Darfur to the Games:

"We don't think it's appropriate to connect the Darfur issue with the Olympic Games in Beijing," [Foreign Ministry spokesman] Qin said in response to an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics over China's support of the Sudanese government.

"People who try to connect the Darfur issue with the Olympics in an attempt to win ballots or increase their reputation are totally wrong on that scheme," he said.

There are several issues at play here that I cannot hope to resolve but should be given attention nonetheless. First, the principle of non-interference is questionable as it does not take much imagination to figure out where Chinese arms sold to the Sudanese government may be used. Second, if even China scoffs at the human rights charges leveled against it, then how can it be persuaded to consider the issue when dealing with others? From China's stance, courting "rogue" regimes is just realpolitik in a zero-sum game of energy acquisition. Third, while targeting Fidelity Investments for its holdings in Chinese energy companies may prove to be a successful strategy, it is a stretch to suggest that those Westerns firms mentioned in the WSJ article are complicit to any extent. If anything else, this episode should be required reading for corporate social responsibility (CSR) classes in MBA programs the world over. Making a sound judgment is difficult as it involves issues such as cultural differences (Western versus Chinese notions of social responsibility), state sovereignty, the effectiveness of corporate boycotts, and the appropriateness of singling out firms for issues they are tangentially related with. Expect to hear more of this story in the future as the Games draw nearer.