Welcome to my blog.

You do raise an interesting point.

All too often it is easy to talk about human rights or environmental abuses in other countries and then ignore them in our own backyards.

In relation to ‘anti terrorism’ measures, I can empathize with your sentiments about this. I can’t comment on the American situation specifically as I am not familiar with anti-terrorism legislation in the States.

Generally, I do accept that there is a need for the legal framework to enable federal agencies to do whatever they reasonably can to ensure the protection of their citizen. On some occasions, this may involve curtailing, to some extent, the civil rights of some who may be under suspicion.

However, governments must be careful to ensure that anti-terrorism legislation does not unnecessarily violate basic civil rights.

In some defence of Human Rights Watch, the organization making the call on sponsors in this case, they are active in promoting human rights in all countries, including America.

But I do feel that developed countries, including America, should first clean up their own backyards before criticizing other governments.

Cheers

Andrew

Thanks for your comment.

Wow! I didn’t realize that China was still holding prisoners from Tiananmen Square, that’s downright appalling! Few would doubt that China’s human rights record is poor and the government deserves full criticism over this.

I certainly agree that with greater power comes greater responsibility, and that Olympic sponsors, all whom have made public commitments about human rights, have some responsibility for promoting human rights in China.

But I still think the best way for Olympic Sponsors to do this is to ensure that their own operations in China are fully free of human rights abuses. Action on the ground has a powerful and direct effect upon the people involved.

Political action, on the other hand, does not have a direct impact and would probably be simply ignored by the Chinese government. In addition, political action would severely harm the business interests of the sponsors concerned, all whom have legal obligations to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Cheers, and thanks again for your comment.

Andrew

back in 1959, sociologist c. wright mills made the observation that “private pains are the manifestation of public issues.” later, this was expressed in feminist circles as “the personal is political and the political is personal.”

we are all interconnected, and the more connections we make (i.e. a large corporation), the more responsibility this brings. also, the more money is involved, the more politics is involved (that’s why corporations have lobby groups!)

in my view, then, EVERYTHING is political, we all have responsibility for each other, and the more connected and powerful we are, the more responsibility we have.

it follows for me that olympic sponsors have a strong responsibility to do something about human rights. remember, china is a country that mowed down peaceful protesters, and still holds more than 100 prisoners from the tiananmen square massacre.

how they carry out this responsibility – well, there is quite some leeway. there’s nothing wrong with being diplomatic about it.

i personally am very impressed with john kamm’s “third way” of going about corporate responsibility.

Congratulations on being my first reader!

You mentioned the 1936 Olympics. I think I read somewhere in my research for this topic that Coca-Cola had been an Olympic Sponsor for about eighty years. I am not certain, but I would say they must have sponsored the 1936 Olympics (I guess they can be forgiven after this time).

I would certainly say that companies should think long and hard about both ethical and financial issues prior to sponsoring the Olympics in a highly controversial country such as China. (However, once they have made the decision to sponsor the event, I think they should stay out of political issues)

In relation to the financial considerations, I think that companies would have been mad to have missed the sponsorship opportunity, notwithstanding the critism sponsorship has attracted from some quarters. The whole world will be watching the Olympics as they draw closer, and this will draw massive attention toward the brands of sponsors.

Not all of the attention will be positive, but I would think that the net overall effect of sponsorship will be very positive from a promotional standpoint.

Also, in the back of the minds of sponsors may have been their relationship with the Chinese government. China is the fastest growing market for some sponsors. If any of the regular Olympic sponsors had refused to sponsor this event, the Chinese government would probably have taken offense, and that may have had adverse consequences upon business prospects in China for the sponsor(s) in question.

Cheers

Andrew