• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Coke and Colombia.

The two go together like fashion and France, sex-tourism and southeast Asia, or democracy and Iraq.

So I was surprised when I found out the most recent scandal from the land of FARC and Pablo Escobar involved the Coke of the drinking variety.

A Colombian labor union sued the Coca-Cola Company, accusing them of working with paramilitary forces in the murders of eight union organizers and harassment of other unionists over the last decade at the company’s factories in Colombia.

But the local campaign by Coke-Free Campus to boot the corporation from UCLA has lately taken more blows to the knees than Nancy Kerrigan.

The union’s case was thrown out of a Miami federal court on Oct. 3, after judge Jose Martinez declared the accusations too “vague,” adding that the case was an example of “unwarranted international fishing expeditions against corporate entities ... to pursue political agendas.”

While the situation in Colombia is tragic, the campaign against Coke has failed to provide evidence that Coca-Cola was directly responsible.

Coke-Free Campus has missed the point completely: Colombia is dangerous for unionists, period.

In the last 20 years, over 4,000 unionists have been murdered in Colombia, according to the Miami Herald.

These transgressions are symptoms of a country that’s been in civil war for decades. It’s where harassment of unionists has become a national institution, much like soccer, drug running and 5-foot-2-inch singers with honest hips.

If the Associated Students UCLA were to boot Coca-Cola drinks, a proposal they are currently considering, it would be necessary to replace them with Pepsi products. Campaigners claim that Pepsi is the lesser of two evils, but how much better is Pepsi’s human rights record?

From 1991 to 1997, PepsiCo did extensive business with the government of Burma, one of the most oppressive military juntas in the world.

Despite pulling out four months before the U.S. implemented sanctions on the country, PepsiCo maintains that there was nothing wrong with their economic participation with the junta.

By supporting Pepsi, one also supports every government with which it works, and while dealings with the Burmese government have come to an end, buying Pepsi today still means indirect support of governments such as those of Sudan, Syria and Iran.

The legal claim against Coke was brought to the U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows for transgressions that occur outside the U.S. to be tried in American courts.

The act was used recently to prosecute Unocal, now a Chevron subsidiary, for contracting Burma’s military to help protect an oil pipeline being built there, despite the soldiers’ reported use of torture, rape and forced labor. The case was settled out of court in 2005.

Issues outlined in the claims against Coke are symptoms of a wider problem with outdated labor legislation in a newly globalized world – ATCA is the only tool the courts have to keep U.S. companies abroad accountable to our human rights standards.

A campaign for better international labor legislation would make for a more effective, albeit less sexy, action than the one to boycott Coke.

If a Coke boycott is the bikini-clad Heidi Klum of campaigns, legislative reform is Dick Cheney in a tube top.

Our country has decided over the last two centuries that our workers should have basic labor rights, such as a limited workweek, guaranteed overtime pay and a minimum wage.

It is high time that we apply basic labor rights to U.S. companies doing business abroad.

Wages in West Africa don’t need to be $5.15 per hour, but we can require our companies to stay above the minimum cost-of-living level in Laos.

And the 40-hour workweek isn’t necessary in Nicaragua, but surely we can agree that something like 16 hours a day is unacceptable, even in Uruguay.

The real costs, as they would be passed on to consumers, would be negligible and the benefits would ensure that the basic human rights we’ve recognized as vital within the U.S. will be upheld by our corporations abroad.

To avoid such legislation, U.S. companies would need to move their entire operations abroad. The likelihood of CEO’s actually picking up and moving themselves and their families to Mexico to save a couple bucks is about a snowball’s chance in Juarez.

Making an example of Coke is wrong; human and labor rights are a concern with all international corporations, and real solutions will come from institutional change.

I encourage every student contemplating the Coke boycott to take the Pepsi challenge.

I bet you’ll find Pepsi’s human rights record, like its refreshing taste, is rather similar.

Is Colombian Coke a bigger deal than college-age-Bush coke? E-mail Levine at jlevine@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.