Found this article ...
RED campaign accused of being ti(red)
Written by Ashley Walters, Ryerson Free Press (Ryerson University)
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Does shopping for charity really make sense in the big picture?
TORONTO (CUP) – A snapshot of Bono and Oprah, arms laden with red shopping bags, graces the main page of the Make Poverty History website, advertising its newest RED campaign.
RED, an offshoot of the famous U.K. campaign Make Poverty History, was pioneered by pop star Bono last year. It was created in an effort to get participating American companies to donate a fraction of their profits to his charity, The Global Fund, which works to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in the developing world.
The image of Bono and Oprah is one of frenetic excitement stemming from consumerism, where red shopping bags symbolize social consciousness.The U.K. campaign began to take shape in 2003 when Oxfam, a non-profit development agency, met with various aid and charity groups and agreed to launch a 2005 coalition against poverty. They called on world leaders to work towards eliminating global poverty by increasing aid to developing countries, endorsing fair trade and forgiving foreign debt.
Two years after its birth, the campaign is now a global project that has inspired national campaigns in Australia, Norway, Canada and the United States. The U.K. campaign has over 460 member organizations, as well as numerous politicians, celebrities and multinationals lobbying, in one fashion or another, for the cause.
Of course none of this is new – it is only repackaged. The principle of new and better aid to Africa has been around since the 1980s when a BBC documentary on the famine in northern Ethiopia plucked at the heart strings of Irish pop star Bob Geldolf, spurring him to mobilize other stars to produce the 1984 saccharine sweet single ‘Do They Know it’s Christmas,’ which raised 8 million pounds to feed Africa’s hungry.
The American ‘We are the World’ and Canadian ‘Tears are not Enough’ versions of the song soon followed.
In 1985, celebrity rock stars united in London and Philadelphia for the Live Aid concert, which, along with similar events (fashion and sport aid), raised over $140 million for humanitarian organizations to help the fight.
The Campaign to Make Poverty History, the American version of the U.K. organization, has drawn support from 2.5 million Americans in its effort to combat AIDS and extreme poverty in the developing world. The RED campaign has partnered with corporate heavyweights like American Express, the Gap, Converse, Motorola, Apple and Armani.
Armani is among the most generous, donating 40 percent of its sales of RED products to the charity, while American Express gives 1.25 percent and Apple gives approximately $10 US for every RED IPod Nano sold.
Sources have argued the U.K.’s RED campaign is a failure. It cost 50 million pounds to set up and only raised 9 million pounds for charity.
The website Buylesscrap.com pokes fun at the RED campaign, labelling it as “a ti(red) notion that shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering,” and suggests that consumers should focus on the real issues and donate money directly to charity organizations.
Is RED attempting to manufacture a brand of corporate consciousness? The Joinred.com manifesto refutes this notion by describing the campaign as “not a charity. It is simply a business model.” In the July 2007 issue of Vanity Fair, Bono describes the RED campaign as a “judo strategy [...] using the strength of your opponent to overthrow him,” as a way to explain why the corporate model could serve as a powerful tool for social change.
Contention exists regarding the U.K.-based campaign Make Poverty History. A Red Pepper magazine article, ‘Inside the Murky World of Make Poverty History,’ references a New Statesman exposé that points out some overlap between central Make Poverty History aid organizations and development agencies. For one, the central partner in Make Poverty History, Oxfam, has been accused of championing the Labour Party’s foreign trade agenda.
Justin Forsyth, the previous Oxfam campaign manager, left the organization to become Tony Blair’s special advisor on foreign development. Shriti Vadera, presently an Oxfam board member, previously held the position of director at the U.S. bank UBS Warburg and specialized in public-private partnerships, experience that could be interpreted as influencing Oxfam’s development policies. John Clarke left Oxfam to work at the World Bank in 1992 and was in charge of the bank’s co-optation strategy with civil society.
In 2000, Clarke met with Blair to discuss an “Africa partnership initiative” that spawned the New Partnership for Africa’s Development in 2001. A key player in Make Poverty History is Sarah Kline, a previous official for the World Bank who nurtures Oxfam’s relations with the IMF and World Bank.
With such a revolving door of employees and advisors between Oxfam and international financial institutions and government, one might begin to question whether Oxfam is merely helping to establish Africa as a free trade playground for the United Kingdom.
Oxfam’s first slip-up was chronicled in a 2005 exposé in The Sunday Telegraph that revealed Oxfam purchased the white plastic Make Poverty History bracelets, a product that contributes $1 of its profits to eliminating poverty, from Chinese sweatshops. Ethical audit reports from the Tat Shing Rubber Manufacturing Company in Shenzhen and Fuzhou Xing Chun Trade Company in Fujian province confirmed that the companies endorsed sweatshop conditions.
Oxfam responded by arguing that the factory committed to improving its working conditions through the adoption of a “corrective and protective action plan” before the bracelets were produced.
One of the central mandates of Make Poverty History, “trade justice not free trade,” has been criticized as a watered down version of its original ideal. New York Times editorialist Stephen Pollard argued that it completely misses the mark in terms of recognizing the value of free trade in strengthening the economies of developing countries. He said it is trade that keeps market economies alive and prevents countries from slipping into dire poverty. According to him, the only thing the tariffs (advocated by the campaign) protect is poverty, by discouraging international trade and eventually contributing to economic collapse.
Other critics argue the meaning behind “fair trade not free trade” focuses on lobbying international financial institutions to stop forcing developing countries to adopt neo-liberal policies as a contingent on development loans, which results in a devaluation of local currency, privatization of industry and overall national impotence, which is only increased through the country’s reliance on a sole industry of goods for foreign export.
Are poverty watchdog organizations becoming corporate lapdogs? Is the Make Poverty History campaign making activism history? You can reach your own conclusions when you make your next RED purchase at the Gap.