A derisive slant, in conjunction with a cavalier attitude, seems
to be Alec Mouhibian’s method of choice in “Anti-Coke
protesters’ logic falls flat” (April 25).
Mouhibian informs us of Coke-Free Campus’ reasoning and
intent to ban Coca-Cola products from the UCLA campus without any
background investigation or even attending any of the meetings. He
even offers two counterarguments.
The second argument, stating that Coca-Cola has been acquitted
by two judicial inquiries of any responsibility for the murders of
their employees, actually has some merit. But Coca-Cola was not
acquitted; they were simply dismissed from the lawsuit.
Mouhibian, unable to understand the reasons behind the
“persecution,” heads to the first place people go for a
clear, well-versed argument: a protest rally. Not what I
would’ve chosen, but hey, to each his own.
At the protest, his sincere desire to comprehend the opposing
arguments shines through in his selective quoting and subsequent
unflattering portrayals of each speaker.
Mouhibian finally proceeds to what he should have looked to
first to determine answers: the actual meeting.
Unfortunately, it appears he arrived only in time to hear those
who spoke on behalf of Coca-Cola. Coincidently enough, they all
enforced the philanthropic image of Coca-Cola that Mouhibian has
proposed.
Judging from his depiction, Coca-Cola has ventured into
Colombia, a “war-ravaged country,” essentially for
altruistic purposes, which he identifies as “the
condition-enhancing incentives of the profit margin.”
I suppose it is that same philanthropic zeal that induced a
Coca-Cola bottling plant in Kerala, India, to pass toxic sludge as
“free fertilizer” to the townspeople, according to
CorpWatch.
The sludge was found to contain dangerously high levels of
cadmium ““ a carcinogen ““ and lead, which causes mental
derangement and both severe anemia and mental retardation in
children. Interestingly, the sludge was also found to have no value
as fertilizer.
The generosity of a multinational corporation in treating the
indigenous people of Kerala as a waste-treatment system is indeed
unparalleled.
The bounty of Coca-Cola doesn’t end there. Coca-Cola has
also started to poison the common groundwater source, according to
Indiaresource.org, a project of Global Resistance. Global
Resistance works to support grassroot struggles against
globalization.
According to the Web site, poison-warning signs now hang around
hand pumps, wells and communal water sources throughout India. This
sudden poisoning of the groundwater source has been traced back to
ineffective waste-treatment systems in Coca-Cola bottling
plants.
The high court in Rajasthan, India, ruled that all soft drinks
in the state must cite their pesticide percent level on the label
as of November 2004, along with nutrition facts.
This is surprising, coming from the philanthropic Coca-Cola
corporation portrayed by Mouhibian.
As for claims from Coke’s supporters that the company
provides jobs ““ sharecropping and migrant farming are also
jobs. Factory assembly lines also provide jobs. Just because these
technically provide some form of labor doesn’t mean there
isn’t room for improvement.
UCLA must be invested in the products of a corporation that
provides adequate workers with rights and valid unionization.
A parched man will be happy with a sip of water, but it
doesn’t mean that’s all he is entitled to. Whether or
not he gets more depends on how much pressure is put on the
provider.
Perhaps Coke-Free Campus doesn’t sit on a high horse.
Rather, Mouhibian, dragged to the ground by his injudicious
insights and lack of thorough research, just has to look up too
high to see the campaign.
I would, at the very least, base my opinions and interpretation
on something more substantial than a single protest rally,
especially when the actual debate is taking place within.
Sharmeen is a first-year biology student.