Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Coca-Cola. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coca-Cola. Show all posts

Wednesday, 4 November 2015

‘SWAZI KING WANTS 10pc OF COCA-COLA’

Coca-Cola, the global firm that accounts for about 40 percent of Swaziland’s economy, has threatened to leave the kingdom because King Mswati III has demanded it give him a 10 percent stake in its Swazi subsidiary for nothing, a prodemocracy group reported on Wednesday (4 November 2015).
 
The Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) said in a statement, ‘Reliable sources within the kingdom have informed our network that the company flatly refused to yield to Mswati’s demand and would rather leave.’

It added, ‘If he does not back down from this demand Coca-Cola will be forced to relocate its operations to another country, a move that will be catastrophic for economy of the tiny impoverished kingdom and will lead to the loss of many jobs.’

It added this would worsen ‘an already desperate situation for Swazi workers’ as many of them became unemployed when the kingdom lost beneficial trading rights with the United States under the Africa Growth Opportunities Act (AGOA). This was because King Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, refused to allow democratic reforms in Swaziland.

Swaziland supplies the Coca-Cola concentrate (the sugary syrup the drink is made from) to most of Africa, big parts of Asia and all of Australia and New Zealand from its industrial plant in Matsapha.

Swaziland has been mortgaged to Coca-Cola (trading as Conco Swaziland) ever since it allowed the company to use it in its fight against workers’ interests in other countries. In 2009, Coca-Cola closed its concentrate supply plant in Nigeria, citing an ‘unfriendly manufacturing environment’ in that country. It had made ‘little profits because of the high manufacturing costs’. 

Coca-Cola also has an impact on the international standing of Swaziland’s economy. The money generated by Coca-Cola is what largely accounts for the kingdom being classified as a ‘lower-middle income developing country’ (and therefore not eligible for certain types of international aid), even though seven in ten of Swaziland’s one-million population live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 a day.

Peter Kenworthy, of Africa Contact, writing in 2011, said, ‘The real point, though, is that Coca-Cola is probably in Swaziland because it is a dictatorship that oppresses its unions and population. This allows wages to be kept low and unemployment high.’

Kenworthy visited one of the sugar cane fields in Eastern Swaziland, which produces sugar for Coca-Cola.

He wrote, ‘The area that I visited, Vuvulane, is managed by the Vuvulane Irrigated Farms (VIF) but the sugar cane fields are under the auspices of the Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise and the Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation who lease them to individual farmers, who in turn employ casual labourers.

‘In a small village in Vuvulane, most of the adults worked in the sugar fields as casual labourers for between 400 and 550 Rand (US$40-55) per month. “This is not enough to pay for medicine, proper food or school fees for our children,” one villager told me. “Sometimes we do not eat for days. We used to have our own vegetable gardens but these were confiscated by the sugar company. We sometimes fish in the nearby dam in the evening, when it is dark. If we are caught we will be arrested as the dam is owned by the sugar cane company,” another villager said.

‘Practically none of the children in the village, who were clad in dirty and ripped clothes and looked underfed, attended school and many of the villagers, receive food aid. In addition to this, the water supply is controlled by a privately owned company that readily closes the water supply form the village if they are not paid on time.’

In 2012, the prodemocracy group the Swaziland Democracy Campaign called on Coca-Cola to leave Swaziland immediately.

 
See also

SWAZILAND, SPONSORED BY COCA-COLA
COCA-COLA SUPPORTS SWAZI DICTATOR

Monday, 2 December 2013

COCA-COLA ABANDONS SWAZI WORKERS

Coca-Cola has denied that it intends to take any lead in protecting the rights of workers in Swaziland from land-grabbing.

This follows global reports that the international drinks company had promised to stop all business dealings with subsidiaries that were involved in land grabs, where land is taken from poor people in developing countries without their consent.

Coca-Cola, under its Swazi subsidiary Conco, produces drinks concentrate using sugar. It makes up as much as 40 percent of the Swaziland’s gross domestic product (GDP), but it is said to be exempt from paying full taxes.

In Swaziland, King Mswati III, who rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, controls all publically-owned land, and his chiefs do his bidding in ejecting people from the land they live on and cultivate if they disobey him or them in any way.

Manqoba Khumalo, General Manager of Conco Limited (trading as Coca-Cola Swaziland), told the Sunday Observer, a newspaper in Swaziland in effect owned by King Mswati, that Coca-Cola was taking a leadership role across the world in protecting land rights of farmers and communities, but this did not apply to Swaziland.

Khumalo told the newspaper that Coca-Cola was targeting ‘top’ markets and Swaziland has not been taken into consideration. ‘Our plan to address the land rights issue starts with the assessment of our top markets and outlines concrete actions in support of sustainable agricultural practices around the world.’

Khumalo also denied that Coca-Cola influenced King Mswati and the way he ruled his kingdom.

Asked by the Observer, ‘Does royalty benefit in any way from Coca-Cola’s operations in Swaziland?’ he responded, ‘No’.

He added, ‘Coca-Cola has not provided any personal gifts to either the King or his family beyond customary gifts presented at local ceremonies.’

Coca-Cola’s role in Swaziland has been under scrutiny for many years. Swaziland has been indebted to Coca-Cola ever since it allowed the company to use it in its fight against workers’ interests in other countries. In 2009, Coca-Cola closed its concentrate supply plant in Nigeria, citing an ‘unfriendly manufacturing environment’ in that country.

Coca-Cola also has an impact on the international standing of Swaziland’s economy. The money generated by Coca-Cola is what largely accounts for the kingdom being classified as a ‘lower-middle income developing country’ (and therefore not eligible for certain types of international aid), even though seven in ten of Swaziland’s one-million population live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 a day.

Peter Kenworthy, of Africa Contact, writing in 2011, said, ‘The real point, though, is that Coca-Cola is probably in Swaziland because it is a dictatorship that oppresses its unions and population. This allows wages to be kept low and unemployment high.’

Kenworthy visited one of the sugar cane fields in Eastern Swaziland, which produces sugar for Coca-Cola.

He wrote, ‘The area that I visited, Vuvulane, is managed by the Vuvulane Irrigated Farms (VIF) but the sugar cane fields are under the auspices of the Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise and the Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation who lease them to individual farmers, who in turn employ casual labourers.

‘In a small village in Vuvulane, most of the adults worked in the sugar fields as casual labourers for between 400 and 550 Rand (US$40-55) per month. “This is not enough to pay for medicine, proper food or school fees for our children,” one villager told me. “Sometimes we do not eat for days. We used to have our own vegetable gardens but these were confiscated by the sugar company. We sometimes fish in the nearby dam in the evening, when it is dark. If we are caught we will be arrested as the dam is owned by the sugar cane company,” another villager said.

‘Practically none of the children in the village, who were clad in dirty and ripped clothes and looked underfed, attended school and many of the villagers, receive food aid. In addition to this, the water supply is controlled by a privately owned company that readily closes the water supply form the village if they are not paid on time.’

In 2012, the prodemocracy group the Swaziland Democracy Campaign called on Coca-Cola to leave Swaziland immediately.

 
See also

SWAZILAND, SPONSORED BY COCA-COLA

Friday, 15 November 2013

COCA-COLA TO ‘PROTECT LAND RIGHTS’

Coca-Cola promises to protect land rights of farmers, also in Swaziland
Kenworthy News Media, November 15, 2013
 
“The Coca-Cola Company commits to zero tolerance for land grabbing,” Coca-Cola said in a statement last week, the company promising to stop all business dealings with subsidiaries that are involved in land grabs, where land is taken from poor people in developing countries without their consent, writes Kenworthy News Media.

The move comes after 250,000 people had signed a petition in connection with international NGO Oxfam’s campaign for food and beverage companies such as Coca-Cola to respect the land rights of local communities, and Oxfam had “found evidence of land grabs and disputes by companies that supply sugar for Coca-Cola” – the world’s largest buyer of sugar.

Coca-Cola further promised to “protect the land rights of farmers and communities in the world’s top sugarcane-producing regions, advancing its ongoing efforts to drive transparency and accountability across its global supply chain,” in a statement published on their website last week, also promising “a commitment to sustainably source … sugar cane” by 2020.

A very necessary move, since the harvesting of sugar cane is “the most hazardous” of all forms of agricultural work, according to Human Rights Watch, and since sugar “has been driving large-scale land acquisitions and land conflicts at the expense of small-scale food producers and their families,” according to a recently published report from Oxfam.

According to Communications Director for Coca-Cola Nordic, Mikael Bonde Nielsen, these promises of protection of rights and sustainability also apply to Swaziland. “Our expectations of our suppliers are the same no matter where they operate. This also applies to Swaziland,” he tells Africa Contact.

Coca-Cola has a huge concentrate-manufacturing plant in Swaziland that supplies the growing African market for Coca-Cola. A subsidiary of Coca-Cola, Conco, buys Swazi sugar for the production of Coca-Cola concentrate, a major export for Swaziland that makes up as much as 40 per cent of Swaziland’s GDP.

In Swaziland, the problem of land grabbing is exacerbated by the fact that Swaziland’s absolute monarch, King Mswati III, controls all publically owned land, and that his chiefs do his bidding in ejecting people from the land they live on and cultivate if they disobey him or them in any way.

So it is urgent that Coca-Cola acts on their promises. For instance that they investigate and reveal how the land on which the sugar for the products that are produced in Swaziland has been acquired, and how the sugar production on this land effects the subsistence farmers who live nearby.

The problem is that the issues of land usage and the effects of the sugar production of Coca-Cola’s suppliers cannot be separated from the autocratic political system in Swaziland.

But Mikael Bonde Nielsen says that Coca-Cola is not about to change their approach in regard to the political situation in the countries in which they operate. “Coca-Cola does not interfere in to the political affairs of sovereign states.”

Indeed, Coca-Cola is on good terms with Swaziland’s absolute monarch King Mswati III, with whom Coca-Cola’ says they have a “solid relationship” that they sincerely appreciate.

The UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights stipulates that businesses have responsibilities across their entire supply chain. “Business enterprises should respect human rights … [the principles exist] independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations … The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises … seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.”

See also

CALL TO BOYCOTT COCA-COLA
COCA-COLA SUPPORTS SWAZI DICTATOR
COCA-COLA COLONISES SWAZILAND

Thursday, 12 January 2012

CALL TO BOYCOTT COCA-COLA

Africa Contact, the Denmark-based NGO, is calling for a boycott of Coca-Cola products because of its links with King Mswati III of Swaziland and the way it helps to prop up the King’s regime which denies Swazi people their basic democratic rights. The company also exploits Swazi sugar cane workers and has a large control over Swaziland’s economy.

Africa Contact asks people to write a protest letter to Coca-Cola Denmark's Public Affairs & Communications Director in Denmark, Michael Bonde Nielsen (who is, also Public Affairs Director at the independent liberal, free market think tank, CEPOS). Click here for an online letter (in Danish) that you can add your name to.

Below is an article Africa Contact published yesterday (11 January 2011) in Danish. It has been ‘translated’ to English using Google (it’s far from perfect English, but you will get the point).


An English article from Africa Contact's website that more or less makes the same points as the Danish article, can be found here.


Coca-Cola controls Swaziland, boycott the company says Africa Contact

"Boycott Coca-Cola and tell them why! - It's the only way to stop the company's real support for dictatorships and the exploitation of poor workers," says the Danish solidarity organization Africa Contact.

Coca-Cola is one of the world's best known brands and biggest companies. More than one billion cans or bottles of Coca-Cola drink a day for everything from downtown New York to small villages in Africa. That the company while exploiting countries and populations in developing countries desperate situation to further enrich themselves are less known.

With over 70,000 employees Coca-Cola is one of the largest employers in Africa, a continent where many poor people spend money on unhealthy Cola instead of subsistence.

Coca-Cola's headquarters in Africa lies in the small absolute monarchy, Swaziland. Here the company manufactures its cola extract the entire production in Africa, parts of Asia and New Zealand and Australia.

Swaziland is a country where the king has the final say in all decisions where the country's nascent democracy movement brutally suppressed, where over two thirds of the population survives on less than a dollar a day, many on food aid from the UN, and where life expectancy is under 40 years because of an AIDS epidemic that is out of control.

Simultaneously live country's royal family and King Mswati III and a small elite in the wild luxury, while the country is heading towards an economic collapse, where one has not even afford to pay public service salaries and pensions for the elderly.

The collaboration between Coca-Cola and the regime in Swaziland is especially for the multinational company's advantage. Coca-Cola contributes to approximately 40% of Swaziland Gross domestic product, giving the company a great influence to the country's regime - if not toe the regime, one can simply threaten to move elsewhere. In addition, you get access to its good infrastructure, cheap labor, favorable tax conditions, and sugarcane.

Swaziland's population, and especially sugar cane workers (according to Human Rights Watch doing the most dangerous farm work of all) who harvest the sugar cane along with water is the main ingredient in Coca-Cola, have not identified many benefits of working with Coca-Cola. King creaming off while the workers who harvest the sugarcane worker in miserable and almost feudal relationship with a very small salary.

In the villages in Vuvulane, Swaziland "sugar belt" working majority as casuals for a few hundred dollars a month - not even enough to secure food, medicine and schooling for workers' families. It also handles the subcontractors, such as Coca-Cola uses, almost works as serfs.

"Sugar Companies confiscate our kitchen gardens and close to our water supply in order to punish us," said cane workers in Vuvulane region Africa Contact. "Moreover, they ensure that we get caught and arrested when we fish in the local lake. They must use the water itself. "

The democracy movement in Swaziland has therefore appealed to the Coca-Cola to break off relations with King Mswati III's regime, without success.

Africa Contact calls for you, in solidarity with the people of Swaziland, is helping to put pressure on Coca-Cola in our part of the world by boycotting Coca-Cola, as well as any contacts Coca-Cola's Danish department communications director, Michael Bonde Nielsen (mbondenielsen@coca-cola.com), to tell the company about the basis of your decision.

Tuesday, 3 January 2012

COCA-COLA ‘SUPPORTS SWAZI DICTATOR’


A report about the relationship between Coca-Cola and King Mswati III of Swaziland has been published in the media across the world during the past 24 hours. It is based on a statement from the Swaziland Democracy Campaign calling for the drinks firm to sever its ties with the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa.
I wrote about Coca-Coal and Swaziland on this blog on 21 January 2010. That posting contains more detail about what Coca-Cola gets up in to than the SDC report - so for those interested I have reproduced it here.
SWAZILAND: SPONSORED BY COCA-COLA
Coca-Cola is to work to promote Swaziland, a kingdom with one of the world’s worst human rights records.
Coca-Cola presently contributes about 40 percent of the kingdom’s gross domestic product (GDP) through the concentration plant it has in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.
This helps to prop up a regime that consistently uses torture against dissidents and alleged criminals. In September 2010, Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, said he wanted people (especially foreigners) who criticised him and his government to be tortured using foot whipping.
Swaziland Investment Promotion Authority (SIPA) has said that it will work with Coca-Cola to market the kingdom internationally.
Phiwayinkhosi Ginindza, SIPA Chief Executive, said a country market study done with Coca-Cola was almost complete.
Ginindza told the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned and edited by King Mswati, they had identified Taiwan, the Middle East, and Europe as some possible targets.
Swaziland supplies the Coca-Cola concentrate (the sugary syrup the drink is made from) to most of Africa, big parts of Asia and all of Australia and New Zealand from its industrial plant in Matsapha.
Swaziland has been mortgaged to Coca-Cola, ever since it allowed the company to use it in its fight against workers’ interests in other countries. In 2009, Coca-Cola closed its concentrate supply plant in Nigeria, citing an ‘unfriendly manufacturing environment’ in that country.
It had made ‘little profits because of the high manufacturing costs’.
Coca-Cola is said to be so large in Swaziland that it accounts for 40 percent of the kingdom’s GDP, but it is said to be exempt from paying full taxes.
Coca-Cola also has an impact on the international standing of Swaziland’s economy. The money generated by Coca-Cola is what largely accounts for the kingdom being classified as a ‘lower-middle income developing country’ (and therefore not eligible for certain types of international aid), even though seven in ten of Swaziland’s one-million population live in abject poverty, earning less than one US dollar a day.
This dominance of the Swaziland economy by Coca-Cola represents a breathtaking piece of economic mismanagement by King Mswati and the governments he appoints. It in effect allows Coca-Cola to determine the economic (and other policies) of the kingdom. Coca-Cola can blackmail Swaziland at any moment it likes. If it doesn’t get its way it simply has to threaten to take its business elsewhere and Swaziland’s already depressed economy sinks into the mire.
Of course, it could use this power for positive effects. It could demand political reforms in the kingdom that has one of the worst human rights records in the world. It could insist that political parties be unbanned and that the Swaziland Constitution be honoured.
Alas, Coca-Cola won’t do any of that: it likes things the way they are. Coca-Cola is in Swaziland in such a big way precisely because it is a dictatorship. This allows wages to be kept low, unemployment high and workers rights to be oppressed.
It also means that Coca-Cola can work directly with King Mswati and the King can ensure that the company gets all it wants. It is no secret that the King keeps a slice of the income from Coca-Cola ‘in trust for the nation’, which we all know means, ‘for himself’.
King Mswati is said to be so close personally to Coca-Cola that he visits the company’s global headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, US, each year.
Ginindza, of SIPA, told the Observer, ‘We decided to use Coca-Cola as they have shown so much love for the continent [Africa] and they care for it. Over the past 20 years Africa has developed a relationship with them.’
But does Coca-Cola really ‘love’ Africa? In October 2010, Bloomberg Business Week reported that Coca-Cola’s sales in the US and other countries had stagnated and it will rely on some of the poorest nations (including in Africa) to generate the 7 to 9 percent earnings growth it has promised investors.
Consumption of Coke is also low in India and China, relative to the US, Europe, and Latin America, but those countries present less of an opportunity for the company than Africa, where Coke is the dominant brand and a middle class is just emerging.

Tara Lohan at foodchange.org reports that Coca-Cola has been in Africa since 1929, but has not reached total domination yet.
Lohan says, ‘The reason for this is that while there are many countries in Africa with growing middle classes, it’s also a continent with extreme poverty, scarce or unclean water sources, hunger, political instability, and war. Coke intends to spend $12 billion in the next ten years there and what do Africans get in return? A product that will use vast amounts of water, create more waste, and offer people no nutritional value.
Lohan adds, ‘Having recently been briefed on Coke’s sordid history in Michael Blanding’s new book The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth Behind the World’s Favorite Soft Drink, I have to say I’m extremely wary of the company’s advances. Blanding's book details Coke's history of anti-union activity in Central and South America, allegations of its fraternization with paramilitaries who murdered bottling plant workers, the effects of marketing to kids in schools, and the wake of environmental catastrophes the company left behind in places like India where Coke has drained and polluted drinking water.
Lohan says, ‘If that's what Coke has in store for Africa, then it looks like the continent is getting the raw end of the deal.’
So there you have it. King Mswati allows Swaziland to be taken for a ride, for his own personal gain.

Friday, 24 June 2011

COCA-COLA COLONISES SWAZILAND

The Coca-colonisation of Swaziland

By Peter Kenworthy


SOURCE


June 22, 2011 -- Pambazuka News -- Next time you crack open a Coke to quench your thirst, spare a thought for the sugarcane workers in Swaziland. Coca-Cola is one of the largest and wealthiest companies in the world, as well as being one of the world’s best-known brands. The desperate situation of the poverty-stricken workers in the sugarcane fields in Swaziland, who harvest the sugarcane that is the most important ingredient of African Coke, on the other hand, is a well kept secret. Their plight is not deemed newsworthy. They live their lives in a brutal and repressive absolute monarchy where King Mswati III and a small elite live in luxury while the majority of Swazis live in abject poverty.


More than 1 billion cans or bottles of Coca-Cola are consumed every day and the Coca-Cola Company makes huge profits every year, over US$15 billion in 2005.


Due to the lessening of growth potential in Western markets, where the US market had been dropping off since 1984, Coca-Cola has delved into the markets of developing countries, not least in Africa. Here growth potential is higher and competition less fierce.


"Business is growing [but] … nowhere is it growing faster, however, than in our Eurasia and Africa group", states the company’s chair of the board of directors, Muhtar Kent, in Coca-Cola’s 2010 Annual Review.


Coca-Cola can be bought all over Africa, where the Coca-Cola Company is one of the largest employers, with over 160 plants and nearly 70,000 employees. I remember seeing Coca-Cola on sale in even the smallest, most remote villages when I was in the Monze East district of rural Zambia 15 years ago, and the supply of Coke hasn’t lessened in the years gone by.


"In most of Africa", says Constance Hays, author of Truth and power at the Coca-Cola company, Coca-Cola "didn’t have to persuade people to drink Coke instead of Pepsi. [They] had to persuade people who had next to no money to spare, and whose nutritional and health issues were enormous, to take the rands or the shillings out of their pockets and spend them … on a Coca-Cola."


Coca-Cola has therefore had a huge impact on the economies of both many African countries and their citizens in recent years. Not least in Swaziland, where Coca-Cola contributes over 40 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product.


Coca-colonisation


The Coca-Cola concentrate that is the most important ingredient in the Coca-Cola that is consumed in Africa, Australia and parts of Asia comes from a huge industrial plant in Mapatsa, Swaziland. The Coca-Cola Company chose Swaziland because of the favourable tax arrangement that the regime gives it, as well as the country’s abundance of cheap labour and raw sugar.


"Coca-Cola can blackmail Swaziland at any moment it likes. If it doesn’t get its way it simply has to threaten to take its business elsewhere", as Richard Rooney, a former associate professor at the University of Swaziland, puts it. And if Coca-Cola doesn’t punish Swaziland, others will. The liberal open-market policy that Swaziland has implemented is self-reinforcing, as any attempt to reverse it is instantly punished by the markets.


Swaziland has been "Coca-colonised’, so to speak. Not that Swaziland’s absolute ruler, King Mswati III, needs to be coerced -- he is said to be on good personal terms with the Coca-Cola Company and visits its headquarters in Atlanta every year. Mswati has also made sure that the ever-louder calls for human rights and socioeconomic justice do not interfere with business in Swaziland.


"Coca-Cola has been accused of dehydrating local communities in its pursuit of water resources to feed its own plants, drying up farmers’ wells and destroying local agriculture … it takes almost three litres of water to make one litre of Coca-Cola”, says English anti-poverty and human rights organisation, War on Want, in a report on Coca-Cola.


Coca-Cola and its affiliates have also been accused of abusing "countless fundamental human rights", according to a HRCI research report, such as anti-union violence, discriminatory practises and union busting.


Benevolent multinational?


Coca-Cola, for their part, claims that it acts altruistically in Africa, especially through the so-called Coca-Cola Africa Foundation, of which King Mswati III is a patron.

"Any good we secure for ourselves is uncertain until it is secured for us all. That is the fundamental belief of the Coca-Cola Africa Foundation", one can read on the foundation’s website, "so that we are able to give back to segments of our local communities most in need of assistance", said Coke CEO, Fanus Nothnagel, in a 2009 sustainability review.


"We feel a deep responsibility to ensure all the work we are doing … is creating tangible value … for the communities we serve", said the company’s 2010 Annual Review, which also speaks of "making a positive difference in the communities in which we operate".


The foundation also donates medical equipment to the Swazi government, supports community projects focusing on education and initiated a water development project last year.


The real point, though, is that Coca-Cola is in Swaziland because it is a dictatorship that oppresses its unions and population. This allows wages to be kept low and unemployment high.


Coca-Cola is certainly happy with its relationship with the autocratic Swazi regime. "I would like to convey our sincere appreciation to the Kingdom of Swaziland", the Coca-Cola Foundation’s supply chain manager, Thembinkosi Thwala, told Swaziland’s prime minister, Sibusiso Dlamini, in 2010. "We are looking forward to the continuation of a solid relationship."


Poverty-stricken sugarcane workers


That this '‘solid relationship" meant to make "a positive difference in the communities" in which Coca-Cola operates did not extend to embattled sugarcane workers became only too obvious when in September 2010 I visited a sugarcane field in eastern Swaziland.


"Cutting cane is backbreaking work, and accidents are common", states a 2004 Human Rights Watch report on sugarcane workers. "Of all forms of agricultural work, sugar cane is the most hazardous." This certainly also applies to Swaziland, according to the sugarcane workers.


The area that I visited, Vuvulane, is managed by the Vuvulane Irrigated Farms (VIF) but the sugarcane fields are under the auspices of the Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise and the Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation, which lease them to individual farmers, who in turn employ casual labourers.


In a small village in Vuvulane, most of the adults worked in the sugar fields as casual labourers for between 400 and 550 rand per month. "This is not enough to pay for medicine, proper food or school fees for our children", one villager told me. "Sometimes we do not eat for days. We used to have our own vegetable gardens but these were confiscated by the sugar company. We sometimes fish in the nearby dam in the evening, when it is dark. If we are caught we will be arrested as the dam is owned by the sugar cane company", another villager said.

Practically none of the children in the village, who were clad in dirty and ripped clothes and looked underfed, attended school and many of the villagers receive food aid. In addition to this, the water supply is controlled by a privately owned company that readily closes the water supply from the village if they are not paid on time.


No one speaks up


Companies such as Coca-Cola always claim that "we didn’t know" about the human rights violations that their line of production causes. "Coca-Cola's guiding principles apply only to its direct suppliers", the company told Human Rights Watch in 2004. But this excuse is no better than that of a person buying stolen goods from someone on the street who has clearly stolen them.


Unfortunately, the media in Swaziland, which should be giving balanced analyses of important issues such as the immense power of the Coca-Cola Company in Swaziland and the abysmal conditions that those workers who produce the sugarcane work under, are usually blatantly positive and uncritical when reporting about the company.


"Coca Cola joined the rest of the world in celebrating the soft drink which has contributed immensely to the international economy", wrote The Times of Swaziland on May 21 in a typically non-critical article. "Ploughing back to communities is one of Coca-Cola’s greatest attributes", the government-owned Swazi Observer chipped in.


The international community in Swaziland is not much better. The US embassy in Swaziland spoke last year of Coca-Cola Swaziland’s "commitment to recognise and encourage corporate social responsibility … and democratic values".


But is Swaziland really an example of corporate social responsibility and democratic values? And does Swaziland really benefit from having the Coca-Cola Company effectively propping up its brutal royal dictatorship? Yes, the Coca-Cola Company might provide a large part of Swaziland’s annual GDP, but what good is this to the impoverished sugarcane worker or the average Swazi who can barely make ends meet? What good is it when much of this GDP ends up in the pockets of a small elite?


When Coca-Cola chair of the board of directors Mukhtar Kent said that he "sense[d] a better day … for society, communities and humanity" in 2011, he surely could not have been thinking of Swaziland.


Demanding justice


The workers in the sugarcane fields are more or less left to fend for themselves -- together with the Swazi trade unions and democratic movement, plus a few foreign-based solidarity organisations and friends.


But there has been some indication of an improved political consciousness and willingness to brave the prospects of being clamped down upon by a brutal regime. This consciousness has, among other things, been brought about by an extensive campaign of democratic and rights-based civic education in Swaziland’s rural areas by organisations such as the Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice.


This improved consciousness has enabled Swazi workers to link their poverty, poor working conditions and the low wages that the multinationals pay to royal regime and company neglect and neoliberalism. And the workers of Swaziland have therefore been more open and clear in their demands in recent years.


Examples of this are the massive strikes by over 16,000 underpaid, and frequently abused, (mostly) female textile workers in 2008, and the recent historically large demonstrations for socioeconomic justice and democracy in March and April 2011.


Swazi workers might previously have seen their struggle against Coca-Cola and the Swazi regime as akin to David’s struggle against Goliath. But recent events seem to prove that they are slowly waking up to the fact that David ended up winning that battle.


[Peter Kenworthy is an activist with Africa Contact. This article first appeared at Pambazuka News.]


See also


SWAZILAND, SPONSORED BY COCA-COLA

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/swaziland-sponsored-by-coca-cola.html