As we approach the season in which shoppers will sort through the mass of electronic products available, the St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee picked up the call to “Hang Up on Motorola.” The more than 40 activists who brought song and dance to a Best Buy and AT&T store were inspired by the recent Philly BDS flash dance which targeted stores carrying Sabra and Tribe hummus.
The St. Louis activists aimed their demonstration at Motorola, a company that has close ties with the Israeli military. Motorola Israel, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Motorola, has a number of exclusive contracts with the Israeli military and has designed products specifically for the Israeli military, including bomb fuses, an communications system, electronic components for drones, and electronic surveillance used along the separation barrier.
The success of these recent flash dances and the increasing visibility of the BDS movement can be attributed in large part to the limitless dissemination of videos through social media and independent media channels. The boycott, divestment, and sanction movement is slowly but surely gaining traction. Appropriating Lady Gaga tunes with creative lyrics and inspired dance is just the latest way of challenging Israeli apartheid.
The St. Louis activists offered a pretty good rallying call for the campaign against Motorola, singing:
Goodbye Motorola, you know we have choices.
And with this boycott we will exercise our voices.
We won’t pay for human right violations.
Come on let’s stand up to illegal occupations.
Rather than protesting against individual companies these activists would be better off recognising that if motorola didn’t do it someone else would.
They should therefore be engaging businesses in a cooperative manner to encourage them to work together against oppression.
No progress will be made where first mover disadvantage prevails – i.e by taking an ethical stand, motorola would simply lose business to another less ethical company.
Interesting points, Mark.
Can you explain a bit more what you mean by “engaging businesses in a cooperative manner to encourage them to work together against oppression.” As in engaging them in dialogue rather than organizing demonstrations? I know that activists have attended shareholder meetings and have engaged in correspondences with Motorola representatives, which may be some of what you are talking about.
One thing I think the BDS movement does do, that offers more than simply the act of asking consumers to boycott a particular company, is that it raises awareness and visibility. Increased awareness of human rights violations and a company’s complicity therein, has in many cases pushed companies to abandon their unethical financial dealings with certain companies or governmental bodies.
Here’s an example from a palm oil company’s connection with displacement in Colombia: http://www.facebook.com/notes/christian-peacemaker-teams-colombia/daabon-announces-las-pavas-exit-damaged-lands-future-uncertain/145651252153300
and The Body Shop’s statement: http://www.thebodyshop.com/_en/_ww/services/pdfs/AboutUs/Sourcing_Palm_Oil.pdf
Hi Samuel,
What I am mean is that, as I say, any company taking an ethical stand is likely to lose out financially as other less ethical organisations step into the space they leave behind. Current business law dictates that PLCs must operate above all for the benefit of their shareholders. Any company giving up lucrative business in the name of ethics could have some very difficult questions to answer from its shareholders. More pressingly, such action may have a direct impact on its share prices placing it at risk of financial difficulty and/or hostile takeover.
The answer to this problem lies in simultaneous policy; that is, all or sufficient corporations in a given market come together and agree to implement an ethical policy at the same time such that none loses out. This removes the possibility of ‘first mover disadvantage’ and thus the problems listed above.
Obviously in some cases this will be more complex than others, but it is achievable. It’s good to know that shareholder meetings have been attended. That is a constructive step on the path to such an agreement.
A quick look at the links you provided indicates it was not boycott that provoked this response but the actions of Body Shop. Without Body shop deciding to act it is highly questionable whether Daabon would have changed policies. In the end, I’m still left with the position that engagement is always more useful, productive and successful than disengagement.
Thanks again for the insight.
There was a series of demonstrations at The Body Shop locations in London which resulted in The Body Shop conducting an investigation and subsequently cutting ties with Daabon. I don’t think that information was present in the links I provided, so I just wanted to clarify.
I think then, in retrospect, I was perhaps overly harsh in my initial comment. Demonstration does have its place and can be useful to raise awareness as in the case you have highlighted.
I think it has to be a question of combining the two elements – protest and engagement which this organisation seems to be doing from your comments.
There is an organisation which provides a mechanism for this kind of engagement to take place in order to achieve simultaneous policy implementation. It’s called Simpol. If you’d like you can check it out you can @: http:www.simpol.org.uk