The Bloodwood Tree

“The United States economy is depending on the willingness of consumers and the government to spend more each year than they have the preceding year.”

Vance Packard, 1960

“Man’s appetite for goods must be quickened and increased”

Paul Mazur

“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Jesus, Luke 12:15

Blackmarket is a list of companies and policies with a serious impact on the poor and the environment. A more extensive list of companies and good alternatives can be found at the Ethical Consumer Guide or Free2Work; Blackmarket aims to compile more details on offending companies.

The listing is a moral judgement based upon the biblical perspectives:

a) God sides with the poor and oppressed (eg Zechariah 7:9-10)

b) We have a responsibility to act if we see injustice (eg James 4:17)

c) Environmental destruction causes God deep grief (Jeremiah 12:11)

d) Market greed destroys the poor and the environment (Nahum 3:16)

What to do about it

1) Try not to support these companies by buying their products

2) Write to them to tell them that you are not using their products, tell them why

3) Educate your local shop manager selling the product and encourage them to ban the product

4) Post anything useful that you learn here, but please make sure that it is up-to-date and comes from a credible source.

5) If you have shares in a company, find out everything that you can about their practices and use your votes and any influence you have to steer the company toward ethical behaviour.

Exxon-Mobil. Exxon Mobil has spent US$29,000,000 over the past 10 years lobbying the US government to take a weak stance on climate change; since 2005 the amount has been rising exponentially. A weak stance on climate change means economic benefits to rich western industries at the expense of the environment and the world’s poor.

Coca Cola. High ranking union members in Colombian Coca Cola plants have been subject to a string of assassinations and tortures over the past few years, with strong ties to the owners of the plants.

For example, in July 2001, one member of the Union Executive was shot followed by the kidnapping of another and the torching of a building that housed the union’s records, offices and equipment the same day. Killer Coke says: “The next day, a heavily armed group returned to the plant, called the workers together and told them if they didn’t quit the union by 4 p.m., they, too, would be killed. Resignation forms were prepared in advance by Coca-Cola’s plant manager, who had a history of socializing with the paramilitaries”. A lawsuit against Coca Cola alleged that the plant manager had earlier ordered the paramilitaries to destroy the union.

Until Coca Cola is able to take responsibility for the actions of its staff, an international boycott of the company has been called for by the campaign Killer Coke.

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Although not all aspects of FTAs might be bad, some points have a serious impact on developing nations.

• By definition, FTAs mean the removal of restrictions on trade. This sounds harmless enough at first glance but there are 2 main issues with it - restrictions are usually in place to protect the interests of a country, so removal of restrictions means giving an advantage to whichever economy is already stronger; and very strong economies such as the US have the power to break their side of the egreement. The US did this very brazenly under the Bush administration by subsidising rice, cotton & wheat farmers so that smaller economies could not compete with the US market. Again and again FTAs are formed which involve the opening up of markets for the poorer of the 2 parties while the richer party maintains their own barriers. Australia for instance faced enormous pressure from the US to get rid of our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) which involves Government subsidies for particular brands and products important for public health. Such a scheme is a ‘barrier to trade’ because Government funds encourage consumers to buy more medicines necessary to their health and less that are for superficial purposes (e.g. cosmetic drugs). While applying that pressure, the US was refusing to remove barriers to Australian products such as sugar.
• One restriction on trade has been allowed historically - that a country experiencing ‘acute’ food shortages can for a limited period of time restrict imports & exports to prevent starvation (with the other party’s permission). Although this is inadequate due to the fact that the time allowed is limited and food shortages resulting from causes such as land degradation or the current global food crisis are not temporary, both the US and the European Union have begun brokering FTAs that do not have this clause. This means that countries such as Haiti and Malaysia which have restricted exports to prevent hardship at home are now open to the possibility of trade sanctions or massive fines.
• Enormous pressure is brought to bear on smaller economies to force them into FTAs. Many FTAs were signed as conditions imposed by the IMF when countries were unable to repay loans. Haiti for instance is being impacted heavily by the global food crisis, but not because it is unable to produce the food it needs. A few decades ago Haiti was completely self sufficient in its main staple rice, however external pressure (particularly a 1994 package from the IMF) has forced the country to liberalise its economy through FTAs. Cheap US subsidised rice then flooded the country putting local growers out of business; but recently prices have risen by 50% so that many Haitians can no longer afford to eat.

Nestlé. “Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute” (World Health Organisation). Aside from the detrimental effects of mothers switching to formula over breast milk in the developing world, Nestlé has a long history of aggressive marketing in areas with no safe water supply so that babies begin drinking polluted formula instead of clean safe mother’s milk. Poverty also means that mothers are unable to afford the necessary amounts of formula or are often unable to read the labels. Nestle has for many years used warning labels in developing nations printed in languages not spoken in that country. For a full list of Nestlé products visit http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/products.html.

Pfizer. The drug company Pfizer settled out of court with Nigerian families after 11 children were killed and many more disabled due to illegal testing of the antibiotic Trovan on seriously ill subjects. Pfizer had been sued for $9 billion for 31 criminal charges including homocide, but managed to negotiate the out of court settlement of $75 million in return for Nigeria’s silence on the subject. The Washington Post reported “Trovan was never approved for use by American children. The Food and Drug Administration approved it for adults in 1998 but later severely restricted its use after reports of liver failure. The European Union banned the drug in 1999.” The efforts of Pfizer to keep the case out of court, it’s delaying of attempted hearings by simply not turning up in court and its effective paying off of Nigerian government officials in return for their silence do not suggest that the drug company has the best interests of people in mind.

Shell. The oil company Royal Dutch Shell has been the subject of a legal case due to its operations in the Niger Delta. Since the 1950’s, Shell has been the leading oil company blamed for extreme environmental damage in the Niger delta resulting from dumping of oil waste, and the complete removal of this natural resource without its Ogoni owners receiving any of the revenue. Led by the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), the local Ogoni people protested this destruction of their lands using legal chanels and non-violent forms. They were met with a violent response from the Nigerian government (a military dictatorship at the time), allegedly backed by Shell.

Conflicts climaxed when MOSOP threatened to disrupt oil operations if Shell did not put measures in place to stop the destruction and pay the Ogoni for their oil. The Nigerian Government responded to the ultimatum by stating that any interference with an oil company was an act of treason. Massive protests by the Ogoni followed with 300,000 attending at a time, and while these were peaceful there was a single incident where a mob lost control and beat a Shell employee. Shell withdrew its workers temporarily and pressured the Nigerian Government to act, which they did.

On May 21 1994, Nigerian Police & soldiers were flown into Ogoni villages in Shell-owned helicopters, and four Ogoni chiefs were brutally murdered. Nigerian internal security blamed the murders on MOSOP as the four chiefs had taken a conservative stance to MOSOP’s operations, and in the name of “searching for those directly responsible for the killings of the four Ogonis” embarked on a course of what Amnesty International described as “deliberate terrorism”. Within weeks 30 villages had been completely destroyed, 600 people had been detained, and at least 40 had been killed. An eventual total of around 100,000 internal refugees and an estimated 2,000 civilian deaths was recorded.

On November 10 1995, 9 activists from MOSOP including the author and television personality Ken Saro-Wiwa were hanged by the Nigerian Government on charges of “incitement to murder”, and Shell re-commenced operations. In response to the blatant corruption, the Commonwealth of Nations suspended Nigeria’s membership. More information can be found at Africa Action and American University.

‘The flames of Shell are flames of Hell,
We bask below their light,
Nought for us to serve the blight,
Of cursed neglect and cursed Shell.’
- Ogoni Song

Shell made an out of court settlement of US$15.5m last year, allowing them to avoid the very strong case that had been assembled against them. The situation in Nigeria continues however:

“The company continues to needlessly burn off vast amounts of gas. The air is still poisoned, children are still sick, there are few jobs, the creeks are polluted and the poverty is intense.

Moreover, the security situation on the delta is far worse than it was 12 years ago when the Ogoni case began. Then, the delta was politically volatile but the oil companies could work there more or less unimpeded and people felt reasonably safe. Today the whole region is awash with guns and the delta is one of the most dangerous places on earth.”

“…men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain.”

1 Timothy 6:5-6