In Punching shadows in Coke boycott

, Abu Tahir puts several arguments that need closer examination.

  • "Boycotting Coca-Cola or any American product by any minority group in Malaysia will not dent the economy of the United States."

    • This is definitely true. However, is the aim of the boycott to try and dent the American economy, and to do it single-handedly from Malaysia? It isn't, at least not yet. Instead, I see an interesting possibility: to send a message to George W Bush that there are concerned consumers in Malaysia (and elsewhere, especially West Asia) who are prepared to make small sacrifices.

    If American foreign policy does not change, this movement might well keep spreading. Bush listens to very few individuals or groups, but one such group is certainly American Big Business. If the boycott succeeds — i.e. if many decent people across the world, not just Muslims, systematically and increasingly buy American products last — Bush will certainly sit up and take notice because we'll be hitting him where it hurts him most.

    If every peace-loving consumer in the world immediately stopped buying American products (where there are reasonably good substitutes), Iraq will not be bombed and Israel will be signing a peace treaty within weeks.

  • "If the boycott were designed to dent the Yankees, it is the Malaysians, especially Malay-Muslim workers who are the majority workers who will suffer most. I am included in this group."

    • It's true that Coke's employees will be hurt (if the boycott is widespread and long-lasting), and my sympathies go with them. However, the next question to ask is: will other (Muslim) Malaysians gain? Certainly! Consumers are not going to stop drinking. Instead of drinking Coke, we might switch to a host of other non-American beverages, including our very own varieties like teh ais (iced tea) and kopi-O ais (iced coffee). Many more Malaysians would benefit from this switch, even if it's only a temporary one.

  • "The organisers have a political agenda especially when elections are around the corner so that they could be spotted by the people in power and will be considered as candidates or will use this 'influence' to get favours. Their so-called sentiments for Palestinians or the Muslims being emasculated has nothing to do with this so-called boycott to bring down the 'neo-imperialist' Yankees to their knees."

    • I'm amazed how Abu Tahir seems to be able to read the minds and motives of the Muslim Consumer Association of Malaysia. As a non-Muslim, I'm truly amazed at how some Muslims are quick to label other Muslims hypocrites, even when there is a very real 50-year-old problem of oppression in Palestine with thousands of Muslim lives lost. Such ad hominem (attacking the person) arguments are rampant in Malaysia. Can't we simply focus on the issues and not impute motives on others? (Okay, I know our ministers, including Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, do that a lot of the time, but we don't have to follow their bad example, do we?)

    Islam is on the defensive today. Rightly or wrongly it is perceived worldwide as being regressive, oppressive of women, and, perhaps most of all, violent towards its neighbours. But here is a non-violent Muslim-initiated consumer action. If nothing else, it has a Gandhian flavour that will carry the message that Islam, too, knows how to fight for justice non-violently. This, to me, is good enough reason to support the boycott.

    Finally, even if the boycott fails miserably, it would have generated some discussion and debate about the injustices perpetrated by an American government whose president is heavily funded by Big Business, i.e. Big Business that many peace-loving people around the world support. If we continue to support American Big Business and claim we want a change in American foreign policy, we are either being utterly incongruent or just plain silly, and at the end of the day, when we uncover who our real enemy is, it will be us.

    I'm a Coke drinker but abstaining from it for the time being.