POL300

Virunga, Films, and Human Rights Campaigns Human Rights and Business

Linking HR Advocacy to Films �  Wide audience �  Raise awareness and

educate �  Story-telling �  Activate �  Low commitment �  Viral effect �  Become centerpiece

of advocacy campaigns (screenings, etc)

Film as a political intervention? �  Making claims through representational

means �  Long-form documentary (Moore, etc) �  “not just represent political conditions, but

actually change them) (McLagan 308) �  Entertain audience but then invite them in

participating �  Audience engagement through “taking

action” �  Filmàsocial movementàsocial change

Critiques of HR films/ campaigns

�  Simplified story line with easily identifiable victims/villains

�  Focus on Western agency over local efforts

�  Depoliticize conflicts �  Whitewashing history �  Reinforcing colonial

stereotypes �  Narrow understanding of

problem amidst complex situation

�  Kony 2012

DRC- Conflict and Underdevelopment

�  5.4 millions deaths as of 2007 due to violence, disease, and poverty

�  Fragile State Index 2015: 5th �  Spillover of Rwandan

Genocide �  Armed forces from at least 8

countries �  1.3 million in camps �  Mass rape, child soldiers �  20,000 UN Peacekeeping

Troops �  “Under-researched, under-

reported, and misunderstood” �  Eastern Congo- instability

DRC and Conflict Minerals

Narrow focus on conflict minerals? �  Dominant narratives and damaging

consequences �  Other sources of violence exist �  Armed groups don’t use money to buy arms �  Lack of state authority �  8% of DRC conflicts are about control of

natural resources (Autesserre 2012) �  Ban on mining and militarization of mining

sectorà de facto boycott on DRC minerals and loss of employmentà violence escalates

Background on Virunga �  Created in 1925 as

Albert National Park �  2 million acres �  Africa’s oldest and

most biodiverse national park

�  UNESCO world heritage site

�  Land invasions �  Poaching �  80% of park allocated

for oil concessions

Background on the film �  Director intended a

positive film about the park and the gorillas

�  “There were moments when I was making this film where I've never been so scared. “ (Director von Einsiedel)

�  “Film is part vérité, part journalistic investigation, part nature documentary.”

�  Non-profit film to benefit park

�  Public engagement through Netflix distribution

Backlash to film �  “The resulting sense of moral righteousness

obscures several serious problems with the documentary: it omits crucial aspects of the violent colonial origins of Virunga, and it marginalizes the voices of the people who live in and around the park. As a result, the film perpetuates racial stereotypes and oversimplifies politics and conflict in Congo.” (Baaz et al)

�  Farmers living around Virunga repeatedly explained, the park’s colonial origins elicit the feeling that the park was “created by the Muzungu [white person], for the Muzungu.”

Global Witness Campaign �  Own report alleging

“Soco and its contractors have made illicit payments, appear to have paid off armed rebels and benefited from fear and violence in eastern Congo as they sought access to Virunga for oil exploration.”

SOCO as a target �  London-listed Soco is on the FTSE 250 stock

exchange �  CEO and Deputy CEO who are both from

the U.S. �  Company denies the allegations in our

report, saying that it “does not condone, partake in or tolerate corrupt or illegal activity whatsoever”.

�  At stake, other parks…

SOCO’s investors �  Aviva (UK Life

Insurance) �  Legal & General

(UK financial services)

�  Church of England �  Norway’s pension

fund (sold $33m stake)

Engaging Shareholders �  Write to your investment company’s pension fund manager /

ethical fund manager and ask them to: �  1. Positively engage with SOCO International in order to safeguard

for the future of the park. Your voice within a company is powerful and they should care about your concerns.

�  2. Ask SOCO International to carry out an adequate independent investigation into all allegations of wrongdoing, accounting for their worrying lack of oversight whilst operating in the DRC.

�  3. Ask SOCO International to make an absolute commitment to the DRC government and UNESCO never to explore in Virunga National Park, regardless of its World Heritage Status, but also to commit to an exit plan that properly safeguards the block (e.g. responsible measures to ensure the block permit is not simply sold on).

�  When you sign off, why not ask the shareholder to confirm receipt of your letter and an outline of how they intend to positively engage with SOCO moving forward?

Other undercover investigations

�  “Soco’s allies in the Congolese military and parks authorities have offered bribes and been implicated in acts of intimidation against anti-oil activists. There is also evidence that Soco paid a local MP, who was at the time a government minister, to campaign on their behalf. The MP even helped organise payments to local organisations to hold a pro-oil demonstration in the park.”

Divestment campaigns �  South Africa, Sudan, etc �  Targeting business to…. �  Transparency �  Location of targets �  Vulnerability of targets �  Institutional support �  Celebrities �  Individual/Institutional action to divest?

Sources �  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/

africa/2015-03-05/virungas-white-savior- complex

�  Autesserre, “Dominant Narratives” �  McLagan and McKee, Sensible Politics