Senior representatives from Starbucks Corporation and the Ambassador of the government of Ethiopia to the US plan to announce on Wednesday June 20, 2007 what they called “the ongoing collaboration between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the company in support of the Ethiopian coffee industry”
According to the Ambassador’s personal invitations sent to unidentified number of recipients, the announcement will be followed by a reception at the Ambassador’s residence in Washington, DC on the same day. The Reception Invitation reads:
“His Excellency Dr. Samuel Assefa, Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia to the United States, cordially invites you to join him along with senior representatives from Starbucks Coffee Company at a reception celebrating the spirit of partnership between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the company in support of the Ethiopian coffee industry.”
The invitations, copies of which have been received by Coffee Politics, do not mention the licensing agreement.
At the center of the public dispute were Starbucks’ refusal to recognize Ethiopia’s ownership of the famous coffee marks, Harar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe, and the company’s refusal to sign the voluntary licensing agreement that was put forth by Ethiopia.
Following stern pressure from the development agency Oxfam who rallied thousands of consumers, major media outlets, fair trade activists, members of the Ethiopian community, and other supporters from all over the globe, Starbucks announced its recognition of Ethiopia as the birthplace of coffee and owner of the marks.
In a joint statement issued on May 3, 2007 by Starbucks and the government of Ethiopia, Starbucks Chairman, Howard Schultz said, “Ethiopia is recognized as the historic birthplace of coffee and the source of some of the finest coffee in the world,” adding, “The Government of Ethiopia and Starbucks Coffee look forward to formalizing the details of the agreement and signing it in May 2007.”
This announcement comes at a time when the government of Ethiopia will be grateful of a chance to divert media attention from recent accusations by human rights groups and opposition political parties over the convictions of opposition party members, journalists, and others on a sham charge of "outrages against the constitution."
Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) has just issued a press release condemning “the recent convictions in Ethiopia of 38 opposition party members, journalists and a human rights defender on charges that could carry life in prison or the death penalty.”
Starbucks, for its part, wants to leave behind the public outrage aroused by the company’s fight with the impoverished country. The company is seeking to recover from a long period of unfavorable market ratings. Last week, Goldman Sachs (GS) reiterated its "buy" rating on shares of Starbucks (SBUX), but removed it from its "conviction buy" list.
It is not yet clear if the planned announcement and celebration is a genuine settlement of the trademark dispute or a public relations event. Many hope Starbucks and the Ethiopian government will release the details of the agreement to the public as soon as they declare a resolution. Until the terms of the agreement are known, its significance, or irrelevance, will not be known.
This is great timing as the announcement follows closely on the heels of a front page NY Times story that details atrocities committed by the government of Ethiopia.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/world/africa/18ethiopia.html?hp
In Ethiopia, Fear and Cries of Army Brutality
"In village after village, people said they had been brutalized by government troops. They described a widespread and longstanding reign of terror, with Ethiopian soldiers gang-raping women, burning down huts and killing civilians at will.
It is the same military that the American government helps train and equip — and provides with prized intelligence. The two nations have been allies for years, but recently they have grown especially close, teaming up last winter to oust an Islamic movement that controlled much of Somalia and rid the region of a potential terrorist threat.
The Bush administration, particularly the military, considers Ethiopia its best bet in the volatile Horn — which, with Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea, is fast becoming intensely violent, virulently anti-American and an incubator for terrorism. "
Great with a trademark agreement rather than geographic certification, this governemtn is sure to reap some of the benefit of the deal with Starbucks. Thus, they can buy even more bullets and bombs.
You worked hard for this. Bask in the glory.
Large Hamster,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kudo.
To support your argument and thereby to enlighten us, would you clarify how a geographic certification (GI), which you have been wanting us to believe, can prevent or lessen the atrocities committed by the government of Ethiopia?
There is no government involvement in geographic certifications. No licensing agreements. No money flowing into the hands of the people buying the guns.
ReplyDeleteThe farmers work together to promote their coffee and to insure that all coffee marketed as from Ethiopia or more specifically Sidamo, Harrar etc.. are from those places and meet the quality standards that they set for themselves. Co-operation and mutual promotion. Just like Kona and Jamaica Blue Mountain.
There is no need for the government, particular this one, to play a role.
The fallacy here is, through trademarks money will be flowing into the hands of the gov’t, which is wrong. There is no royalty fee; so, no money will flow through the gov’t hands.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the assertion that GI will benefit the farmers better than trademarks is simply an abstract. The farmers have always worked hard, with no support from the gov’t or anybody, to produce what they could but never gotten the price their produce deserves. With little support, they have produced the best quality coffee one can imagine: Shirkina Sidamo Sundried coffee. They still got paid a price a little higher than the commodity coffee.
Nothing is wrong with certification (GI); it just doesn’t do any good to Ethiopia’s condition. It worked well for Kona and Jamaica. Let Ethiopia choose what is good for her. The debate over GI v. Trademark is a bit complex than whether the gov’t gets the money or not. For the sake of the discussion, however, we need to look into how governments function.
As we all know, most governments are financed mainly by taxpayers’ money. Same holds true with the gov’t in Ethiopia. That gov’t collects taxes from everyone breathing out there, and does so disproportionate to the service it renders to the public. Besides, they have a control over every resource in the country including the land - the geographic regions you think are owned by the farmers. So, the gov’t does not have shortage of money in local currency. What they need to purchase the weapon is a hard currency – dollar. Currently, $1 is equivalent to about 9 Ethiopian Birr. The gov’t controls the dollars coming into the country because all FOREX is conducted through the central bank, which is owned by the gov’t like in any country. Meanwhile, whether the price for a pound of coffee increases or not, the gov’t earns the dollars that come into the country. When the price of coffee declines, more coffee is exported to make up the lost foreign currency regardless of the implications to the farmers. This has been and, unfortunately, will continue to be the case in Ethiopia in the foreseeable future.
The only way you can deprive the gov’t of the foreign currency it needs to purchase weapons is by curtailing the export of coffee and all other international trade. But that is a ridiculous proposition. Drying up the pond to catch the fish does not work on human beings.
You see the dilemma?
Whether the coffee marks are registered as GI or trademark should be examined in a different context. To me, this issue is of national interest. Governments come and go, as they have always been. But the country and its people will be there. Trading strategic national interest for a temporary political victory is pathetic. The country will be better off with taking ownership of the trademarks. Should it choose to go for GI, let the farmers decide as it is the status quo any ways.
The idea of utilizing intellectual property assets for development purposes goes beyond the discussion of whether or not the incumbent government should be removed from power.
Thank you!