It's the real thing, baby: Genocide in Darfur and unwanted occupation in Tibet and civil rights abuses in Beijing. It's all being implicitly linked to our favorite hometown sugar buzz, Coke.

That's the state of affairs Coca-Cola signed up for when it became a major sponsor of this year's Olympic torch run and Games. By aligning itself with China for an estimated $75 million to $90 million, it also aligned itself with China's poor record at home and abroad.

Or has it? Coke's been making the argument that it's one thing to sponsor the Olympics —- a "force for good" it says —- and another to condone the actions of the host country. "It would be an inappropriate role for sponsors to comment on the political situation of individual nations," it says in a recent statement. Coke's attitude is comparable to how some social workers say to deal with a child who's acting out: love the child and ignore the bad behavior.

That means loving China, even though it is sending weapons to war-torn Darfur, where tens (if not hundreds) of thousands have died in what's generally considered genocide. That means loving China despite its censorship of the media and the Internet. That means ignoring the religious and ethnic oppression perpetrated by Chinese leaders.

There's only one problem with Coke's reasoning here: China is not a child. Treating it as a naive country that doesn't know better is patronizing at best, and downright insulting at worst.

And Coke, too, should know better. As a global superpower in its own right —- racking up $1.5 billion in earnings over just the last three months —- Coca-Cola has too much leverage to stay neutral or feign ignorance about what happens. Yet that's exactly what's going on: Coke's desire to avoid controversy is trumping its sense of corporate responsibility.

Coke's in error when it thinks that silence will keep it out of the way of harm and criticism when it comes to China. As the historian Howard Zinn puts it, you can't be neutral on a moving train.

Right now there's no doubt China is moving in a direction contrary to the values that Coke says it upholds. By staying onboard for the ride, even we lovers of Coke can only come to negative conclusions.

This is all the more disappointing because we've seen what Coke and Coke money can do. The philanthropy of former Coke President Robert W. Woodruff is evident around Atlanta, from the prosperity of Emory University to the success of the Woodruff Arts Center to the new optimism at Grady Hospital.

The New World of Coca-Cola (forever known by locals as the Coke Museum) serves as a terrifically strong anchor to the much-needed revitalization of tourism in downtown. Further from home, the Coca-Cola Foundation has given hundreds of millions of dollars to deserving causes around the world.

So why isn't that enough to get Coke a pass on this one issue? The company's history as a champion of causes leads us to expect and demand more. If Coca-Cola can convince us we want to spend $15 a pop at the Coke Museum to be barraged with advertising and to overdose on their sugar-water combinations, surely the company can find a way to speak up truthfully about China without hurting their bottom line.

> Dana Goldman is a high school teacher living in Atlanta.

 TIM BRINTON / newsart.com