The Statesman's editorial board raised a relevant question in its opinion: "Would divesting really help end Darfur tragedy? (Our View, Dec. 20)." The answer, and more importantly the analysis, is helpful in determining how the U.S. government and individual states should address the Darfur crisis. That analysis begins with understanding the essential facts surrounding the crisis and the divestment option.
First, the atrocities in Darfur Sudan are not a "tragedy." They are genocide, a genocide which has taken as many as 400,000 lives and displaced 2.5 million people. Remarkably, the editorial opinion never once used the word "genocide," despite the fact the U.S. Congress in 2004 unanimously declared the atrocities in Darfur constituted genocide - the first time in history that ongoing atrocities have been officially declared as genocide. Second is the overriding fact that the president and Congress have been ineffective in pressuring Sudan to halt the mass killings, despite prolonged bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts since 2004. The reason for the diplomatic failure is the government of Sudan under President Al-Bashir is intransigent and duplicitous, and universally recognized as such.
Third, Congress' authorization of state divestment takes into account the historical and economic realities in Sudan. Sudan is completely dependent on direct foreign investment from multinational companies. Sudan has a demonstrated history of responsiveness to economic pressure, evidenced foremost by the pullout in 2004 of three major oil companies, Talisman Oil, Luden Petroleum and OMV, over human rights abuses in South Sudan, and leading to the 2005 peace agreement ending the 22-year civil war. Finally, Congress' authorization correlates with U.S. sanctions, in effect since 1997, which prohibit all American companies from doing business in Sudan. Those sanctions have yielded important intelligence from Sudan in the war on terror.
Cognizant of Sudan's historical and economic realities, respectful of free-market forces, but acknowledging that prolonged diplomatic failure has resulted in the continuation of unabated mass killings, a unanimous Congress overcame its usual gridlock and acted to encourage the remaining states, including Idaho, to divest from Sudan. Apparently skeptical of that collective wisdom, the editorial board wants "evidence" of other state divestment polices putting "actual pressure on international companies." Twenty-two states have adopted divestment (most in the last year). Despite the lag time of divestment schemes, the board is directed to the following companies which have ceased operations in Sudan, publicized a withdrawal plan, or significantly changed their corporate practices in Sudan: La Mancha Resources, CHC Helicopter, ABB Siemens, Rolls Royce, ICSA of India and Schulberger. Of further note is the recent selloff by Berkshire Hathaway of its entire 2 billion shares in PetroChina, following on the heels of a shareholder divestment movement last May. Further detailed information is available at: sudandivestment.org., hosted by the Sudan Divestment Task Force, which makes its research available free of charge to allow cost-effective divestment by state retirement funds.
The editorial board proclaims that: "They (PERSI) should not - and cannot - pass political judgment on the international firms doing business in Sudan." Whether to invest in genocidal regimes is not a matter of political judgment. It is a matter of fundamental morals and financial prudence. PERSI has never disputed the fact that over 70 percent of the billions of dollars paid to the government of Sudan by the international companies operating there go to fund Sudan's military operations, including the janjaweed carrying out the genocide.
Will divestment help in ending the genocide, causing the Bashir government to cooperate with the now-authorized U.N. peacekeeping force and expediting its deployment to Darfur? Yes, it can only help. And the Idaho Legislature has a responsibility to broaden that assistance. PERSI has refused to voluntarily divest. PERSI refuses despite knowing that its investments in several companies facilitates the payment of handsome royalties to a genocidal regime, financially enabling it to arm, supply and direct a merciless militia. The real question here is should that be permissible? The U.S. Congress does not think so. I predict President Bush will not think so. And I sincerely believe that the vast majority of PERSI members and the citizens of Idaho don't think so.
