2008 Woodie Awards
Influence for good: Working together to divest from Sudan
By: Sandy Robson
Issue date: 2/8/08 Section: Opinion
Since the Darfur conflict began in 2003, more than 200,000 black Sudanese have been murdered by government-funded Arab militias. Thousands have been raped or tortured, an estimated 2,000 villages have been burned and more than 2.5 million people have been displaced. How can the Sudanese government, with a debt of more than $17 billion, finance such a massive military campaign?
The answer may lie in our pension funds, our endowments and our gas tanks. Oil companies are contributing to violence in Sudan, and some of us may be unknowingly benefiting through our investments. Although the notion is disconcerting, it means we may have a degree of influence over a problem that otherwise seems beyond our control. Macalester is in a position to use this influence by divesting from companies that cooperate with the Sudanese government
After the discovery of oil in southern Sudan, government-funded militias violently cleared certain potential drilling sites of human settlement. Some oil operations subsequently denied humanitarian organizations access to airstrips and potable water. Oil exploration, drilling and transport processes do such serious damage to soil and water resources that some places may not be able to sustain refugees who return in the future.
The Chinese National Petroleum Company, the poster child of offending companies (along with its publicly traded daughter company, Petrochina), has invested over $6 billion in the Sudanese petroleum industry, providing an incentive for Beijing to weaken or block international intervention in Darfur. In recent years, the Sudanese government has spent more than 70 percent of oil revenues on military expenditures. China has also facilitated more than $83 million in arms transfers with the Sudanese government-and a great deal of these arms are believed to be used against Sudanese citizens.
More than 50 universities, 20 states and nine cities have developed Sudan divestment policies. This means that they have removed certain offending companies from their portfolios and agreed to refrain from investing in them in the future. Divestment lowers stock prices and threatens corporate reputations, thereby pressuring companies to reform. Some universities have opted to engage in a dialogue with the offending companies, giving them a three to six month window in which to reform before the institution actually divests.
The answer may lie in our pension funds, our endowments and our gas tanks. Oil companies are contributing to violence in Sudan, and some of us may be unknowingly benefiting through our investments. Although the notion is disconcerting, it means we may have a degree of influence over a problem that otherwise seems beyond our control. Macalester is in a position to use this influence by divesting from companies that cooperate with the Sudanese government
After the discovery of oil in southern Sudan, government-funded militias violently cleared certain potential drilling sites of human settlement. Some oil operations subsequently denied humanitarian organizations access to airstrips and potable water. Oil exploration, drilling and transport processes do such serious damage to soil and water resources that some places may not be able to sustain refugees who return in the future.
The Chinese National Petroleum Company, the poster child of offending companies (along with its publicly traded daughter company, Petrochina), has invested over $6 billion in the Sudanese petroleum industry, providing an incentive for Beijing to weaken or block international intervention in Darfur. In recent years, the Sudanese government has spent more than 70 percent of oil revenues on military expenditures. China has also facilitated more than $83 million in arms transfers with the Sudanese government-and a great deal of these arms are believed to be used against Sudanese citizens.
More than 50 universities, 20 states and nine cities have developed Sudan divestment policies. This means that they have removed certain offending companies from their portfolios and agreed to refrain from investing in them in the future. Divestment lowers stock prices and threatens corporate reputations, thereby pressuring companies to reform. Some universities have opted to engage in a dialogue with the offending companies, giving them a three to six month window in which to reform before the institution actually divests.
Be the first to comment on this story