Divest This‽

Here's the dilemma: Darfur is in Sudan, which is in Africa, which is in the Eastern Hemisphere and I'm all the way over here in the United States. It is far geographically and seems further mentally; like many Americans, I have many things to think about on a daily basis before I get to Darfur. Even if I do think about the genocide once every few days, I still often feel powerless as to how I can effect change.

I've given money to the Save Darfur Alliance, bought green Save Darfur bracelets, and tried to stimulate conversation on the topic when friends ask about the bracelet (trying to avoid sounding preachy). Yet still I feel hypocritical for not doing enough.

The two major obstacles that prevent Darfur (and other humanitarian issues) from reaching the forefront of public debate are distance and complexity. The first, distance, encompasses both the geographical and cultural separation Americans feel with Africa. Put simply, it's hard to empathize with people with whom we have so little in common. Differences include, but are not limited to, language, culture, religion, geographical surroundings, physical trauma, and living conditions (i.e. we have homes and they don't).

It should be the job of the media to try to break down these barriers, either through responsible reporting or documentary work (see God Grew Tired of Us or Lost Boys of Sudan, which though not specifically about Darfur seek to humanize war-torn Sudanese refugees). Instead, we're forced to suffer through endless reports on Lindsay Lohan's DUIs (with this notable exception) and the minute details of pre-primary politics. Another under-employed tactic for drumming up empathy for Darfur is to connect this current genocide with the Holocaust, the most well-known and culturally-embedded genocide. Viewed through the lens of the past, what's happening in Darfur can be more easily understood, and can even compel specific groups (Jews, for instance, of which I'll say more below) to take action.

In addition to breaking down public apathy for the Darfur issue, activist leaders must also be able to distill its complexity into an easily-digestible package. Only a small group of people will be willing to go out of their way to research the conflict or read a book on the genocide (like Not On Our Watch whose authors, Don Cheadle and John Prendergast, acknowledge that most of their readers are already activists or aspiring ones). Even if a person decides he or she wants to support the cause it can still be difficult to see how one person can make a difference (apart from donating money and buying green bracelets).

Enter divestment. The strategy is this: if enough investors sell stock in companies which do business with the Sudanese government (which supports the Janjaweed militias that wreak havoc in Darfur), they can make a large political statement even if the financial impact is slight. Divestment is less about paralyzing corporations that do business in Sudan than sending a message of solidarity with the Darfurian people. If enough people raise their voices against the Sudanese government, and back them up by divesting their dollars, international opinion will hopefully turn against Sudan the way it turned against Apartheid-era South Africa. The strength of the divestment strategy is that it empowers ordinary Americans, who might otherwise feel helpless, with a way to combat genocide.

Just when I thought I might never see the fruits of my donations to the Save Darfur Coalition, I received a letter updating me on their divestment campaign. The letter and accompanying advertisement unabashedly revealed their newest foe: not the Janjaweed militias or the Sudanese government, but an American company: Fidelity Investments. The genius of this campaign is that it brings the issue of genocide home, and makes activism manageable. Who, after all, wants their money going to support a regime with which American companies are forbidden to conduct business?

Of course, it's not as simple as that. Fidelity Investments does not directly do business with the Sudanese government (that would be illegal under Executive Order 13067, passed under President Clinton and expanded by President Bush), but invests in PetroChina, whose parent company CNPC is 100% owned by the Chinese government and has operations and fixed assets in Sudan. Got it?

The Save Darfur Coalition started its campaign against Fidelity in the fall of 2006, when it sent a letter to Fidelity executives asking for divestment from PetroChina. Fidelity responded with brief letter, in which it explained that "Fidelity portfolio managers make their investment decision based on business and financial considerations, and take into account other issues only if they materially impact these considerations or conflict with applicable local standards." The Save Darfur Coalition responded brilliantly by creating an ad campaign that featured a female refugee brandishing the Fidelity letter as a cruel commentary on the removed, sanitized nature of corporate-speak (view the video version here). But most major media outlets did not cover the story; conversely, many of them refused to publish the ads taken out by the Save Darfur Coalition, ostensibly because they singled out one corporation for the actions of many. Only the Boston Globe, whose parent company The New York Times Co. refused to run the ad in both the Globe and the Times, featured an editorial arguing against the decision and in favor of divestment.

In May 2007, Fidelity sold most of its U.S. shares (traded on NYSE) in PetroChina, although it claims the sale was not related to the Save Darfur campaign. Still, the company owns $834 million worth of shares on the Hong Kong exchange, along with a remaining $55 million worth on the NYSE. On the bright side, the divestment campaign has already spawned legislation in Congress that would make it easier for investment managers to withdraw money from companies that do business in Sudan and Iran. The bills, which passed nearly unanimously in the House on the last day of July, would prevent lawsuits from investors who felt divestment skimped them of promised returns. A little-known senator from Illinois who tries to keep out of the spotlight, Sen. Barack Obama, introduced a similar bill in the Senate that only covers divestment from Iran. The Bush Administration is opposed to such legislation.

One of the saddest moments for me in examining the debate on divestment was to see that two of the Fidelity executives targeted by the Save Darfur Alliance were named Mr. Cohen and Mr. Rosenfeld (you can see their names displayed conspicuously on the online ad). All Jewish people share a historical and cultural identity punctuated by oppression and strife, and most recently by genocide (regardless of whether they have a familial link to the Holocaust). Shouldn't that confer upon us a special responsibility to speak out against genocide, and honor the promise of "Never Again"? There are plenty of Jewish organizations (and ones like the National Holocaust Museum) that have plunged into the genocide in Darfur with fervency, but there needs to be more education and action on the community/synagogue level.

When I left for vacation in June, I had just finished Not On Our Watch, and I felt upbeat about how I could contribute to the campaign against genocide in Darfur. Since then, my resolve has only strengthened, given the Fidelity divestment campaign and the potential for working within the Jewish community. If activists can find ways to break down the complex issue of genocide, and remove some of the perceived distance, we can rally ordinary Americans to the cause. Together, we can show the international community and the Sudanese government that we will no longer tolerate genocide taking place right under our noses.

With a new U.N peace-keeping force authorized, and the government of Sudan agreeing to comply with the resolution, we are on our way.

---------------------------------------

Sources:

http://www.wbur.org/news/2007/69046_20070726.asp
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/sudan.pdf
http://fidelityoutofsudan.googlepages.com/fidelity%27sroleinsudan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/pl_nm/iran_congress_dc_3
http://www.house.gov/frank/divestment073107.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/05/10/divestment_dilemma/
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article23093