Divestment Strategies

DARRYL STEIN
Monday, November 14, 2005


In the greatest human rights crisis of our day, African tribal groups in the Darfur region of Sudan are undergoing a brutal genocide. Moreover, the Sudanese government in Khartoum supports the Janjaweed militias responsible for the violence. About 400,000 people have already been killed and some 2.5 million more displaced by the militias.
Students Taking Action Now: Darfur, a national organization with a presence at UC Berkeley, has been mobilizing university students against the genocide. Last month, they coordinated a daylong fast, encouraging students to donate their lunch money to the relief effort. Their broader goals, however, included a petition for the UC Board of Regents to divest from companies operating in Sudan.

Now after years of protesting for UC to divest from Israel, that campaign seems to have lost much of its momentum. For good reason, focus has shifted toward Sudan.

In fact, one of the nicest things about this year has been the relative silence of the "divest from Israel" movement. Shockingly, the success of incremental, moderate policies has convinced radicals on both sides of the campus conflict to back down, at least for the time being. Not that everything has been perfect, but the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority's gradual assertion of control therein has been generally beneficial for both sides.

As much as some abroad would like to claim responsibility for Ariel Sharon's decision to withdraw, it was largely self-motivated. Though some may argue it strengthened his ability to control the West Bank, the withdrawal showed a willingness to cede ground and gave the Palestinian Authority an opportunity to assert its legitimacy. Both of these, however, could hinder Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank.

So why was there a necessity to divest from Israel, or indeed from anywhere? The classic case for divestment comes from Berkeley's pioneering role in the campaign against South Africa. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said, the anti-apartheid movement "would not have succeeded without the help of international pressure-in particular the divestment movement of the 1980s."

If Israel's regime could change on its own, why could South Africa's not? To be targeted for divestment, a government should be so far beyond the pale that internal change is anathema to it. The government of South Africa, which subjugated the majority of the country for no reasons other than blind racism and political control, was such an instance.

While Israel has undoubtedly employed abhorrent tactics in its conflict with the Palestinians, this alone might not justify the comparison to South Africa. First, Israeli policies originated from very different causes, most notably reciprocal security threats. But more importantly, the government has been subject to internal moderation and change in its policies, even before the withdrawal. That Israel has ceded land for peace, negotiated with the Palestinian Authority and adhered to domestic court rulings on its practices makes it qualitatively different from South Africa.

Of course, advocates would claim that change could have been brought on more quickly with divestment, or that further change should be encouraged. These attitudes, however, can be counterproductive in that they create enemies out of allies and discourage domestic reformers. Without these supporters, whose successes should be applauded and internal efforts encouraged, lasting change will be impossible.

Sudan, however, is an ideal target for a divestment campaign. Though the United States and United Nations have imposed sanctions, they will not be strong enough to succeed. Unlike that of Israel, the government in Khartoum has given no sign that it will act from within to end the genocide. Also, divestment doesn't risk harming nonexistent internal movements for change. By divesting, organizations abroad can show companies operating in Sudan that supporting genocidal regimes is not only unethical, but unprofitable as well.

While divesting from Sudan may be a difficult task with UC's diversified and indexed portfolio, it would be worth the effort. Not only would the UC system no longer be complicit in the genocide by way of monetary support, but it could leverage its considerable financial clout to help end it.

Withdraw your support, financial or otherwise, from darryl@dailycal.org.