Key Divestment Information
Why Should the UC Divest?
Divestment represents a leverage US citizens have against the Sudanese government. Divestment, on a large enough scale, will place substantial economic pressure on the Sudanese government to end the genocide. Sudan's genocidal military campaign against Darfurians relies heavily on foreign direct investment (FDI) from companies the UC invests in. If the UC divests from these companies, they will have an incentive to leave the country, taking away this investment. The companies will also have an incentive to pressure the Sudanese government to end the genocide. The government of Sudan has historically demonstrated substantial positive changes in its behavior due to this kind economic pressure.
UC divestment conveys several symbolic messages. As the largest public university in the world, the University of California has the ability to encourage others to follow suit, adding momentum to the national divestment campaign. For the US government, divestment signals that Americans consider genocide an important issue that can't be dropped from Washington's radar screen. For US citizens and individuals abroad, divestment by a major, respected institution raises the visibility of genocide; it sends a clear message that no American entity, governmental or private, will condone nor profit from genocide. Finally, divestment signals to the Sudanese government that there are clear and important consequences to their actions.
Key Facts about Divestment:
Divestment will not adversely affect the Sudanese people. The divestment criteria developed by the UC Sudan Divestment Taskforce include detailed exemptions for sectors of the economy on which the average Sudanese relies for work and sustenance. These include areas of agriculture, medicine, and humanitarian aide, among others. See our frequently asked question page for more details.
Most of the companies that are being targeted for divestment are in the oil and energy sector and have contributed heavily to government revenue that, in turn, funds the genocide. Many of these oil and gas companies are from Russia and China, two permanent members of the UN Security Council who have consistently worked to protect their economic interests in Sudan by blocking multilateral attempts to sanction the Sudanese government. Divestment from these Russian and Chinese oil companies sends a message to Moscow and Beijing that blind protection of their economic interests in the face of genocide is unacceptable.
State lawmakers in New Jersey, Illinois, and Oregon, along with Harvard, Stanford, Amherst, Dartmouth, Yale, Brown, and Samford Universities, have all imposed varying levels of restrictions on their Sudan-related investments. Numerous other states and universities have taken divestment under serious consideration. For an update on these state and university campaigns, please see our State of Divestment Report and updates since report release on 12/24/05.
The UC has a history of socially conscious investing that sets precedent for Sudan divestment. The UC divested from South African companies in response to Apartheid. Also, due to public heath concerns, the UC does not invest in tobacco companies. From this history the petitioners gleaned implicit criterion that must be met to compel divestment. We argue that the declaration of genocide by universally credible, non-biased, non-governmental entities and by official government sources meets the implicit standard for sparking socially conscious investment decisions.
The effectiveness of divestment has a recent precedent. After a divestment campaign by Western investors in response to the North-South civil war in the country, Talisman Energy decided in 2003 to end its operations in Sudan. The decision prompted two other international oil companies to sell their stakes in Sudan. Faced with the prospect of continuing loss of investment, Khartoum signed the Naivasha Treaty with southern rebels shortly thereafter, paving the way for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South in January of 2005.
Conclusion:
It is unacceptable and upsetting to be citizens of the most powerful country in the world and witness the repeated perpetration of genocide with deadly consistency. Scarcely a decade went by in the twentieth century without a major genocide, and the first decade of the twenty-first century appears to be a grim reminder of this genocidal regularity. While the calls of "never again" were once again admonished in April 2004 as we remembered the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide and July 2005 as we remembered the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, the Darfur genocide has ironically (though not surprisingly) endured.
The US government's decision to classify the ongoing carnage in Darfur as genocide does, however, represent an historic first. It is the sincere hope of the petitioners that this small but significant step by the federal government spurs indignation and action by US institutions. With a governmental declaration of ongoing genocide, the University of California has a unique opportunity to act through divestment, building on its rich history of social/moral leadership and indirectly encouraging other like-minded institutions to act. The signal UC should send is clear; genocide is unacceptable and demands action.
![](javascript:centerWindow("trip.asp?image=cheadle_large.gif", 400, 400);)
