Divesting from Darfur

X. Conclusion

While the Sudanese regime has not responded to political pressure alone, Khartoum has been historically responsive to economic pressure, as outlined in Section IV. Targeted divestment is therefore a critical tool of pressure and influence on Khartoum. Far from punishing the Government of Sudan for making peace, continuing targeted divestiture reinforces the message that only concrete and substantive progress in implementing the Darfur Peace Agreement and allowing international peacekeepers to enter the region will be rewarded. A successful targeted divestment campaign will have the ability to convince the Government of Sudan that they have a stake in stability in Darfur. Under the Sudan Divestment Task Force's model, divestment will end when the US Congress or State Department declares that the Darfur genocide has been halted for at least 12 months, the US President declares Sudan has honored its treaty obligations, or if the United States revokes all sanctions imposed against the Government of Sudan.76 Divestment punishes Sudan for its failure to provide for peace in Darfur, but will reward Sudan for positive steps taken to ameliorate the situation.

Besides providing Khartoum a "buy-in" for establishing stability in Darfur, the Task Force's model of targeted divestment carries several additional benefits. First, the model helps minimize harms to the vast majority of Sudan's citizens. Second, the targeted divestment campaign has already changed company behavior in Sudan for the better. Third, targeted divestment sends a strong signal to the home countries of top offending companies (e.g. China, Russia, Malaysia, India, etc.) that faithfully protecting Sudan's regime against multilateral action is unacceptable. Finally, the targeted divestment campaign has garnered significant public attention both in the US and abroad (see, for example, the Task Force's national media page at www.sudandivestment.org/inTheNews.asp), a critical prerequisite for concerted international action.

Recognizing its effectiveness, the International Crisis Group (ICG) called for targeted divestment in its most recent report on the genocide in Sudan, Getting the UN into Darfur. Citing the historical success of economic pressure on the government of Sudan, ICG states, "The [targeted divestment] campaign should be encouraged."77 Human Rights Watch also recognized the need to punish Sudanese leaders for their refusal to abide by the DPA and commit to peacekeepers in Darfur. The organization recently called on entities to impose sanctions that "target revenue flows from the petroleum sector."78 A news analysis from The Economist in January 2007 echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the "most effective [non-military measures for changing Khartoum's behavior] might be measures to target Sudan's oil revenues, which provide the government with most of its cash."79

A group of former foreign ministers has also called for targeted sanctions against the government, specifically relating to the Sudanese oil industry. The coalition, including former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Lloyd Axworthy of Canada, and 13 others, called for "targeted multilateral sanctions directed at military and civilian leaders who are responsible for the violence; measures to target revenue from Sudan's oil sales, coupled with an embargo on the sale of equipment to that country's petroleum industry."80

Although the Sudanese government is genocidal and ruthless, it is an eager and emerging participant in the global economy, expending considerable effort to attract foreign investment. Through targeted divestment, the threat posed by divesting fiduciaries will introduce an essential economic stake in the peace process for the Government of Sudan81. Despite occasional indications from the government of Sudan that they are interested in accepting a robust and effective peacekeeping force, genocide in Darfur is far from over.

*All information provided by the Sudan Divestment Taskforce, www.sudandivestment.org

Back