|
December 10, 2004
Divesting From Genocide: A Conversation with Eric Reeves of the Divest Sudan Campaign
by William Baue
In part one of this two-part interview, Mr. Reeves explains why shareowner action and direct
dialogue with companies operating in Sudan is not an option in the context of genocide.
SocialFunds.com --
Six years ago, longtime Doctors
Without Borders supporter Eric Reeves, an English professor at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, had a "life-changing"
conversation with the humanitarian organization's executive director.
 "We were lamenting the fact that Doctors
Without Borders felt compelled to name southern Sudan the most under-reported humanitarian crisis
of 1998," said Mr. Reeves. "Out of that conversation grew a very active and passionate, productive
advocacy career--that's really what I do."
Mr. Reeves is currently on sabbatical and next
semester will take his fourth semester leave without pay in the last six years to work fulltime
researching and analyzing the Sudan crisis. Recently, he spoke with SocialFunds.com about the Divest Sudan campaign, which he helped
initiate in September of this year.
SocialFunds.com: Why divest from companies doing
business with the Khartoum government?
Eric Reeves: The Khartoum government is engaged in
serial genocide. All close observers of Sudan over the past 15 to 20 years would argue that what
took place in the Nuba mountains starting in 1992 was genocide; most observers would also argue
that the scorched earth civilian clearances in the oil regions of southern Sudan were genocide; and
certainly what is happening in Darfur is genocide. We're talking about a serially genocidal regime
that refuses to make peace, continues to defer a peace process, and is supported by the Asian and
European companies that are targeted by the divestment campaign.
It's important to note
that the US has comprehensive economic and trade sanctions that prevent any US companies from
supporting this regime. Until this regime feels very significant commercial, financial, economic
pressure, it will not change its genocidal course of action.
SF: Why not use shareholder
activism, which leverages investment positions to dialogue directly with companies, pushing them to
change?
ER: The direct dialogue argument, it seems to me, is not relevant in the context
of ongoing genocidal destruction that is taking over 30,000 human lives a month. We need to do
everything we can to convince companies like Siemens [ticker: SIEG], ABB [ABB], Tatneft [TNT], PetroChina [PTR], Alcatel [CGEP] to suspend
their operations immediately, and I know that if we engage in dialogue, it will go on for months
and will not produce the kind of immediate response we're calling for. There's simply too much
urgency to go what might be a more appropriate route were it not for the fact of ongoing, massive
genocidal destruction.
SF: What are the relative benefits and problems with companies
pulling out of Sudan?
ER: Actually, we're not really asking that they pull out, but
rather that they suspend operations and resume only when genocide has ended in Darfur and a
comprehensive peace agreement between north Sudan and the people of the south has been completed.
Now I'm starting to hear from different quarters, 'what about the unemployment risk to Sudanese
nationals?' I don't really think we can put unemployment problems in the balance with lives that
are being lost to massive genocidal destruction. I certainly don't want to see unemployment
increase, but I also don't want to see a thousand people die every day for the foreseeable future,
and that's what all the data suggests.
SF: What about other companies coming in and
taking up whether the departed companies left off?
ER: I think that's one of the
advantages of suspension as opposed to withdrawal: if a company like Siemens, which is building the
largest diesel-powered electrical generating plant outside Khartoum, decides to suspend operations,
it would be very difficult for anyone else to come in and pick up where they leave off. There
would be very little incentive for Khartoum to do that--it would only add to their overall level of
indebtedness. It's important to remember that this is arguably the most indebted economy in the
world, on a per-capita basis--they have $22 billion in external debt that they cannot service--they
survive economically only because the Asian and European companies continue to prop up an economy
that is very badly run, that is deeply opaque with revenues, especially oil revenues, and cannot
survive without this kind of continuing capital investment.
SF: So from a business
perspective, one argument to companies is that this is a bad business decision to be involved with
such an unstable economy?
ER: I think the Khartoum government has been able to pay its
bills. The real argument to companies is that this divestment campaign will crater your share
price. That's what we did in a divestment campaign focused on just one company, Talisman Energy
[TLM], the
largest independent oil company in Canada and the only Western participant in oil development in
southern Sudan. We drove them out of Sudan with their tails between their legs in about
two-and-a-half years, and we fully intend to do the same with any company that does not agree to
suspend operations. They can be skeptical; Talisman was, then they saw a 33 percent decline in
share value. That gets everybody's attention.
In part two of this two-part
interview, Mr. Reeves discusses the efficacy of recent initiatives by the investment and
legislative communities to address the crisis in Sudan.
©
SRI World Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Top
| 
