Grant Manning's "Sudan divestment bad legislation" on Jan. 30 is a clear and concise argument stating that legislation to the aim of any social goals, including stopping genocide, is unfair to people who wish to profit from commerce even when that commerce supports a government committing genocide. Those directly responsible are plainly in sight, but they cannot be stopped. Political pressure and peacekeeping forces have accomplished nothing. Military action is advocated by some, but what forces would take this action?
Yes, it is Sudan's morally bankrupt government and war criminals that are directly responsible for perpetrating this genocide, but you are indirectly responsible. The morality of divestment is not grey, but black and white. Individual divestment has no effect in a world where you cannot make people care. Being indirectly responsible is still being responsible.
The chain of responsibility is clear, and indirect responsibility falls on the United Nations, the United States, the State of Texas, the University of Texas Investment Company and all investors in foreign corporations that operate in Sudan. Why?
Genocide isn't cheap, and the money comes from our pockets. The money invested in companies supporting Sudan is money invested in genocide. UTIMCO is not nearly as sizeable a goal in the divestment campaign as the state of Texas, and if I had the time I would be lobbying the Board of Regents, as several universities have already passed divestment by-laws.
I can ignore your ignorance about the specifications of these bills, but it's clear if you know the history behind the campaign that this legislation is not a total divestment of all foreign companies similar to the sanctions already imposed by the U.S. government preventing all U.S. companies from operating there. S.B. 247 and H.B. 667 are "targeted divestment" legislation. Targeted divestment is restricted to companies that would not affect the civilian population of Sudan or U.S. interests. More than 85 percent of Sudan's income is used by the military, and foreign investment brings in more money than any other source.
Divestment already has a precedent, and has been used all over the world by governments and universities to take stances on social issues. Sanctions are much harsher and even more common. Divestment campaigns were called the final blow that peacefully brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa in the early 1990s, after the pressure of world opinion and attacks by African nationalist groups.
Government ultimately is a social expenditure, and we all have a right to be activists and stand up for what we think is right. If we aren't allowed to decide how to spend the money the government taxes from us, that is taxation without representation. People have a right to invest in genocide, but the government does not. You can't make people care, but you can make your government act.
At least you state that life is more important than small investments.
The Daily Texan Firing Line
Re: Sudan divestment bad legislation
Life trumps investment returns
