Efforts to Have UC Divest From Sudan Are Misguided at Best

The tragedy of Darfur, for all of us Sudanese, is and will remain a deep scar for years to come. The causes and roots of the conflict are, however, complex and intertwined. This is why many of us are baffled by the oversimplified and misleading portrayal of the conflict as Arabs against black Africans. It is this particular "narrative" that has enabled the mobilization of thousands around the Darfur issue.

One of the tools of the Sudan (or anti-Sudan) campaign has been to call for "divestment" from companies dealing with Sudan. But let us look at the recent proposal presented to the UC Board of Regents, calling for divestment from Sudan, to be voted on at the meeting this week at UC San Diego. The proposal contains a precarious clause: "a policy of divestment from a foreign government shall be adopted by the University only when the United States government declares that a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide." What this proposal consequently does is ignore the findings of many other international bodies and leaves it solely up to the U.S. government to be the "moral compass" of the public. Given the recent "fumbles" of U.S. policy makers (weapons of mass destruction, Abu Ghraib, domestic spying) one has to seriously put this clause to question. Why such a clause? In fact, such a clause would have made it impossible for UC to divest from apartheid South Africa in 1986!

Sadly, the Darfur tragedy has become a source of "political opportunism" for many groups. The fact that the U.S. government alone has declared Darfur a 'genocide," thus contradicting the investigative reports of the U.N., European Union, African Union and Doctors without Borders, should raise legitimate questions. Pointing this out should not belittle the scope of the tragedy, and in some sense it does not matter what we call it, as all parties responsible for crimes should be held accountable and humanitarian aid should be increased.

However, let us consider the following. John Danforth, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., remarked in a BBC interview that describing the conflict as "genocide" was done for "internal consumption" in an election year. The Guardian's journalist, Peter Hallward, wrote: "Bush's opportunity to adopt an election-season cause (in 2004) that can appeal simultaneously to fundamentalist Christians, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, multilateralist liberals and the altruistic 'left' ... (was) ...too tempting to pass up." Jonathan Steele, another journalist, points to the "Arab bashing" that has accompanied the campaign in his article "Darfur was not genocide, and Sudan is not a terrorist state." Hence, I cannot but suspect that the above clause represents a commitment by some in the divestment campaign to the current U.S. administration's unilateralism in international affairs.

A few more facts should be pointed out. Sudan has a new transitional government that has been in place for a year, since the end of the civil war in the South. Is the divestment campaign targeting Sudan's new government, thus seeking to destabilize it?

The divestment from Sudan campaign claims that divestment will not hurt the Sudanese people. But given that the UC system is the largest public university system in the country, divestment will only encourage many other universities and public institutions to do the same, thus denying Sudan needed foreign investment funds for relief and reconstruction.

Divestment is essentially a form of economic sanctions. Former Southern Sudanese rebel-turned-vice-president John Garang, and his successor, Salva Kiir, have both expressed opposition to sanctions, at the U.N. Security Council and the White House, consecutively. The divestment campaign, fixated on the Sudanese government, ignores a fact even made by some of the Sudanese government's harshest critics such as Pan-Africanist writer Tujadeen Abdul-Raheem in his article titled "Darfur rebels are the major obstacle to peace."

I know that many sincerely wish to help the afflicted of Sudan and help bring an end to this conflict, and to them we are grateful; I also recognize that the Darfur issue is being exploited by some for political purposes. While the UC Regents may very well vote in favor of divestment, for this campaign has much "star power" behind it, it will do so ignoring the input of many of us Sudanese who have been left out, as everyone claims to be solving our problems.

I nevertheless urge the UC regents to vote this proposal down. Sudan does not need sanctions or divestment. Sudan needs help.

Tags: