“Stop the Darfur Genocide Act” passes the Texas House unanimously

David Cohen says:

It is a bold statement to come out against genocide~

Any idea how the divestiture, or threat thereof, will have the stated financial impact on the Sudanese government?

Chad Jones says:

I believe it was a gay agendocide, in fact.

Erin Rice says:

So back to the issue at hand, while this act alone certainly is not going to end the genocide taking place in Darfur, I think it's a step in the right direction.

When I was in college and grad school I studied third-party response (mainly of governments and state heads) to genocide as my main research interest (that being said, I'm not claiming to be an expert!). One of the biggest problems with third parties intervening in genocide, be it diplomatically, financially, or by committing troops, was an issue of language. More specifically, it was in the third party using the word "genocide," since there are so many reasons <b>not</b> to use it that are advantageous to the third party. As such, it IS a bold statement to come out against a genocide occurring and not pull some <a href="http://journalism.about.com/b/a/000049.htm">semantics game</a> like the Clinton Administration during the Rwandan Genocide. Bolder still, to actually take a step, be it so small, to right such an egregious wrong. And, as WhitneyTM points out, this type of move by smaller third parties, such as individual states and companies, did have a large impact on bringing about the end of Apartheid.

I hope this act can indeed help in this situation. The time and need to take an official stance and do <em>something</em> is overdue.

David Cohen says:

Real economic pressure on companies doing business with governments that perpetrate genocide undoubtedly has an impact. One of the best ways to exert such pressure on these companies is to amass significant ownership stakes in them and as owners force changes in management and company policy.

Market divestiture of ownership interests may likely have the opposite effect. Flooding the market with supply of a company’s stock may have a short term effect on the aggregate value of a company, but short term spikes in the volume of trades from ERS and TRS’ divestures should not destabilize or devalue a company’s value in the long.

Rather, divestiture of ERS and TRS’ ownership interests in these companies will guarantee that ERS and TRS no longer have a direct say as owners in the way such companies do business. Instead, third party parties who purchase the ownership interests from ERS and TRS for approximately $426,000,000 will have the say as owners in the way such companies are run. Unfortunately, few organizations are willing to invest $426,000,000 for humanitarian purposes, so I doubt the new owners will be compelled to change the profitable practices of these companies because genocide is wrong.

Also, the divestiture of ownership interests in these companies are secondary market transactions. The companies themselves will not directly gain or lose any access to revenues or funds as a result.

Unless I am misunderstanding how the proposed legislation works (which is very possible and why I asked the initial question) the effect of the law would wipe the ERS and TRS’ hands clean of any contact with the Darfur genocide, i.e., “our money is no longer involved in the genocide that we know is happening and that we know will continue.” That is not a bold stance at all, or rather it is exactly the type of semantic stance against genocide that Erin rightly bedamns.

Thoughts?