Trevor Gleason's column on divestment from Sudan ("Going beyond simply divesting from Sudan," Oct. 31) was a speculative argument devoid of concrete factual information.
Gleason is right about one thing: Brown's divestment from Sudanese companies may have no effect on companies doing business in Sudan. However, numerous universities divesting from Sudan cite Harvard and Stanford as precedents for their own initatives. Brown, another top-tier school, can only increase this momentum if it chooses to divest from Sudan.
Gleason claims that China will exploit the situation and monopolize the oil in the region if other companies pull out. The flaw in this argument is that the Chinese National Petroleum Company is dependent on foreign capital. Investment from outside sources is the only thing that enabled CNPC, a Chinese state-controlled operation, to develop enough money to go into Sudan. Taking away money will hamper China - it will not hand the country a gateway to control the Sudanese economy.
Like Gleason, many argue that divestment will harm the very people it is intended to help by taking money away from the government. When it comes to Sudan, this argument does not hold up. The Khartoum government is notorious for spending a disproportionate amount of money on its military and ignoring social issues. We must remember that this very same military is responsible for the death of over 400,000 innocent civilians. In southern Sudan, an area destroyed in a civil war during the 1990s, the government has only allocated $3 million, or approximately 1 percent of its military budget, to redevelop the land. Frankly, the Sudanese government does not use its money for its people - it uses it to develop machinery to kill them. What's more important: roads or human lives?
According to Gleason, the bleak economic situation in Sudan helped cause the genocide. This preposterous claim must have come from the same intelligence detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Since 2002, just before the genocide began, the Sudanese economy has actually improved, averaging GDP growth of 6.4 percent. Its revenue stream has gone from $1.79 billion in 2002 to $4.39 billion in 2004. There is absolutely no basis for the claim that this genocide is economically motivated. It is a government-sponsored ethnic cleansing.
Gleason argued that we need to invest more in Sudan, not divest. I completely agree that humanitarian organizations deserve our money. This is the only way that the Darfur refugees will receive the aid they desperately need. For this, I commend the U.S. government, something I rarely do, for providing more humanitarian aid than any other country. Ordinary citizens, who have reached into their pockets in the wake of the tsunami in Asia and of Katrina, need to do the same for Darfur. According to Doctors Without Borders, a $35 donation provides two high-energy meals for 200 child refugees. This could be the difference between life and death.
Gleason's argument that we should invest in Sudanese companies does not make sense. The Sudanese government profits from foreign investments, as is shown by the economic growth of the last few years. Only divestment will put pressure on the Khartoum government to change its policies in Sudan.
Gleason does seem genuinely concerned about ending the genocide. To him, I offer the following suggestions: Participate in a lobbying campaign to urge Senator Lincoln Chafee '75, R-R.I., to co-sponsor the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. Get involved with the Darfur Action Network. Donate money to humanitarian organizations helping the Darfurian refugees.
But please don't waste your time writing misleading opinions columns in The Herald.
Scott Warren '09 would like you to contact him for more information on how to get involved.
