News-Letter

Johns Hopkins' investments may be funding genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Dozens of peer institutions like Stanford, Brown, the University of California schools, and Amherst College have pulled money out of Sudan in response to the violence there. As a leading institution, Johns Hopkins is in a position to thwart atrocities and save lives in the short run. By adopting a targeted divestment policy, Hopkins can help to maximize Darfuri security while minimizing harm to Sudanese civilians andUniversity finances.

Since 2003 400,000 Darfuris have been systematically killed and millions displaced by their own government. Rape and torture of innocent civilians are weapons in this war. Militias openly attack humanitarian workers. For the first time in history, Congress and the White House have recognized an ongoing genocide as such. Not so in the cases of the Holocaust and Rwandangenocide.

The money trail is well documented. Sudan's military is financed by several dozen foreign energy, construction and oil companies including PetroChina, Sinopec, Petronas and ONGC. Institutions with endowments, like Johns Hopkins, often invest in these companies' stock directly or through third partymanagers.

Over 70 percent of Sudan's multi-billion dollar oil revenue goes to domestic arms. This foreign investment has enabled the Sudanese regime to carpet-bomb villages, arm the Janjaweed militias and assault aid camps with helicopter gunships. At the same time, little government revenue goes to civilian infrastructure, health or development.

Genocide is not the "social issue du jour"; it doesn't capture the popular imagination like other matters. Understandably, Hopkins' $2.6 billion endowment can't accommodate the values of interest groups. But genocide "shocks the conscience of mankind," demanding immediate and persistent action from all: government, citizens and the private sector.

When political solutions falter, market solutions are needed. Targeted divestment is one such anti-genocide intervention, and is meant to complement, not replace, humanitarian and diplomatic efforts.

JHU STAND, an anti-genocide coalition, has adapted the Genocide Intervention Network's targeted divestment model for Hopkins. Targeted divestment defines "offending companies" very narrowly: these companies (1) do business with the government of Sudan, (2) impart minimal benefit to Sudanese citizens and (3) have no significant policies on Darfur. Divestment occurs only if companies refuse to change their behavior and equally profitable financial alternatives are available. The costs of divestment are minimal, mostly limited to the transaction costs of reinvesting money.

Economic pressure has already been effective in Sudan. Price is a function of demand; when institutions sell scrutinized holdings, demand and share price fall. Companies respond to the devaluation of their stock by engaging the Sudanese government and ultimately withdrawing. This has already occurred. Canada's Talisman Energy, the German giant Siemens and Swiss ABB have suspended operations in Sudan in response to divestment campaigns. Historically, Sudan has been willing to change its behavior to keep the money flowing.

The Sudan divestment movement can be distinguished from past divestment movements by its narrow focus. Anti-apartheid divestment during the 1980s took a "blanket" approach, advocating broad sanctions rather than careful withdrawal. The South Africa divestment movement unintentionally harmed black civilians even as it contributed to the end of apartheid. And because many of the divested stocks in the 1980s were valuable blue chip companies, institutions faced considerable losses.

STAND's proposal excludes the civilian economy. Agricultural companies, which employ 80 percent of the workforce, are unaffected. So are providers of consumer goods, medicine, housing, education and humanitarian services.

The Johns Hopkins Board of Trustees responded to the 1980s anti-apartheid movement by divesting from many companies operating in South Africa. If there is historical precedent at Hopkins for a higher-risk intervention, what is preventing concrete action on Darfur now?

On Tuesday, Student Council resolved to call upon the Johns Hopkins Board of Trustees to review its holdings and to divest according to STAND's criteria. Other student organizations are following suit. As students, we have a stake in Hopkins' legacy and global contribution. We appeal for a minimal sacrifice for the suffering people of Darfur.

Aaron Martel is a junior public health major from Brookline, Mass. He is the Director of the JHU Divestment Campaign. For more information on Darfur divestment, visit: http://www.sudandivestment.org

Article Tools