Double standard on divestment

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Josh Reubner, IMEU, Jan 8, 2008


Today, two movements for the promotion of human rights in Sudan and Palestine seek to emulate the successful role played by boycotts, divestment, and sanctions in achieving democracy and equality in South Africa. The two movements, however, have received radically different receptions on Capitol Hill. This double standard testifies to official Washington's selectivity when it comes to promoting human rights around the globe and its tendency to overlook the faults of its allies while using human rights as a pretext to punish its adversaries.

On December 31, President Bush signed into law the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, which was passed unanimously by Congress earlier in the month. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, authorizes state and local governments to divest their holdings from corporations that profit from dealings with the Sudanese government and immunizes mutual fund managers from lawsuits for doing the same.

The practical impact of this legislation, however, is doubtful. U.S. corporate investment in Sudan is minimal due to a host of sanctions and the connection between U.S. corporate profits and human rights abuses committed by the Sudanese government or the Janjaweed militia is indirect at best. Nevertheless, any encouragement for divesting from corporations that profit from human rights abuses is a welcome step towards increasing corporate accountability.

If Congress believes that institutions should divest from corporations that profit from human rights abuses in one country, then morality and logic dictate that U.S. policy should promote divestment from any corporation that profits from human rights abuses anywhere in the world.

The dictates of politics, however, intrude on the ability of Members of Congress to act in an ethically consistent fashion when it comes to Israel and the human rights abuses it inflicts daily on millions of Palestinian civilians living under its 40-year military occupation and siege of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip.

In the case of Israel, the link between U.S. policy, human rights violations, and corporate profiteering is much more direct and tangible than in Sudan. Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. military aid. A memorandum of understanding signed in August between the two countries promised to increase U.S. military aid to Israel by 25% per year, totaling $30 billion over the next decade. The Pentagon then takes this taxpayer money and fills Israel's shopping cart with goodies from U.S. corporations: Caterpillar bulldozers for the demolition of thousands of Palestinian homes and the uprooting of ten of thousands of olive trees; advanced communications gear from Motorola to facilitate Israel's myriad forms of travel restrictions and collective punishment of Palestinian civilians; and Lockheed Martin F-16's and Boeing F-15's to demolish Palestinian civilian infrastructure and injure and kill civilians.

Given that Israel repeatedly violates the terms of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits U.S. weapons from being used in an offensive manner or against civilians, and that U.S. corporations are profiting handsomely from its violations of Palestinian human rights, one could reasonably expect that Capitol Hill would be at least as adamant, if not more, in encouraging divestment from these corporations as well as being supportive of boycotts to protest these violations.

Not so. In fact, just the opposite is true. Last year the House of Representatives voted 414-0 to condemn British institutions for voting to engage in boycott campaigns against Israeli institutions and products to protest Israel's human rights abuses.

http://imeu.net/news/article007524.shtml

[Vegasaurus]

1. Divest from Saudi Arabia

horrible human rights abuser.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. I can see two possible criteria for selecting states to sanction on human rights grounds.

One is "how severe are the human rights violations?" and the other is "what would the cost of these sanctions be?" - it's easy to say that the latter factor should be ignored, but one must remember that cutting economic ties with another nation will have a high cost in terms of making ordinary people's lives worse.

By the first scale, Israel is nowhere *near* the top of the list (although it is on the list) - the US does considerable business with all sorts of incredibly abusive Arab states, with China, with godawful African states and so on, all of which make the Israeli government look comparatively benign.

By the second set, I think Israel is right at the top of the list, in a class of its own, at least if you consider aid as opposed to trade - American money spent on military aid to Israel does more harm than good, because it makes the continued occupation of Palestine. It would be better if the US were just throwing the money into a bin, and better still if it were spending it on something else, e.g. humanitarian aid to a country than needs it, or domestic spending.

I think it would be hypocritical (n.b. not *necessarily* the same thing as either "immoral" or "unwise") of the US to impose trade sanctions on Israel but not on the plethora of nations who commit worse human rights abuses. But it should certainly stop providing it with aid.

[Vegasaurus]

4. The US should stop providing billions in aid to rogue dictatorships too

but doesn't, because it benefits us geopolitically. Israel is no different in that respect. The US does not offer aid to Israel with no strings attached.

The whole notion of Israel being the worst human rights abuser in the world, and worthy of sanctions is laughable. There are dozens of countries that make Israel 's abuses look like a walk in the park. Indeed, in other countries, you can be hung, just for being gay, or stoned or murdered, just for talking to a man other than your husband.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. I'm all in favour of providing aid to rogue dictatorships.

Many of the countries where humanitarian aid is most desperately needed are dictatorships. Obviously the nature of such aid has to be carefully thought about - providing goods like food and medicine rather than money, and trying to avoid the government diverting it - but I think that it's often a good idea.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. What about the notion of effectiveness?

For which of those human rights-abusing nations would sanctions and divestment be effective? Which of those would or could conceivably change their policies as a result?

Did you not support divestment and sanctions against South Africa because we were trading with other abusing nations?