Rage

Rage is called for, David - rage directed not only toward the animals who commit these atrocities but also toward the self-serving cowards in the Sudanese government and toward the impotent diplomats in the UN for refusing to act faster while people are starving and dying. I say this is a problem of proportion worthy of the UN, something the UN was ostensibly created to deal with, but a problem the UN fails to do anything more about than bluster. And the US government can do little directly as we have managed to squander away our once moral high ground and the goodwill of much of the rest of the world, thanks to Bush and his war-obsessed cronies. David, I read the list of simple things we can do. Still seems insufficient. Do you or do your readers know which US companies are doing business in the Sudan? Perhaps an email blitz with talk of boycott would shame the people and companies with dollar signs for scruples into pressuring the Sudanese government to work harder to protect these refugees. - PW

In any event, five or six years ago, there was an outcry here in Canada among the Sudanese community against a Canadian oil company, Talisman, b/c of its presence in Sudan. I attended several press conferences and a couple of Talisman shareholders mtgs where there was significant rancor as the Talisman brain trust attempted to deny that they were in any way aiding or abetting the civil war in Sudan and/or charges of genocide. A couple of years ago now, Talisman divested itself of its holdings in Sudan - in part b/c of a case being tried in a New Jersey court in which I believe it was the Presbyterian church had brought charges against Talisman for alleged wrongdoings in Sudan. Suffice it to say that many people believe that it was the negative publicity Talisman attracted over its presence in Sudan that led to its deciding it was well-advised to sell out and get out. All that to affirm Patient Witness's comments on this thread that negative publicity for North American companies doing businesses in these places does pack a wallop. Remember the Shell debacle in Nigeria circa 1995?

It's unlawful for US based companies to engage in trade with the Sudan, with certain exceptions for agriculture and medical projects, which require special permission from the US Treasury Dept. However, US law does not prohibit any person or organization from investing in companies which still do business in the Sudan. A quick internet search for companies doing business in the Sudan has turned up the following report from the Wisconsin World Affairs Council, dated 2006: The multinational company, Exxon, is responsible for drilling the oil for the Chinese. This company is obligated to do what is best for its investors. Sudan offers the possibility to utilize the oil reserves for the benefit of this venture. China has done nothing that is clearly in violation of the UN Charter, and for this reason it would be immoral to deny our services to China because of impact in the US. We also offer opportunity within Sudan to help improve living conditions of the people there. It is not without much thought and deliberation that we decided to accept the Sudan project. Hilton Hotels also runs 2 hotels in the Sudan, in Khartoum and in Port Sudan. The list of companies still doing business as of Feb 2007 include (source: Amherst Magazine): Alcatel SA Alstom SA China National Petroleum Corp. Harbin Pwer Equipment Co. Lundin International SA Mobil Oil Sudan Ltd. Norinco Oil & Natural Gas Co., Ltd. PECD Berhard PETRONAS Schlumberger Ltd. Sumatec Resources Tatneft Videocon Industries Ltd. Weir Group PLC (Weir Pumps Ltd.) In addition, several states, universities, and financial institutions are working to divest their portfolios of investments in these companies. A list of states which could use some prompting on our part to either take action or follow through with their initiatives can be found at: http://www.sudandivestment.org/home.asp

It was the Chinese company that Talisman sold to.