Investing in Genocide

I got a proxy form the other day from my mutual fund. One of the issues up for vote was submitted by shareholders. It asked that the fund divest from companies whose activities contribute to genocide. Seems like a no-brainer, but the board advised against it. Some of their arguments:

• Staying engaged is a better way to exert influence


• Divestiture harms the target economy, and that hurts those we are trying to help.

So the board recommends continuing with the current policy: "Human rights ... are among the factors that can affect companies' long-term prospects for success."

In other words, we should fund genocide only if it is profitable.

I find this pretty sick. It was not unreasonable to make this argument during the Apartheid era. But it's quite a different matter with slaughtering and raping civilians. The shareholders are particularly offended by the fund's investment in PetroChina, whose parent company more or less funds genocide in Darfur.

If someone came to you and told you about a great oil opportunity. We could make lots of money, but we would have to murder a few hundred thousand natives to get it. Would you invest in his project?

It would be very educational to see an order of magnitude calculation of how much you would have to invest in one of these mutual funds to be responsible for one death, or one rape. I made a few very rough assumptions and got $200k/death.

Bin Laden's Tape

I just read the latest transcript from Bin Laden. This one seems completely different from the others. Makes me think it wasn't him. The biggest difference to me is the way he asks people to consider both sides, as if the issues are worthy of debate. To a fundamentalist audience, truth is god given and debate is not accomodated as it implies uncertainty. I wonder if someone there understands American culture and is hoping to recruit Americans.

The other interesting thing is he claims the issue all along was Palestine. Of course this is not consistent with previous messages. It used to be American troops in Saudi Arabia, until we removed them. Then it was getting American troops out of Iraq. Now we are removing them. No wonder they claim to be winning. This latest crusade should not require them to shift their goal so often.

Settlements

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Permanent settlements in occupied territory are a crime against humanity. They are not a bargaining chip. Now in the spectrum of international crimes they are not high. They are not genocide, or even ethnic cleansing. They are sort of ethnic cleansing's ugly little brother.

Unfortunately there is not a good word to describe the phenomenon. Forced immigration is accurate, but not very catchy. There are some medical analogies for unwanted foreign organisms (use your imagination) that are accurate, but they sound extreme, and are not helpful.

Furthermore the issue is somewhat abstract. In a neighborhood where survival depends on a reputation for brutality, abstract considerations get lost easily.

Obama had it right when he pointed out that Israel could have all the natural growth it wanted once it negotiated final borders. It is reasonable to hold this negotiation with the PA, in exclusion of Hamas, since only the West Bank border is in dispute. It is entirely possible that an Israel under an imposed constraint of this nature would finally find it in its own economic interest to negotiate. What other motivation does it have? The desire to avoid suicide bombers? The US should impose such a constraint.

At the least, we should not oppose a unilateral UN resolution deploring settlements. In the past we have opposed resolutions on the grounds that unilateral was inappropriate. This time it seems appropriate. If we do not deplore crimes against humanity, we are facilitators and bear responsibility.

If we wish more Muslim leaders would stand up and declare terrorism to be immoral, we as supporters of Israel should stand up and declare settlements immoral.