The situation in the Sudanese region of Darfur has been labeled genocide by both Houses of Congress, President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and former Secretary of State Colin Powell among others. Approximately 400,000 innocent civilians have died and over two million others have been displaced. The Sudanese government has done nothing to end the Janjaweed raids that have caused so much tragedy.
The Darfur Action Group deserves commendation for its prominent role in injecting this issue into campus discourse. But now the student body must familiarize itself with this issue and press for proper action to end the conflict.
Dartmouth's investments in Siemens and Alcatel, both of which hold government contracts and are categorized by the Darfur Action Group as being tacitly complicit with the genocide, present a cause for concern. Though the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility is not prepared to recommend divestment in these companies for lack of information, we recommend that it obtain the needed information as quickly as possible. This issue should be a pressing concern for every human being. In particular, ACIR needs to consult the Conflict Securities Advisory Group, which specializes in these situations. Should CSAG provide evidence that Dartmouth's endowment in any way facilitates the genocide, Dartmouth must divest immediately.
This issue is analogous to the endowment's support of the apartheid South African government in the 1980s and may have even greater moral urgency. Dartmouth simply cannot afford to support, however indirectly or unintentionally, those who perpetrate genocide.
Dartmouth's divestment, moreover, could have a ripple effect upon the financial decisions made by similar institutions. A wave of divestment would put pressure on the Sudanese government to take action to end the genocide and would deprive the Janjaweed rebels of much-needed funds. Moreover, according to the report submitted by the DAG to ACIR, the companies in which the College invests restrict most of their activities to Khartoum and provide non-essential services, thus ensuring that divestment would not harm those it is meant to help.
This is not just a political issue. Whether one's politics emphasizes human rights or a "culture of life," this issue has high moral saliency. Dartmouth's divestment in these firms would confirm its institutional commitment to high ethical standards and would make a powerful statement against those who would turn a blind eye to human suffering.
