The House of Representatives today passed H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment act of 2007 by an overwhelming majority of 418 to 1.
Which begs the question, WHO IS THE ONE PERSON WHO VOTED NO?
He is Texas Republican Ron Paul.
Apparently, Congressman Paul --who is running for President-- doesn't feel the need to establish a federal list of culpable companies doing business with Khartoum, as H.R. 180 will do. Ron Paul does not believe that there should be a bill that prohibits federal contracts with companies doing business with Khartoum, and Ron Paul does not believe in authorizing states to divest from offending companies.
Here's another lovely thought: Genocide-loving Ron Paul sits on the subcommittee for International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight.
So for all four of you out there reading this, I urge you to call Ron Paul at 202.225.2831 and tell him you think he's a immoral, baby-killing heathen who should be given a one-way ticket out of the human race, unless he cleans up his act.
6 comments:
Kneejerk much? Gimme a break. Yeah, because isolationist tactics - which is what these sanctions ARE - have been so effective in the past, haven't they! It is a sad consequence of those policies that these types of events occur. We could do far more good were we to open up free trade with all and cease bullying other nations, or "helping" them with foreign aid. Is it any wonder that where welfare within our own country fails to deliver relief from poverty foreign welfare likewise fails? It's nonsense, and Paul is right to call it such.
An addendum - these kinds of corrupt and evil governments are the kinds that are supported (initially) by the US because they go along with whatever the policy du jour happens to be. And then, when the wind shifts, these bad folks continue to do distasteful things - and we act surprised? This is all an argument to stay out of the internal affairs of other nations, no matter how ugly they are, because to involve ourselves creates only worse conditions.
A solution to Africa's problems must come from within Africa, we cannot mandate it from above. It'll never work, it sure hasn't yet.
hmmm...so if the US doesn't interfere then no one will interfere and everything will work out great in Sudan. Bret, before you comment please have a look at the legislation and read a little bit about Sudan. The country is being raped by foreign (non-American) companies who, among other things, pump 500,000 barrels of oil a day in exchange for cash and weapons which are used by the central government to violently subdue its marginalized populations (in Darfur and everywhere else that is not the capital). In addition to supporting the habitually genocidal government of Sudan, these companies are importing their own labor, displacing tens of thousands of Sudanese, and allowing Government of Sudan military aircraft to use company airstrips for bombing runs against Sudanese civilians. This bill, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, creates a hard choice for those companies - clean up your act in Sudan and keep American investments/contracts OR continue the status quo and lose your American investments/contracts. Without looking closely at the particulars of any of them, you and Ron Paul end up with the same diagnosis for every situation. You two are like doctors who hate to prescribe medicine so you tell all your patients to exercise more. That might work for some of your patients but what about the ones who actually do have tuberculosis?
Yhe idea here is to LIMIT government power. The more laws they pass, the less free we become. We DO NOT NEED legislation to stop the killing in Darfur, we need people to come to their senses. We are not going to coerce anyone with more laws if what they're already doing is bad. This is, as Bret said, about staying out of the affairs of other nations as a government. Paul, I'm sure, would be all for people boycotting businesses that work with that regime, and as well I'm sure, he doesn't support what's going on there.
Economic sanctions do not work. They typically hurt those they are intended to help. (And they are force against Americans, and thus cost lives and prosperity in America.)
It is hard to say what will work. The closest thing to economic sanction that might work is an education sanction for ivy league schools. Other methods might work better. Trade with small businesses in the communities, allow aid and missionary groups in, allow protection groups in, decrease red tape for aid, allow cooperative projects and so on. I'm not sure what would be best, but I'm confident that economic sanctions won't be it.
Its been a few days so perhaps this has gone cold, but I’ll respond anyway because I think when you take a look at this bill rather than just thinking of it as “economic sanctions” of the kind we’re used to, you’ll see it is quite in line with these concerns. In brief -- this legislation is very special because it is far more targeted and likely to be effective than traditional economic sanctions, and because it really protects the rights of people to divest if they want.
John, if I understand correctly, your point revolves around maximizing freedom by minimizing government restraints on individual actions. A fair point I agree with in many cases, though I’m sure we all agree on the need for some restrictions of freedoms in order to maximize it (like laws against murder, for example). Dar, your point as I understand it, is that economic sanctions don’t work, and that other forms of intervention might work better. I like (and have proposed) your "Ivy League Sanction" idea. (Though the downside is that sending the children of leaders to American schools often creates reformers with more pro-American sympathies.)
Economic sanctions *can* work, depending on the objective (we are really good at crushing the economies of some countries depending on certain criteria…we are less good at ensuring this results in the political objectives we are trying to meet). Particularly useful have been sanctions that target firms and lenders supporting corrupt regimes. I wonder why nobody has brought up South Africa, where the country's majority population was brutally oppressed until countries like the US put sanctions on the regimes financiers, which even ex South African leaders have admitted were critical in forcing them to step down and end Apartheid. Moreover the companies which would be targeted for divestment or contract restrictions under this legislation are very carefully chosen to ensure that reducing investment in them will NOT hurt the average Sudanese or Darfurian – just the regime. I have traveled throughout Sudan, including Darfur, and I assure you that the companies on this list are not benefiting any of the oppressed populations we are trying to help, and that the harm they do vastly outweighs their good for these people.
But more useful than that debate is the nuance here: this is not so much an economic sanction of the broad sort usually invoked by that term. Instead these are highly- targeted, optional sanctions that protect the rights of individuals and states who choose to remove their investments from companies that support a brutal and genocidal regime.
John agreed with Bret (and Congressman Paul), that we should maximize the liberty of Americans while staying out of the affairs of others. This points to an axiomatic question that separate people and arguments: who’s freedom do we care about maximizing? I personally think that humans are not less valuable for being born in Darfur and anywhere else, and so I care a about the security and freedom of people who don’t happen to be Americans. Thus, I want to invest my money (if I had any) in companies that don’t support genocide. But, I realize not everybody agrees with that sentiment. So what the ideal then is legislation that ALLOWS me to make the investment decisions I want, including through my government when a majority of my fellow constituents agree with me. What is so useful about this legislation is that it does just this. This brings me to my second point:
The vast majority of this legislation actually protects the freedom of Americans and the states governments they form to represent them. It protects asset managers and state legislator who, on the basis of pleasing their customers (in the case of asset managers) or their constituents (in the case of state legislators), CHOSE not to invest in companies fueling a genocidal regime. Individuals holding their money in mutual funds ought to be able to tell their asset managers to create products that don’t support genocide. That's a no brainer. Likewise, the teachers, postal workers, and other state employees who’s retirement saving are managed by states ought to be able to tell the state that they don’t want the money invested in genocide either. (A separate point that we might all agree on – maybe state employee’s savings should be handled by private asset managers of their choosing rather than state governments to begin with!). This legislation protects asset managers and state fund managers responding to those demands. It also develops a list of carefully researched companies to help ensure that when these investors make these decisions, they are accurate and well targeted.
To be fair, I am cheating a bit by describing this legislation as entirely optional and therefore freedom-enhancing rather than reducing for every American. Regarding the protection of asset managers who divest, individuals can always choose among different funds and asset managers, so there is no problem. However regarding legislators who decide (presumably on a democratic basis) that they should divest state savings funds from these companies or should withhold government contracts from them, there will be some losers among constituents who disagree. However this is a fundamental issue with democracy. The fact that you can’t please everybody doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the option of pleasing a democratic majority should they choose not to invest in genocide. The fact is that to solve coordination problems, governments have to decide how to spend Americans' money in some cases. If these same Americans want to not invest in companies supporting genocide, the freedom to make such decisions ought to exists. This is what the legislation proposes.
In a way, this is an important new model of “sanctions” that responds seriously to both the concerns that broad, un-targeted sanctions are ineffective, and that they force policy on Americans. These are much more powerful yet targeted measures, and act principally to protect the actions of those individuals or democratic majorities whose moral compass tell them it is wrong to make investment decisions that fuel mass murder.
Post a Comment