Press Coverage

"For the crisis to end in Sudan, a whole lot of levers have to be pushed. This is potentially the greatest lever and it has to be tried," said Shelly Alpern, director of social research at Trillium Asset Management, a Boston manager of socially responsible funds.

Last August, Amnesty International USA, fund manager Calvert Group and the Genocide Intervention Network assembled a coalition of investors that submitted resolutions at Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co Inc, money manager T. Rowe Price Group Inc and commercial banks Citigroup Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co.

The coalition called on the six to adopt policies that would limit investments linked to countries, such as Sudan, where genocide or mass atrocities take place.

In the case of Darfur, the strategy is getting four foreign oil companies -- China National Petroleum Corp, Malaysia's Petronas, Oil & Natural Gas Corp Ltd of India and China's Sinopec Corp -- to pressure Sudan.

"We want these banks to make a public statement to the crisis in Sudan, use their connections with the oil companies and we look for an ongoing commitment to the issues," said Amy O'Meara of Amnesty International USA. "As the primary revenue generating agents for Sudan's government, (the oil companies) have a unique and powerful influence."

In recent weeks, resolutions were withdrawn at Merrill, Price and Morgan Stanley for making some requested changes.

It is the latest in a series of social and environmental campaigns by activists who use token stakes to urge Wall Street to support any number of causes, from fighting deforestation in emerging markets and limiting greenhouse gasses to funding more sustainable development.

Morgan Stanley provided one illustration for how concern for public image can slowly win the day.

The second-largest investment bank initially resisted making changes, but as the April 8 meeting approached, Morgan Stanley executives agreed to meet. It was not until the night before shareholders gathered to vote on the proposal that it vowed to issue a statement and adopt some changes.

During the meeting, Amnesty's O'Meara announced the proposal had been withdrawn and outlined Morgan's promise to make human rights a consideration when weighing business matters and investments, and to submit letters to the four oil companies expressing concern about Darfur.

The Morgan resolution received the support of 8 percent of shares in an informal vote. A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman declined to comment.

"That is a great step forward," Alpern said.

The campaign also scored some points at the other banks. Brokerage and investment bank Merrill Lynch in a written statement said it does not conduct business in Sudan, nor does it fund other companies' operations there.

"It is our firm's policy not to enter into business relationships with companies we believe profit from genocide," Merrill said. "We are deeply concerned by the devastation in Darfur."

Merrill was one of four financial groups that helped fund relief airlifts to the region over the past year.

JPMorgan, which holds its annual meeting on May 20, has met human rights advocates, although it has not made any public commitments.

"We have met with them and listened carefully to learn about their concerns and the issues. We are considering them carefully," a JPMorgan spokeswoman said.

T. Rowe Price, one of the largest U.S. mutual fund companies, has unloaded its 55 million Petrochina shares earlier this month and adopted a policy for analyzing risks and engaging with companies with business ties to Sudan.

Still Citigroup, which in February issued a statement on Sudan and human rights, did not promise to engage with the companies they invested in, O'Meara said.

At its annual meeting last week, Citi shareholders rejected a human rights proposal, which received 7 percent of shares voted. Wells Fargo, advocates added, have declined to discuss the proposal.

The range of responses shows how getting banks to weigh social issues when considering lending and advisory business remains a tough fight.

"I don't think these companies are in the habit of raising sensitive issues with clients," Trillium's Alpern said.

Editing by Andre Grenon

Stephanie Nyombayire wasn't in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide-she was living in Congo, both of her parents having been expelled from their Kigali home decades earlier-but she lost more than a hundred family members in it. She spent her childhood in Rwanda watching the country rise from the shadow of the massacres, and it instilled in her a determination to help rebuild her home and prevent future atrocities.

Read more about Ronan Farrow, Genocide Intervention Network Representative.

In a bare hospital room to the east of Darfur, Suleiman Jamous is living out a nightmare. He is permitted no contact with the outside world. An armed guard is posted outside his door. Were he to attempt to leave, the Sudanese government's intelligence service — notorious for its use of torture and indefinite imprisonment — would arrest him. Next week, he will have been incarcerated for a full year.

His crimes: extending the reach of life-saving humanitarian measures to tens of thousands of displaced people, attempting to unify volatile rebel groups, and courageously fighting against human-rights abuses. Suleiman Jamous has been described as the Nelson Mandela of Sudan, and he is one of the few heroes to emerge from the brutal conflict that has ravaged Darfur for the past four years.

Mr. Jamous, humanitarian coordinator for Darfur's largest rebel group, has been instrumental in providing aid workers with safe access to areas behind rebel lines. He is widely viewed as a key leader of the rebel opposition to Khartoum's ethnic cleansing campaign in Darfur. An elderly statesman who has never picked up a gun, Mr. Jamous commands universal respect among the otherwise fractious rebel leaders who control most of rural Darfur.

Because of this, the government of Sudan has aggressively sought to suppress Mr. Jamous. He has been arrested and imprisoned repeatedly, culminating in his current detainment. Although he is now being held at a United Nations hospital, the U.N.'s hands are tied. The last time they attempted to move him, the Khartoum regime retaliated by suspending U.N. humanitarian operations in Sudan.

Mr. Jamous's absence has been felt acutely. In the 11 months since he was neutralized, humanitarian access has dwindled to its lowest level ever. More than one million Darfuris are now out of reach of aid workers. "There is no doubt that Suleiman Jamous was very important to humanitarian agencies," said the head of a prominent relief organization, who asked that he not be named. He described Mr. Jamous as a champion of "humanitarian principles and human rights," crediting him with securing desperately needed access for aid workers and negotiating the release of numerous child soldiers. "There is no doubt that not having him in Darfur has made access negotiations less certain and more complicated."

Faltering efforts to create unity and peace between rebel movements have also been undermined. Many commanders believe that such efforts will fail without Mr. Jamous's leadership. If Darfur's divided rebels fall into infighting, embattled humanitarians and defenseless civilians will be caught in the crossfire.

Despite his crucial humanitarian and peacemaking role — and despite the fact that the government of Sudan agreed to release all prisoners of war under 2005's Darfur Peace Agreement — Mr. Jamous remains detained. The U.N., the U.S. and the African Union appear to have abandoned Suleiman Jamous. Even the humanitarian groups whose work he facilitated have fallen silent, in well-founded fear of retaliation from the government of Sudan should they advocate for his release.

And time may be running out. For several months, Mr. Jamous has been suffering from severe abdominal pains. Doctors who examined him in December 2006 reported that he needs a stomach biopsy that cannot be performed where he is being held. Khartoum is well aware of both the urgency of his condition and the fact that freeing him could substantially improve the delivery of relief to Darfuri civilians. Still, his release is being denied.

If they are committed to achieving peace in Darfur, the powerful nations of the world and the U.N. itself must bring pressure to bear on Khartoum regarding Suleiman Jamous. The U.S. should charge its Special Envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios, with negotiating for Mr. Jamous's release. And people the world over should raise their voices in opposition to his unjust detention.

Speaking on behalf of his fellow South African political prisoners, Nelson Mandela once said: "Despite the thickness of the prison walls, all of us … could hear your voices demanding our release very clearly. We drew inspiration from this. We thank you that you refused to forget us." Today, Suleiman Jamous is desperately in need of voices of support. Let us not allow him to be forgotten.

Mr. Farrow, currently a student at Yale Law School, traveled to Darfur as a UNICEF spokesperson in 2004 and 2006.

Read more about Ronan Farrow, Genocide Intervention Network Representative.

"One World, One Dream" is China's slogan for its 2008 Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan.

That so many corporate sponsors want the world to look away from that atrocity during the games is bad enough. But equally disappointing is the decision of artists like director Steven Spielberg — who quietly visited China this month as he prepares to help stage the Olympic ceremonies — to sanitize Beijing's image. Is Mr. Spielberg, who in 1994 founded the Shoah Foundation to record the testimony of survivors of the holocaust, aware that China is bankrolling Darfur's genocide?

China is pouring billions of dollars into Sudan. Beijing purchases an overwhelming majority of Sudan's annual oil exports and state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. — an official partner of the upcoming Olympic Games — owns the largest shares in each of Sudan's two major oil consortia. The Sudanese government uses as much as 80% of proceeds from those sales to fund its brutal Janjaweed proxy militia and purchase their instruments of destruction: bombers, assault helicopters, armored vehicles and small arms, most of them of Chinese manufacture. Airstrips constructed and operated by the Chinese have been used to launch bombing campaigns on villages. And China has used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S. and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the slaughter.

As one of the few players whose support is indispensable to Sudan, China has the power to, at the very least, insist that Khartoum accept a robust international peacekeeping force to protect defenseless civilians in Darfur. Beijing is uniquely positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so far been unabashed in their refusal to do so.

But there is now one thing that China may hold more dear than their unfettered access to Sudanese oil: their successful staging of the 2008 Summer Olympics. That desire may provide a lone point of leverage with a country that has otherwise been impervious to all criticism.

Whether that opportunity goes unexploited lies in the hands of the high-profile supporters of these Olympic Games. Corporate sponsors like Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, General Electric and McDonalds, and key collaborators like Mr. Spielberg, should be put on notice. For there is another slogan afoot, one that is fast becoming viral amongst advocacy groups; rather than "One World, One Dream," people are beginning to speak of the coming "Genocide Olympics."

Does Mr. Spielberg really want to go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games? Do the various television sponsors around the world want to share in that shame? Because they will. Unless, of course, all of them add their singularly well-positioned voices to the growing calls for Chinese action to end the slaughter in Darfur.

Imagine if such calls were to succeed in pushing the Chinese government to use its leverage over Sudan to protect civilians in Darfur. The 2008 Beijing Olympics really could become an occasion for pride and celebration, a truly international honoring of the authentic spirit of "one world" and "one dream."

Mr. Farrow, a student at Yale Law School, traveled to Darfur as a UNICEF spokesperson in 2004 and 2006. Ms. Farrow, an actor, has traveled twice to Darfur and twice to neighboring Chad. She has recently returned from Darfur's border with the Central African Republic.

Read more about Ronan Farrow, Genocide Intervention Network Representative.

Last week the U.N. Human Rights Council held an emergency session, organized by Arab and Muslim nations, to condemn Israel for its military actions in the Gaza strip. That the council is capable of swift and decisive action is a welcome surprise; that Israel remains the only nation to provoke such action is not. In the 17 months since its inception, the body has passed 13 condemnations, 12 of them against Israel.

The council replaced what was widely viewed as a cancer on the United Nations — an ineffectual "Commission on Human Rights" that also had a single-minded focus on Israel. According to former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "the selectivity and politicizing of its activities [were] in danger of bringing the entire U.N. system into disrepute."

The removal of the diseased commission two years ago was heralded by U.N. officials as "the dawn of a new era." Its replacement was designed to have stricter standards for membership, and rules to prevent politicized voting. But such safeguards were neutered by the time the new Human Rights Council was approved, and the results are agonizingly apparent. The council is no better than its predecessor.

The problems begin with the council's composition. Only 25 of its 47 members are classified as "free democracies," according to Freedom House's ranking of civil liberties. Nine are classified as "not free." Four — China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia — are ranked as the "worst of the worst." These nations are responsible for repeated violations of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it is they who dominate the council, leading a powerful bloc of predominantly Arab and African nations that consistently vote as a unit.

These regimes have repeatedly used the council as a powerful tool for shielding themselves from scrutiny and meting out criticism along stark political lines. According to Human Rights Watch, the council has turned a blind eye to at least 26 countries — the sites of some of the world's worst human-rights crises.

In some cases, the council has actively eroded the level of monitoring. Last year, when Cuba drew fire for persecuting journalists, and Belarus for political imprisonments and rigged elections, the council responded by removing monitors from both countries.

As fresh waves of violence convulsed Darfur in December, the council responded by dismissing the team of experts tasked with monitoring atrocities in that region. Sudan's closest allies, Egypt and China, have led the council in shielding the Sudanese regime.

Even mild resolutions, like a Canadian proposal requesting the prosecution of those responsible for abuses in Darfur, have been rejected. Reports from U.N. fact-finding missions implicating Sudan's government in torture, rape and mass murder — including one led by Nobel Peace laureate Jody Williams earlier this year — have been discarded. And while world leaders labeled the Sudanese regime's actions as genocide, the council continued to commend Sudan's conduct and assign blame to "all parties" involved. In the face of the world's worst human-rights crisis, it has refused to issue a single condemnation.

The council's defenders point out nominal improvements over the old commission. More of its seats are held by free democracies. However, these nations have performed anemically, remaining too quiet and acquiescing too frequently. Democratic members such as Canada, France, Germany and Britain must do more to make their presence felt, and work harder to prevent abusive regimes from commandeering the council.

Powerful democracies not on the council — including the United States — should press those who are to use their positions within the body to the fullest extent. But given their track record thus far, the chances of democracies finding their voice seem slim.

The best hope for recovery lies in a system of "universal periodical review" slated to begin in April. This would compel the council to review the human rights records of all U.N. states, not just a narrow selection of their choosing. Council members should work to ensure that the system is implemented with impartiality and rigor. But if the council's reviews of Sudan are any indicator of the quality of assessments to come, then even periodical reviews may make little difference.

Another cancer has grown in the old commission's place, and it is just as malignant. U.N. member states should be prepared to call for a fresh start. A new body should be built, with the safeguards initially proposed for this one — such as the required approval of two-thirds of the U.N. to attain membership — left intact. A forum that serves as a real tool in service of human rights is worth fighting for.

Mr. Farrow, a student at Yale Law School, has worked on human-rights issues at the House Foreign Affairs Committee.