On Sept. 21, 2004, President George W. Bush stated before the United Nations General Assembly, “At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes my government has concluded are genocide.” For the first time in history, the United States Government had declared atrocities to be genocide while they were ongoing. Although many people have been advocating for an end to the genocide in Darfur for some time, Bush’s statement added credence to their movement and an impetus for more people to act.

In terms of culture and geography, New Hampshire is about as far from Sudan as you can get. But, as the world becomes more interconnected through trade and communication, the Granite State is no longer as isolated and distant from world conflict as it may seem. In fact, unbeknownst to most residents, money from New Hampshire could be finding its way into the hands of the Sudanese government, which many people believe is responsible for carrying out the genocide. A bill currently before the N.H. Legislature is aimed at stemming the state’s unwitting financial contribution to the Darfur genocide.

Located in northeast Africa, Sudan is endowed with vast oil and mineral reserves. However, having never developed its industrial sector, the nation lacks the infrastructure and technical expertise to exploit its own resources. Instead, foreign-owned companies are invited to come in and extract resources in exchange for a hefty commission. According to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, 70 percent of Sudan’s oil profits go into the nation’s military.

“It was only recently that the Sudanese government was able to afford their genocide against the ethnic Africans. Genocide is an expensive thing,” said Daniel Millenson, National Advocacy Director for the Sudan Divestment Task Force, a project of the Genocide Intervention Network, which is funded by private donatoins.

To do business in Sudan, foreign companies have to raise vast amounts of capital, which they use to pay off the government or invest in equipment and facilities. Where do they get that capital? It comes from investors who buy stock in the company on a number of stock exchanges throughout the world. This is how the web of globalization has entangled New Hampshire in Sudan.

Several Granite State institutions invest in the stock market as a way of managing their funds. They usually do so through fund managers like Vanguard or Fidelity Investments. Some of the investments made on behalf of these institutions, like the New Hampshire Retirement System and the Judicial Retirement Plan, end up in companies that operate in Sudan. Although only a tiny fraction of New Hampshire funds wind up in such companies, that money ultimately helps fund the Sudanese government’s alleged genocidal campaign.

After the Holocaust, when the United States got the full picture of the atrocities that had taken place in Europe, U.S. citizens vowed to never again allow genocide to happen. But, by 1994, when the genocide in Rwanda was in full swing, the phrase “never again” seemed to have slipped from America’s collective conscience.

“If you look at something like the Holocaust, people say if there was anything we could have done, we would have done it,” said state Rep. Jeff Fontas (D-Nashua). Now that the conflict in Darfur has been labeled genocide, it gives Americans another chance to make good on their promise. “This is our opportunity to get involved,” Fontas said.

On Jan. 2, Fontas and several other state representatives took the first step toward ending New Hampshire’s indirect complicity in the genocide. On that day, they introduced House Bill 1516, “an act relative to the divestiture of New Hampshire retirement assets relating to Sudan.” If the bill passes, the New Hampshire Retirement System and the Judiciary Retirement Plan would be required to approach their fund managers and engage any companies operating in Sudan with the threat of withdrawing their investments.

“We have a moral obligation to do something. We wanted to make sure that we as New Hampshire citizens were doing what we could to help the situation,” said state Rep. Scott Merrick (D-Lancaster), another one of the bill’s sponsors.

Earlier this month, a hearing was held with the N.H. Executive Departments and Administration Committee to discuss HB 1516. While a number of people testified in favor of the bill, some argued against it, suggesting that divestment would prevent the New Hampshire Retirement System from meeting its fiduciary duties. By law, the NHRS is required to act in the best interest of its beneficiaries, which means pursuing investments that will provide the maximum return. “Divestment legislation is a social-investment mandate, which does not serve the exclusive interests of the members of the pension fund,” an NHRS official said in an email.

Critics of the bill also worry that divestment would be too costly. In order to shift funds, a consultant would have to be hired and ongoing administrative costs would be incurred. While the Sudan Divestment Task Force offers a mountain of information on how to divest, the NHRS is skeptical of using the task force’s services. “The trustees need to be wary of firms that may have conflicts of interest, such as an organization that advocates for divestment legislation and also provides research services regarding targeted divestment securities or has ties to socially responsible fund advisors,” the NHRS said.

According to Fontas, divestment would be relatively painless, in part because of assistance offered by the Sudan Divestment Task Force. HB 1516 was designed using a targeted divestment model created by the Washington, D.C.-based organization. The model first establishes whether the NHRS has funds invested in any of the “worst offender” companies, which is currently unclear.

“I don’t have exact data. However, in every single state we’ve worked in, they’ve had some investment,” Millenson said. Usually, that investment is less than 1 percent of the state’s overall holdings, he added.

If the NHRS does have money invested in “worst offender” companies, HB 1516 allows for a period of engagement, during which the retirement system would approach its fund managers or the corporations and ask them to halt operations contributing to the genocide. Only if a company refuses to change its behavior would the retirement system divest. “The way the bill is set up, we could potentially not divest from any companies,” Fontas said.

But the NHRS remains unconvinced. “Social investing and divestment initiatives are viewed as a ‘slippery slope.’ If public funds are subject to divestment, other socially-targeted initiatives may follow this precedent and seek to use public fund assets for political leverage,” the NHRS said.

Proponents of the bill say divesting from Sudan is a special case. “This is a very specific, unique situation. So, I’m not worried about the slippery slope argument,” Merrick said. What makes divestment from Sudan unique is that this is the first time the government has declared ongoing atrocities to be genocide. Secondly, in December 2007, President Bush singed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, giving states and local governments the authority to divest from companies that operate in Sudan. Finally, Sudan has a history of caving in to international pressure.

So far, 22 states have committed to divestment, with 15 using the targeted divestment model. While some have done so voluntarily, many states have passed legislation. Each state may represent only a small percentage of the overall capital invested in Sudan, but, if every state divests, it would likely be detrimental to the Sudanese government.

“This is a regime that cares about money. It cares about the members of the regime profiting. Right now, they have an incentive to maintain their genocidal status quo,” Millenson said.

“Political pressure has not been the best approach to influence the Khartoum government to stop their genocidal policies. Economic pressure has been the most efficacious,” Fontas added.

Many of the “worst offenders” are state-owned petroleum companies from developing countries like China and Malaysia. While these companies are unlikely to stop operating in Sudan, the divestment campaign has led some international corporations to change their behavior. Rolls Royce, which had been providing oil-pumping equipment, has stopped doing business in Sudan. Also, Canadian mining giant La Mancha Resources decided to forego a large-scale mining operation until United Nations peacekeepers are allowed to enter Darfur. 

Divestment not only stops the flow of money going into Sudan; it also affects the government’s reputation, Millenson said. Right now, the country enjoys diplomatic protection from China—payback for supplying the Chinese with massive amounts of oil. Although China is unlikely to give up its stake in Sudan, the country’s position regarding divestment has already softened a bit. China recently decided not to veto a resolution that called for peacekeeping troops in Sudan, which is a big step, according to Millenson. 

But, beyond the politics and economics, divestment is a way to stand up against injustice. “There is a simple desire to make a statement and put yourself on the right side of history,” Millenson said.  

Although many celebrities have signed on to the cause, including George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Don Cheadle, younger people have been spearheading the call to action in Darfur. “When I first ran (for the N.H. House of Representatives), I made a commitment to bring forward issues I care about, but also issues that are important to young people, and young people care about the genocide in Darfur,” Fontas said.

Students at colleges throughout the country—including the University of New Hampshire—have held protests, organized campaigns and called for divestment.

“The money that we invest has a huge impact all over the world,” said Jackie Lewis, divestment head of the UNH chapter of STAND, a student anti-genocide coalition. “It’s just a matter of how much our investments are worth to us and how much people’s lives are worth to us.”

Since October 2007, the UNH chapter of STAND has been calling for the divestment of university funds. Their campaign has targeted the University of New Hampshire Foundation and the University System of New Hampshire. Last November, the UNH Foundation met with students from STAND and invited them to a recent Investment Committee meeting. During that meeting, Lewis and several other students presented a petition signed by over 1,000 students, faculty members and people from the surrounding community. According to Lewis, the petition was proof that it isn’t just a small group of vocal students who support divestment. 

“The students don’t necessarily want us to divest. They really want us to make an effort to have our investment managers be more responsible,” said university spokesperson Kim Billings.

Edward K. Roundy, vice president and treasurer of the University of New Hampshire Foundation, declined to comment on the issue.

Following the Investment Committee meeting, the UNH Foundation and the University System of New Hampshire sent out several letters to their fund managers, outlining the university’s concerns. In one of the letters, Roundy wrote, “The University of New Hampshire Foundation and its Board does not and will not support investment in companies engaged in business operations with the Government of Sudan that directly or indirectly are complicit in committing genocide in Darfur. While the UNH Foundation Board will not restrict your investment in any company or investment vehicle, the Board would be extremely disappointed by the lack of judgment demonstrated by any such investments and may elect to take appropriate responsive action. “

“It’s a good first step,” said Lewis, a sophomore studying philosophy and political science. “We’re going to have to keep up the pressure and keep reminding them that people are paying attention.”

If the UNH Foundation and the University System of New Hampshire divest from companies operating in Sudan, Lewis thinks it would send a strong message. “It would show, especially to the state, that there is enough support. People are paying attention and not only paying attention—they’re actually going to do something,” she said.

“We see it as what it is: the fact that it is genocide. I don’t know why other people haven’t taken more responsibility in this. We as a younger generation have a moral obligation when we see injustice. We want to right the wrong,” Rep. Merrick said. “But there is support for it across generations.”

Millenson said HB 1516 will go to a full committee vote within the next two weeks. In the meantime, he encourages people to contact their state representatives and urge them to support the bill.