Foreign Policy Blogs

Bill permits states to cut financial ties with Sudan

Congress sent U.S. President Bush a bill permitting states, localities and private investors to cut ties with corporations and investments linked to Sudan.  The bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., passed the House unanimously amid concerns from the Bush administration the bill allows states and local governments to wade into the dictation of foreign policy , an area normally granted to the executive branch.  “I don't believe President Bush can afford to veto this bill,” said Dodd. “A veto would be an endorsement of genocide.”

The bill focuses on oil, power production, mining and military equipment as revenue sources of the Sudanese government.  Dodd says oil, power and mining provide $2.4 billion of the Sudanese government's revenue.  He adds the government there spends 70 percent of the revenue generated from oil on military equipment.

The bill allows states and localities to divest their interests from companies involved in the four sectors named in the bill.  It also permits managers of mutual funds and other retirement services to severe ties with companies involved in the bill's targets.  “No one should have to worry that their retirement or pension funds are supporting genocide,” said one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.

State Department officials expressed reservation over the bill.  Tom Casey, the deputy spokesman for the State Department, said a primary concern is “assuring that the federal government maintains the ability to fully manage foreign policy, rather than having some of this be done at state and local levels.”  The constitution provides the executive branch with the responsibility to dictate foreign policy.

AP

 
  • nyamal gatluak

    that is so sad

  • Ehood

    Hello, i would like to ask if you could please remove the picture? I am from Sudan myself and I find it very disturbing. It is one of the first pictures that comes up when “googling” SUDAN, and I really think that this is sad because it shows a negative image of Sudan. I’m not saying that the situation isn’t that horrible, but unless you are certain that the picture is from Sudan it is not okay that the picture gets to represent Sudan on the net. I Hope that you can at least take this into consideration.

  • Tom Stevenette

    Can I please second Ehoods request

  • Kathleen Millar

    And so, which states, localities and investors have, if given this opportunity to demonstrate opposition to genocide, expressed an interest in doing so? I think it’s a great idea…a chance for the common man to step forward and put his money where her mouth is. Do we think Congress wants to pass such a bill? Hmmmmm….

  • bree

    so the people that dont agree with the pic , and it is offensive and needs to be seen otherwise people have no idea whats going on. most people who research will know that they did not put themselves in the situation . people who take these pics want people to see the horror these people endure so they may help. cant you see how this should not be hidden from the world. the shame is on the people who put fellow humans in this siituation not on the starving man.

Author

Daniel Graeber

Daniel Graeber is a writer for United Press International covering Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader Levant. He has published works on international and constitutional law pertaining to US terrorism cases and on child soldiers. His first major work, entitled The United States and Israel: The Implications of Alignment, is featured in the text, Strategic Interests in the Middle East: Opposition or Support for US Foreign Policy. He holds a MA in Diplomacy and International Conflict Management from Norwich University, where his focus was international relations theory, international law, and the role of non-state actors.

Areas of Focus:International law; Middle East; Government and Politics; non-state actors

Contact

GreadDecisions in foreign policy discussion group ad v2