Divestment in Sudan could make things worse, Mathew Ingram says
The Globe & Mail, December 20
Mathew Ingram
Calgary -- For the Christian aid group that held a press conference last
week attacking Talisman Energy for its investment in Sudan, the issue
is a simple one: Slavery and forced relocation are wrong, and Western
companies should not help finance such activities. Beneath the shouting,
however, the debate about Talisman's ethical conduct, or lack of it,
boils down to this: How do we convince countries whose actions we
disapprove of to change their behaviour?
The various groups that have targeted Talisman have one answer, and
that is to try and force any Western company involved in such a
country to divest itself of its operations. Furthermore, these groups
usually lobby to have a variety of trade embargos or other sanctions
imposed on the country -- so that Western-based companies can
neither supply the offending country with goods, nor deal in goods or
materials exported from that country.
This is what geopolitical experts call the "asphyxiation" model of dealing
with corrupt or brutal regimes. By starving such a country of trade with
other major nations, the theory goes, the economy is weakened --
which, it is hoped, will lead to internal upheaval, causing the downfall of
the government, either through widespread public insurrection or an
internal coup.
Talisman chief executive officer Jim Buckee's position is obvious, from
the company's statements on the subject: He favours a policy known as
"constructive engagement." This theory holds that, with many such
countries, isolation only tends to exacerbate their internal problems.
Not only does it antagonize the government, but it also deprives the
country of resources, making it more likely that those in power will
further deprive their own citizens.
In the case of Sudan, Mr. Buckee also argues that by its presence
there, Talisman helps keep the international spotlight on the country,
and on the government's treatment of its people. If Talisman were to
sell, the assumption is that someone else would gladly take its stake in
the Sudan oil fields -- a firm such as TotalFina SA of France, or even
the Chinese national petroleum company, which already owns part of
the project.
Proponents of divestment and sanctions often point to South Africa as
a victory for their cause, and a defeat for constructive engagement (a
term coined by a member of the Reagan administration to describe
U.S. policy toward South Africa). Only after this policy was
abandoned in favour of sanctions did change start to occur, the
argument goes -- changes that eventually led to the end of apartheid
and the downfall of the government.
Supporters of constructive engagement, meanwhile -- including
Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy -- point to Cuba
as an example of how sanctions often fail. The United States has had
sanctions against the Communist country for decades, but many
observers agree they have achieved little, apart from impoverishing
ordinary Cubans and further entrenching the rule of Fidel Castro.
Sanction proponents will argue that this is because other countries, such
as Canada, have not joined with the United States to provide a united
front.
The reality is that sanctions against Sudan have had little or no effect
because it isn't a big part of the global trade or political world to begin
with. Even if trade with the West was shut down completely, the only
ones crying about it would be candy makers and printing supply
companies, because Sudan provides about 80 per cent of the world's
supply of a thickening agent called gum arabic. Companies in France,
Germany and Australia would likely continue supplying Sudan with
whatever goods it needed.
In addition, in South Africa a small minority oppressed a large majority,
making it easier for sanctions to trigger widespread political upheaval.
Various rebel groups in southern Sudan have been fighting the larger
Islamic population in the north for decades and getting virtually
nowhere, in part because of cultural divisions within the south. In fact,
rebels spend as much time fighting each other as they do the
government.
Politically, sanctions and other heavy-handed tactics could also push
Sudan's Islamic ruling party even further towards the rest of the
Arab-Islamic world, where they could get a sympathetic ear -- not to
mention maybe some money and tanks -- from guys like Moammar
Gadhafi in Libya or Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or maybe freelance
Islamic terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Is that really the kind of thing the
Western world wants to promote?
The groups targeting Talisman seem to suggest that if only it were to
leave Sudan, everything would be fine, but that clearly isn't true. In fact,
things could easily get worse. If such groups want to help Sudan grow,
and it is hoped, develop as a nation, they should be promoting more
Western investment and involvement in the country, not less.
Readers can reach Mathew Ingram by fax at (403) 244-9809 or by E-mail at
mingram@globeandmail.ca |
