Good Reads

Here are three great articles on important issues I am rather passionate about and find very interesting. Enjoy!

People are dying in the Darfur. We all know this. And yet it has turned out to be quite difficult for the violence, genocide, ethnic cleansing to be stopped. The issue of Darfur illustrates how complex the realpolitik of geopolitics (or international relations) truly is. And at the same time it showcases how difficult it is to deny the clichéd statement: Money rules the world. The violence in Darfur is supported by the Sudanese government. So the question naturally arises, How do we pressure the Sudanese government to change its behavior? One way would be economically. We can prohibit US and European companies from doing business with the Sudanese government. And for the most part, this already occurs. But Sudan is oil rich and getting the vast majority of its foreign investment from the oil sector. And one of the nations doing business with Sudan is China, which needs a lot of oil for its booming economy. And China, ever the bastion of human rights, doesn't want to pressure Sudan (and perhaps lose a lucrative, steady oil deal). So the next step is to pressure China. This, of course, is quite a bit more difficult. Yet, we could try to simply focus on the China-Sudan oil business. And here is where it gets a little more interesting. Because one of the biggest companies in the world is, indirectly, invested in the China-Sudan oil business. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska and trades in many mutual funds. The company is Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) and is run by Warren Buffett, considered one of the greatest investors of our day. BRK is considered a great investment and has an outstanding track record. And BRK shareholders aren't your average investors. So much so, that a group of them organized a shareholder petition calling on company management to divest its controversial (and lucrative, turning $500 million into $3 billion) investment (PetroChina). Unfortunately, Buffett and most shareholders voted against this divestment. Now I don't want to call Buffett venal and callous, but from what I've read it is hard to view Buffett in a decent (if not good) light. But I'll let people read this informative piece by the Motley Fool and do their own google and lexis searches. But the point I'm trying to make is that it is hard to believe that money isn't an issue and an obstacle in getting pressure where it needs to be to improve the crisis in Darfur. For a good read about how shareholder activism and/or organized divestment can help the Darfur crisis, check out this piece from Domini Social Investments.

PS - Also check out sudandivestment.org for more info and a handy mutual fund screener which will let you know if a particular fund has ties to the Sudanese government.

Clearly I have to mention a Slate piece. I've posted before how I find it beyond absurd that AG Alberto Gonzales is still in office. My post was before all the Senate testimony. That Gonzales is still in office, after the enormous evidence showcasing his amazing ability to lie and fire people for political reasons (the latter, an ability which he shared with counterparts in the White House), is devastating to those of us who believe in accountability and a government of the people. While it is a bit difficult to admit, it seems to be true: Gonzales has outlasted this scandal. W is probably doing this to protect White House officials, and is able to do this because how can his approval rating go any lower (though if anything could lower that rating, I really wouldn't be surprised if it was US Attorney-gate). The great reporters at Slate seem to agree and have ended their "Gonzo-meter" (a regularly updated column counting down to Gonzales' departure). For those interested, they have an incisive "ending" column which states their "giving up" and details some of the major points of the scandal.

I'll post about the third article over the weekend.