Anti-Climacus

DIVESTMENT: SOME PRACTICAL AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS:

There was an interesting article in the paper today (link here, but I think subscription only) about the push by activists in the US to get mutual funds to divest holdings in the Sudan until the genocide in Darfur stops. What interests me primarily about this issue is that it, again, is one where the predominant ethical viewpoint values more heavily the immediate thing to be done, and not what comes after that. Which is to say, no one (I think) is going to argue that stopping genocide in one way or another is a bad thing, but I'm not sure that a country that doesn't have much in the way of infrastructure or economic development does well if other countries impose more restrictions on growth. Thus:

"Sudan's ambassador to the U.S., Khidir Haroun Ahmed, publicly expressed "deep concern" last year about the divestment campaign, saying it "will impede development [by] hampering foreign investment that is vital to rebuilding the country." The concern is that it could target firms that may in fact be helping the poor of Sudan by providing jobs."

The article makes reference to South Africa as a possible case of the success of divestment. I'm prepared to grant that argument; the Sudan doesn't follow because (just a guess, but I'm fairly confident about it) South Africa had an economy and infrastructure in which foreign divestment could apply political and economic pressure in the right way. My suspicion is that by applying the same method to a different situation will only create more problems. As usual, this is just a hunch, but I wonder how much thinking is ever given to the long-term effects of redirecting financial resources in humanitarian crises.