Could the infamous liberal millionaire supporting the genocide in Darfur. While Darfur is the new campaign favorite of the left, Buffett's company could be enabling it. While there has been a push to divest of investments in businesses operating in Sudan, and many have divested. Buffett has resisted the calls for his company to sell holdings that it has in companies doing business in Sudan.
PetroChina, in which Berkshire is heavily invested, is a subsidiary of a state owned company of China which has a strong stake in the oil economy of Sudan. Berkshire owns 3.2 billion shares of the company, which is a subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corp.
China's operations in Sudan have been one of a great importance for both countries. China's growing economy and energy demands has led it into relationships with oil rich African countries. It has done a great deal to support the government in Sudan, which has used the money from selling oil to invest in its military.
The head of the Harvard Corporation, which rarely divests for political reasons explained the reason they choose to make the move. "Although Harvard maintains a strong presumption against the divestment of stock for reasons unrelated to investment purposes, we believe that the case for divestment in this instance is persuasive."
Divestment strategies have been given partial credit for the end of apartheid in South Africa, it hasn't always been a success. Similar attacks against doing business with Israel appears to have had little political success. China is unlikely to divest itself of involvement in Sudan due to the demand for energy, even if Buffett were to divest in China's oil company.
Buffett has defended his investments by saying that the subsidiary that his money is invested has no holdings in Sudan and that a company cannot be held responsible for the choices of its parent company. He adds that the Chinese can't take their assets out of the country because much of it is fixed capital and oil in the ground. While China could sell these items to the Sudanese government, it is questionable that the government could afford them because it is already in debt. Further other countries already invested in Sudan, like India and Malaysia would likely increase their investments.
Opponents say that if China were to divest from Sudan it would take away its economic incentive to continue supporting the government of Sudan.
The head of the Harvard Corporation, which rarely divests for political reasons explained the reason they choose to make the move. "Although Harvard maintains a strong presumption against the divestment of stock for reasons unrelated to investment purposes, we believe that the case for divestment in this instance is persuasive."
Divestment strategies have been given partial credit for the end of apartheid in South Africa, it hasn't always been a success. Similar attacks against doing business with Israel appears to have had little political success. China is unlikely to divest itself of involvement in Sudan due to the demand for energy, even if Buffett were to divest in China's oil company.
Buffett has defended his investments by saying that the subsidiary that his money is invested has no holdings in Sudan and that a company cannot be held responsible for the choices of its parent company. He adds that the Chinese can't take their assets out of the country because much of it is fixed capital and oil in the ground. While China could sell these items to the Sudanese government, it is questionable that the government could afford them because it is already in debt. Further other countries already invested in Sudan, like India and Malaysia would likely increase their investments.
Opponents say that if China were to divest from Sudan it would take away its economic incentive to continue supporting the government of Sudan.
No comments:
Post a Comment