Ireland Still Funding Sudanese Government

international | rights, freedoms and repression | news report Tuesday January 23, 2007 21:48 by Rónán Ó Dochartaigh ronandoherty at esatclear dot ie

Over three months after Irish politicians first raised the issue, the National Pension Reserve Fund still holds investments to the tune of over €30 million in corporations providing revenue to the Sudanese government. Darfur, a province in western Sudan, has in recent times been host to one of the most significant humanitarian debacles of the last few years. It has prompted widespread calls for an ethical investment policy which would prevent taxpayer’s money from contributing to what the US refers to as “a policy of genocide” in the region. In December, I spoke to Senator David Norris, one of the most vocal Irish political figures on this issue.

Sudanese citizens in rural Darfur

The situation is not unique to Ireland. The Sudan Divestment Task Force, an international body, advocates the withdrawal of all international investment that funds human rights abuses. On the 9th November last, Sean Coleman, the organisation’s Irish campaign manager, and Senator Norris co-presented a report Minister Conor Lenihan. It identifies two corporations in which the NPRF holds shares – Alstom and Rolls Royce – with a combined value of €22 million.

The Fund also possesses indirect shareholdings worth €9 million in three multi-nationals; one Chinese company, PetroChina, and two Indian conglomerates, the Oil and Natural Gas Company and Bharat Heavy Electrical. In their press release, the National Treasury Management Agency, charged with investing state funds such as the NPRF, acknowledge the gravity of these claims. However, they also point out that they are compelled by law to secure the best fiscal return possible for their investments. The NTMA is a signatory of the UN sponsored Principles for Responsible Investment.

I first asked Senator Norris how he came to be involved with the divestment campaign.

Well, first of all I think the situation in Darfur is a source of concern to every responsible politician. It is a human rights disaster – we are aware of the use of the Janjaweed by the government and of the herding of people into camps, that rape is used as a political instrument, the use of helicopter gunships and so on. I’m aware of that, and then on top of that I’ve had representations from constituents. Among those who contacted me was Sean Coleman, and he indicated that there was a kind of loophole here, and that inadvertently or whatever, some of our pension reserve fund had been invested in companies that were contributing to the genocide in Darfur.

The Sudanese conflict has been ongoing since July 2003. Why hasn’t this issue been raised before now?

Simply, this kind of activity is very hard to detect. Some of these companies are, very often, hidden behind shell companies so that you don’t get to see them immediately. It’s like a series of Chinese boxes.

What do you believe are the moral implications of Irish investment in Sudan?

I think we need to look quite carefully and ensure that we don’t have investments that are contributing to the misery there. It can be painful, and it can lead to a loss of revenue, but when I was on the board of St. Patrick’s Cathedral for example, I succeeded in persuading them not to invest in companies like Shell, and they sold out their shares.

The NPRF have expressed frustration at their constraints regarding ethical investment. Is it time for the government to start taking a more active role in deciding what is and what isn’t a suitable destination for public money?

The National Pension Reserve Fund were given a brief to go out and invest money in order to make sufficient funds to defray the expenses of pensions, and the pensions bulge which is coming down the road. They were given no guidelines whatsoever. They might well have felt that if they didn’t invest in the most profitable sectors of the market they could be held to be negligent, because there were no ethical guidelines.

That’s exactly why it’s so important to put in a clause governing their actions and introducing an ethical investment policy into their foundational documents. But there is a moral imperative there; the government has indicated that they are in agreement with the United Nations call for the voluntary implementation of ethical guidelines. So, the government has no difficulty with the principle, it’s just a question of giving effect to that principle.

With the issue of ethical, or perhaps more correctly, unethical investment in Sudan comes the question – where else is our money going? According to the Green Party, the NPRF also holds investments to the value of €1.3 million in US firms Textron and Alliant Techsystems, the two principle manufacturers of cluster bombs in the world.

I think certainly it would be shameful if we were investing in technologies which would be used against the people in, say, Iraq. If we were helping to manufacture some of the really appalling weapons like white phosphorous, a horrifying chemical weapon manufactured by and for the Allies. If we were making money out of that; out of the scorching and searing and corrosion of people’s flesh, innocent civilians, then I think that would be an obscenity and I think most people would agree with that.

Today, the city of Khartoum is not unlike Dublin seven or eight years ago. It is experiencing an economic renaissance, with burgeoning construction, oil and chemical industries. As was the case here, foreign investment has provided the economic kick-start necessary. But the capital’s growth goes unreflected throughout the region. Morally informed state investment is not a radical idea. Norwegian law stipulates that companies can be excluded from their national investment funds for ethical reasons. The government clearly has no objection to the idea, but what remains to be seen is how soon Ireland can follow suit.

Senator David Norris