Speaking of racists: US businesses challenge Illinois sanctions on Sudan by FellowTraveler

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Speaking of racists: US businesses challenge Illinois sanctions on Sudan

POSTED BY: FELLOWTRAVELER
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 8, 2006 05:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 869
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, August 7, 2006 2:08 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/pl_nm/trade_sanctions_usa_dc_2

US businesses challenge Illinois sanctions on Sudan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. business group filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday aimed at striking down sanctions the state of Illinois has imposed on Sudan in response to ongoing violence in Darfur.

The National Foreign Trade Council includes major multinational corporations such as Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG.

Its case targets what the group says is a growing trend among states and local governments passing their own sanctions laws to put additional pressure to change their behavior on foreign governments such as Sudan.

"NFTC supports the efforts of the Bush administration to bring peace to Sudan and to end the brutality that has been occurring in Darfur," Bill Reinsch, the business group's president, said in a statement.

"However, state sanctions, like those enacted by the state of Illinois, work at cross purposes with federal policy" and are unconstitutional, he said.

They make it harder for the president to conduct foreign policy and -- as is the case with the Illinois law -- add a layer of sanctions that often go beyond what the federal government has approved, NFTC officials said.

Tens of thousands of people have been killed and 2.5 million forced from their homes during a three-year campaign of rape, killing and looting in Sudan's remote, arid Darfur region, creating one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

Former President Bill Clinton banned U.S. trade and investment with Sudan in 1997 and Congress codified those sanctions in 2002 as part of the "Sudan Peace Act."

The Illinois law, which went into effect in January, bars state pension funds from investing in companies and financial institutions whose depositors, borrowers or other business associates have any dealings in Sudan.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who signed the Illinois measure into law in June 2005, stands by that decision, a spokeswoman said.

"The governor signed the law because he believes the state should not support governments and regimes that participate in violence against their own citizens," said Abby Ottenhoff, Blagojevich's spokeswoman.

The boards of eight local Illinois police and fire public employee pension funds have joined the NFTC in the lawsuit on the grounds that the law forces them to divest international mutual funds and other equities and accept lower yields from other investment options, primarily in the bond market.

The NFTC's case in Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relies on the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, when it struck down sanctions imposed by the state of Massachusetts on Myanmar, formerly Burma.

In that case, the court ruled that if the federal government has enacted sanctions on a country, state and local governments are preempted from imposing sanctions of their own, the NFTC said.

Sudan-related investment laws have been enacted in New Jersey, Arizona, Oregon, Louisiana and Connecticut, according to Dan O'Flaherty, a NFTC vice president. Proposals were pending in 18 legislatures, he added.

-Once again money trumps morality. The lives of poor black people in Africa are meaningless compared to my pension!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 7, 2006 2:23 PM

KANEMAN

Correct.. America states have no business "Imposing punishment" on any foreign nation. A governor is elected to over see his state in the union. If he wishes to make "Political statements" about foreign governments he should run for Cong. Sen. or Pres. Let our federal representatives make national statements not state governors. And yes Illinois pensions are more important than the lives of people in other countries. go now

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 7, 2006 2:39 PM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Correct.. America states have no business "Imposing punishment" on any foreign nation. A governor is elected to over see his state in the union. If he wishes to make "Political statements" about foreign governments he should run for Cong. Sen. or Pres. Let our federal representatives make national statements not state governors. And yes Illinois pensions are more important than the lives of people in other countries. go now

Aahhh, one of those Austrian Economics guys. Couldn't disagree with more. It's not just some activist Governor, it's also the state Legislature, which represents the will of the state's citizens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 7, 2006 2:56 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

I think outright sanctions are for the most part ineffective. Someone will always do business with the country in question, and by not having any positive relations you wind up having less influence in their actions... not more.

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 7, 2006 3:20 PM

KANEMAN

The will of the people? C'mon do you think anyone in Chicago gives a rats hiney about the politics in Sudan? And I prefer to use Resident to citizen when talking about States(as do most Americans)...I am a US citizen. I am a resident of mass. We don't usually talk about state citizenship, but rather state residency. MOOT point but am I the only one?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 5:10 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Fair enough, residents. But that really is a procedural matter (states, feds, etc) and not my point (although I responded).

For a moment, imagine if what was happening in the Sudan was happening in a European (white, Christian) nation. Would the US stand idly by? Would US businesses be allowed to profit from it?

I think the answer to both these questions is no.

We seem to ignore suffering in Africa and abdicate responsibility to Britian and France (and to a lesser degree, the Dutch). Some might argue that the American Empire has never included the Dark Continent, but that's simply not the case (...to the shores of Tripoli...)

As to the effectiveness of sanctions, there are both stories of success and failure. Cuba, for example, is a failure and Fidel is a great American Success story. South Africa, on the other hand, was a success.

Futhermore, both the US and the UN stated unequivocally that they would not allow this type of genocide to happen again after the horrors of Rwanda. Yet they both have.

Incidentally, these are Islamo-fascists doing the killing and raping and the Sudanese government has a long history of supporting terrorism. They have harbored terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Abu Nidal, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. These groups are not even considered terrorist organizations by the government of the Sudan, The National Islamic Front.

A good non-partisan primer on the Sudan is located at:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9367/

Is the US not at war with Muslim Extremism and is war profiteering not against the law? Or does this war only exist when white people are being killed?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE