Buffett's Role in Sudan Questioned

Warren Buffett was confronted over the week-end by a Sudanese refugee and by Karuk native Americans during the annual general meeting of his business empire. The reason? Buffett continues to make money from his investments in Sudan, despite the ongoing humanitarian crisis, particularly his investments in PetroChina (which is currently hawking its Corporate Social Responsibility Report on its website). According to James Miller, from the Sudanese Divestment Taskforce, CNPC is:

"....by far the most irresponsible and abusive oil investor in Sudan. At least 70% of the funds they provide to Sudan get funnelled into the Sudanese military."

Buffett's other investments have come under scrutiny in recent weeks. A recent LA Times report exposed the true nature of much of his investments through Berkshire Hathaway. Despite pledging $31 billion of his fortune to the Gates Foundation, which was established to fight disease, poverty and illiteracy, Buffett has been caught up in some dubious investments. According to the report:

About $56.4 billion, or 87% of Berkshire's stock holdings, is invested in companies criticized by the research groups for profiting from environmental irresponsibility, human rights violations and other activities that undermine the foundation's good works or its goals of improving the lot of humankind.

The report adds that:

The holdings of Berkshire Hathaway, totaling more than $4.6 billion in eight companies, came in dead last by a wide margin in a ranking of oil and gas holdings among the 100 largest investors in the United States. The ranking was based on social, environmental and governance performance ratings developed by the investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and a related ownership analysis by Cary Krosinsky of CapitalBridge, a capital markets intelligence firm.

So just what does Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway invest in? Well, they also own shares in the notorious, union busting Wal-Mart (parent company of Asda in the UK). Berkshire currently owns shares worth $921 million in Wal-Mart Stores Inc, despite its well documented human rights abuses.

Furthermore, despite the stated goals of the Gates Foundation, Berkshire also holds:

$64 million in pharmaceutical companies, for example, whose pricing policies have tended to keep antiretroviral drugs out of reach for HIV/AIDS patients in developing nations.

And here is what the Gates Foundation has to say on Global Health:

Millions of people—most of them children—die each year in developing countries from diseases that are preventable and treatable. Moreover, tragically little research is done to prevent or cure some of the world’s biggest killers, such as malaria and tuberculosis.

The foundation is guided by the belief that all lives, no matter where they are lived, have equal value. The mission of our Global Health program is to encourage the development of lifesaving medical advances and to help ensure they reach the people who are disproportionately affected. We focus our funding in two main areas:

• Access to existing vaccines, drugs, and other tools to fight diseases common in developing countries
• Research to develop health solutions that are effective, affordable, and practical.

Berkshire's investment also include tobacco firm Altria (the parent company of Philip Morris - the passive smoking deniers), despite the fact that the Gates Foundation avoids investments in the tobacco industry due to the health implications. Perhaps someone should tell Mr Buffett of the true goals of the Gates Foundation.

During the AGM, Berkshire shareholders were addressed by a woman from the Karuk Indian reservation who explained the how her community has been destroyed by hydroelectric dams operated by PacifiCorp (yet another Berkshire subsidiary). The dams have seriously undermined the community's salmon fishing livelihood. Confronting Buffett she said:

"My people are a river people. Our entire culture, religion and subsistence is centred around the river.

Buffett, I know you care very much about humanity. There are things you can do to help us."

Buffett's response?

"The world runs on electricity and it wants more electricity. We are a public utility responsive to public policy."

Hardly in keeping with social responsibility.

It is time that Buffett put his money where his mouth is. He talks the talk, espousing his support for causes such as the Gates Foundation, yet his investments give lie to his great claim for being a supporter of ethical causes. How can anyone claim to share the same ideals of the Gates Foundation, yet support the oil industry, Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, pharmaceuticals and PetroChina? It couldn't possible be because there is money to be made, could it?

Further reading: The full LA Time report - Berkshire wealth clashes with Gates mission in Sudan

Coke Continues to Profit in Sudan

While people around the world gather to call for action in Sudan, it is worth remembering that some companies continue to do business there. Coca Cola continues to operate in Sudan, despite sanctions, thanks to the exemption on gum arabic. Furthermore, as Killer Coke has noted:

Warren Buffett who left Coca-Cola's board in 2006, but remains the company's largest shareholder with 8.3% of common shares outstanding worth about $10 billion, is also a major investor in the PetroChina Oil Company which gets oil from Sudan and is targeted by the Sudan divestment community. "Oil has turned it [Sudan] into one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa - if not the world - emboldening the nation's already belligerent government and giving it the wherewithal to resist the Western demands to end the conflict in Darfur.

In fact, Berkshire Hathaway, of which Buffet is CEO, is the largest foreign shareholder of PetroChina owning 1.3% of shares. Buffet continues to resist calls to divest in PetroChina. He claimed that:

"I can be a direct descendant of William Jennings Bryan, but I will not be changing the Chinese government's policy… I doubt I could change the policies of the Douglas County [ Nebraska] Board."

However, CFO Asia (a leading magazine for CFO's in Asia) contradicts this assessment. It claims that:

"If Buffett were to sell for any reason, PetroChina's stock would almost certainly tank - and the company's reputation would sink along with it…PetroChina already had a foretaste of this in August [2003] when its stock price fell 2.1 percent in one day. Buffett disclosed to US regulators that he had sold US$5 million worth of PetroChina's American Depositary Shares in the second quarter of 2003. Flustered investors rushed to the exits. Was Buffett's confidence in PetroChina wavering? The markets were reassured when it was revealed that Buffett's ADS sales were made before he accumulated the 2.3 billion in H-shares he bought in Hong Kong."

There is clear evidence that were Mr Buffet to re-assess his investments in PetroChina, there would be a knock-on effect to China's attitude towards the humanitarian disaster. The Chinese government is already becoming sensitive to international pressure on Sudan and if Buffet was to divest, PetroChina would have to rethink its opertions in the region. However, it would appear that as long as Coca Cola and PetroChina continue to bring in the money, Buffet will continue to overlook the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. After all, business is business.

For more information: PetroChina, CNPC, and Sudan: Perpetuating Genocide - a report by the Sudan Divestment Task Force.

Coca-Cola and Sudan

From Killer Coke:

On May 15, 1998, the African Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania reported in a Sudan Update: " 'When the U.S. government announced sanctions against Sudan four months ago, officials here shrugged their shoulders,' reports IPS. `Trade between the countries was low,' they said, so the measure would hardly affect the economy. Now, however, the effect is being felt: Coca-Cola, for example, pulled out of the country this week and, as a result, at least 7,000 workers and technicians have lost their jobs, according to the Sudan Standard, an official weekly. Coca-Cola Ltd. was one of the leading employers in Sudan, economists here say.

"Sudan Standard said that Coca-Cola International had requested that Egyptian industries stop shipping concentrate and chemical mixtures needed to manufacture Coca-Cola drinks to its subsidiary in Sudan. The paper quoted company authorities as saying that they had not received permission from the U.S. government to ship the inputs to Sudan."

On October 24, 2006, Jeffrey Gettleman reported in The New York Times ("War in Sudan? Not Where the Oil Wealth Flows") that "In 2002, Sudanese investors opened a new Coca-Cola factory, with Coke syrup legally exported to Sudan under an exemption for food and medicine. The $140-million plant churns out 100,000 bottles of Coke, Sprite and Fanta per hour..."

In 1997, the American government imposed a trade embargo freezing Sudanese government assets in the U.S. and prohibiting exports to and imports from Sudan. The reason as reported in The New York Times: "human rights abuses connected to the north-south war and Sudan's links to terrorists."

In 2002, The Coca-Cola Co. exploited a loophole in the U.S. sanctions that gave the company an opportunity to ignore genocide in Darfur and to open a new plant in Sudan, thus propping up the Sudan economy and the government of Sudan's President Hassan al-Bashir. According to the Times article, President Bashir, an army general, seized power in 1989 through a military coup. Among the biggest beneficiaries of government revenues have been his troops - this in a country where the per capita income in 2005 was $640.

The New York Times story stated: "Sudan still marches to a martial tune. Army officers enjoy special status, foreign visitors must register with the police and schoolchildren are required to wear camouflage uniforms to class..."

An excerpt from a U.S. Treasury Dept. document entitled: "An overview of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations..." states: "Except for information or informational materials and donated articles intended to relieve human suffering, such as food, clothing and medicine, and the licensed export of agricultural commodities, medicine and medical devices, no goods, technology, or services may be exported from the United States to Sudan, either directly or through third countries, without a license..."

Certainly, Coca-Cola soft drinks, Coke, Sprite and Fanta, hardly meet the standards of a food or medicine "intended to relieve human suffering." And the syrup for these products is certainly not being donated.

Nat Hentoff reported in the Village Voice: "We all know that the United States has placed certain trade restrictions on Sudan. Yet gum arabic is exempted, and it is the number one export of Sudan. Coca-Cola and the other major soft drink conglomerates need gum arabic. So what do we do? We proudly proclaim that we've got sanctions on Sudan, but we exempt gum arabic."

According to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Dept. of Treasury, Coca-Cola has paid fines "to settle allegations of violations of the Sudan sanctions...OFAC alleged that Coca-Cola exported to its bottler in Sudan services not authorized by its OFAC license and disregarded or evaded certain OFAC license restrictions. The services included financial and market support."

I believe The Coca-Cola Company should take the following action to help end genocide in Sudan's Darfur.

1. Allocate $15 million to run a three-month public relations and lobbying campaign to pressure the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur. This sum is $4 million less than the $19 million Coca-Cola spent in 2003 to advertise Sprite.

2. If this doesn't work, The Coca-Cola Co. should shut down its operations in Sudan and the company should compensate every worker affected by the shutdown the equivalent of at least four times Sudan's per capita income or one year's salary, whichever is greater, to help those Sudanese Coke workers' families adjust while seeking other means of making a living. Even if there were 7,000 employees, as reported in 1998, this would cost The Coca-Cola Co. less than $20 million, a drop in the bucket compared to the annual profits of $4 -5 billion or the compensation paid to its executive officers. E. Neville Isdell's compensation for 2006 as reported by the Atlanta Business Chronicle was $32.3 million.

This could serve as a model for other companies operating in the Sudan. Furthermore, the public everywhere should demand that gum arabic not be imported from the Sudan.

It should be noted that Warren Buffett who left Coca-Cola's board in 2006, but remains the company's largest shareholder with 8.3% of common shares outstanding worth about $10 billion, is also a major investor in the PetroChina Oil Company which gets oil from Sudan and is targeted by the Sudan divestment community. "Oil has turned it [Sudan] into one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa - if not the world - emboldening the nation's already belligerent government and giving it the wherewithal to resist the Western demands to end the conflict in Darfur."

Statement by Ray Rogers of Killer Coke.

Home Office - Full of Cunts??

Apologies for the repetitive use of the 'c'-word, but it feels necessary in any post which deals with 'Dr' John Reid. Where to begin with this vile, disgusting creature? A man who is fit for no purpose other than torturing various undesirables. Go on, you can imagine him, sleeves rolled up, red faced with rage while he strikes you repeatedly until you tell him everything. Everything.

I guess we could make a start with the news that our beloved totalitarian Home Secretary is branching out our CCTV 'security' system (h/t Ten Percent). After a 'successful' trial (a word that 'Dr' Reid still cannot find in his dictionary), he has decided to roll out his talking CCTV cameras to 20 areas across England. Brilliant idea. Where will it end I wonder? Perhaps they could use some kind of device that would send the National Grid through our bodies every time we disobey one of these talking cameras. Shit, that's probably given the bastard an idea. Who would have thought that, after the end of the Second World War, we would have a government that is so happy to put in place the apparatus that a fascist would dream of. Should this country ever fall victim to the fascists, the country would become a living nightmare. But, hey, you don't need to worry, you haven't done anything wrong. Have you?

Then, as if to prove is 'I'm a hard bastard' credentials, this story emerges:

A British man has lost his High Court fight against extradition to the US for allegedly carrying out the "biggest military computer hack of all time".

Glasgow-born Gary McKinnon, of north London, is accused of gaining access to 97 US military and Nasa computers.

Home Secretary John Reid granted the US request to extradite him for trial.

Well done. And what makes this even more concerning:

.....solicitor Jeffrey Anderson said alleged threats by US authorities, including one from New Jersey prosecutors that Mr McKinnon "would fry", would be among issues raised.

That, my friend, is the sound of a feeble Home Secretary licking the boots of the cowboy in the White House. Never mind the human rights abuses, the threats of state sponsored murder, Reid just wants to look like a strong man in the eyes of Bu$h Corp. Aren't there laws against extraditing people on the grounds of torture/death penalty?? Perhaps not, certainly not in the mind of our fuck-wit of a Home Secretary. What's another death on the hands of a government stained by the blood of thousands? After all, they will never have to answer to their crimes.

And we haven't even mentioned his complicity in the detention of Jamil el-Banna, a man who dared to say 'no' to MI5. So, let's get this clear. A country that puts into use CCTV cameras that tell people what to do, a man sent to Guantanamo for refusing to do what he was told to do and another man sent to America to face the possible death penalty for upsetting the government. Mmmm, there's a pattern emerging here.....it couldn't be, could it??? No, don't say the 'f' word.

Still, it's glad to know that some areas of the establishment are prepared to hold this total cretin to account. From the BBC:

Home Office plans to send Darfuri asylum seekers back to Sudan have been blocked by senior judges.

The Court of Appeal in London said the three asylum seekers could not be sent to Sudan's capital Khartoum.

The three appeal judges said oppressive conditions in refugee camps would be "unduly harsh" on the individuals.

Darfur has seen conflict between black and Arab Sudanese people. The Home Office said the men would be safe in Khartoum and will challenge the ruling.

Safe? Of course they will be safe. It's not like there is a humanitarian disaster over there, is it? I mean, no-one has claimed that the country is in the grip of 'genocide', have they? No doubt Reid will bluster and huff and puff, before releasing some press release attacking judges and threatening their independence. After all, we expect nothing less from this bastard Home Secretary.

How to Please the Daily Mail, by 'Dr' John Reid

Here's a story that you might well have missed today. At the end of a rather damning piece on the latest poverty figures in The Guardian, there was a tiny comment on a report released today by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. The report is a damning indictment on the handling of asylum seekers by the government and highlighted the 'inhumane' conditions that they suffer in modern Britain. And yet, this report has barely been commented on by the mainstream media.

The report itself found that many failed asylum seekers suffered social and mental health problems and did without basic food, shelter and care. The report also found that among a group of over 100 failed asylum seekers in Leeds, one in four had slept rough and a third had been destitute for at least a year. The report also refers to a woman who:

'...suffered a miscarriage fearing she would be deported if she sought medical help.'

The chair of the enquiry, Kate Adie, said:

"The current UK asylum system fails by the standards both of human decency and of those who want to 'get tough' on asylum.

"For the benefit of everyone, there has got to be urgent and pragmatic reform which brings these people in from the shadows so that they can be treated humanely, contribute to the community and remain inside the system. We are proposing practical, workable solutions which will benefit local communities as well as government."

Furthermore, Anna Reisenberger, acting chief executive of the Refugee Council said:

"We hope this balanced and reasonable report, from an independent inquiry, will finally convince the government that its policy towards refused asylum seekers has failed and that urgent reform is needed.

"The current policy of using destitution to enforce return might look tough but it isn't delivering results. For all sorts of reasons, which the government well understands, many refused asylum seekers can't return home - at least for the time being. Given that, the policy of denying refused asylum seekers all support and refusing them the right to work manages to be both immoral and pointless.”

As one might expect, the report was greeted with typical tough posturing by the Home Office. This is, after all, exactly what 'Dr' Reid wants people to hear. He wants the Daily Mail and Sun readers to see that he is tough on these scroungers who come over here in their parasitic droves. His Daily Mail pleasing mouthpiece, Joan Ryan, claimed that:

"Our asylum system is a fair one. It ensures that support is available to someone claiming asylum from the time they arrive in the UK until the outcome of their claim is determined.

"But it is not right to ask the UK taxpayer to fund - potentially indefinitely - those who choose to remain when it is open to them to return to a home country that has been found safe for them to live in."

Yep, that is going to play straight to the Mail reading, pitchforks and torches brigade. Good work John. She also added that granting asylum seekers the right to work would:

"send out the wrong message to those who may try to come here without genuine cause".

And what is exactly is the wrong message? If they want to work while they are here, let them and offer them all the protections that other citizens would be entitled to. Don't treat them as vermin to ensure you get a few pleasing headlines from the Daily Mail. And this news also comes on the day that it is revealed that the government is attempting to send asylum seekers back to Sudan, despite the fact that they acknowledge that the country is in crisis.

This whole situation is an utter disgrace and all to garner a few friendly headlines. And that is the real tragedy at the heart of this. Not only are people suffering as a result of 'inhumane' conditions, they are suffering because this government and, in particular, this fuck head of a Home Secretary, want to please sections of the mainstream media to shore up their 'core vote'. The government is willingly playing political games with the lives of the most vulnerable. It is time the vulnerable fought back.

Further Information: Moving on: From Destitution to Contribution - the full report.

Coke Ignores Genocide in Darfur; Continues Operations in Sudan

From Killer Coke:

Why is Coca-Cola back operating in Sudan?

On May 15, 1998, the African Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania reported in a Sudan Update: " 'When the U.S. government announced sanctions against Sudan four months ago, officials here shrugged their shoulders,' reports IPS. `Trade between the countries was low,' they said, so the measure would hardly affect the economy. Now, however, the effect is being felt: Coca-Cola, for example, pulled out of the country this week and, as a result, at least 7,000 workers and technicians have lost their jobs, according to the Sudan Standard, an official weekly. Coca-Cola Ltd. was one of the leading employers in Sudan, economists here say.

"Sudan Standard said that Coca-Cola International had requested that Egyptian industries stop shipping concentrate and chemical mixtures needed to manufacture Coca-Cola drinks to its subsidiary in Sudan. The paper quoted company authorities as saying that they had not received permission from the U.S. government to ship the inputs to Sudan."

On October 24, 2006, Jeffrey Gettleman reported in The New York Times ("War in Sudan? Not Where the Oil Wealth Flows") that "In 2002, Sudanese investors opened a new Coca-Cola factory, with Coke syrup legally exported to Sudan under an exemption for food and medicine. The $140-million plant churns out 100,000 bottles of Coke, Sprite and Fanta per hour…"

In 1997, the American government imposed a trade embargo freezing Sudanese government assets in the U.S. and prohibiting exports to and imports from Sudan. The reason as reported in The New York Times: "human rights abuses connected to the north-south war and Sudan's links to terrorists."

In 2002, The Coca-Cola Co. exploited a loophole in the U.S. sanctions that gave the company an opportunity to ignore genocide in Darfur and to open a new plant in Sudan, thus propping up the Sudan economy and the government of Sudan's President Hassan al-Bashir. According to the Times article, President Bashir, an army general, seized power in 1989 through a military coup. Among the biggest beneficiaries of government revenues have been his troops — this in a country where the per capita income in 2005 was $640.

The New York Times story stated: "Sudan still marches to a martial tune. Army officers enjoy special status, foreign visitors must register with the police and schoolchildren are required to wear camouflage uniforms to class…"

An excerpt from a U.S. Treasury Dept. document entitled: "An overview of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations…" states: "Except for information or informational materials and donated articles intended to relieve human suffering, such as food, clothing and medicine, and the licensed export of agricultural commodities, medicine and medical devices, no goods, technology, or services may be exported from the United States to Sudan, either directly or through third countries, without a license…"

Certainly, Coca-Cola soft drinks, Coke, Sprite and Fanta, hardly meet the standards of a food or medicine "intended to relieve human suffering." And the syrup for these products is certainly not being donated.

Nat Hentoff reported in the Village Voice: "We all know that the United States has placed certain trade restrictions on Sudan. Yet gum arabic is exempted, and it is the number one export of Sudan. Coca-Cola and the other major soft drink conglomerates need gum arabic. So what do we do? We proudly proclaim that we've got sanctions on Sudan, but we exempt gum arabic."

According to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Dept. of Treasury, Coca-Cola has paid fines "to settle allegations of violations of the Sudan sanctions…OFAC alleged that Coca-Cola exported to its bottler in Sudan services not authorized by its OFAC license and disregarded or evaded certain OFAC license restrictions. The services included financial and market support."

We believe that the public everywhere should demand that gum arabic not be imported from the Sudan and The Coca-Cola Co. should shut down its operations in that country. Furthermore, Coca-Cola should compensate every worker affected by the shutdown the equivalent of four times the per capita income for Sudanese to help those workers' families adjust while seeking other means of making a living. Even if there were 7,000 employees, this would cost The Coca-Cola Co. less than $20 million, a drop in the bucket compared to the annual profits of $4-5 billion or the compensation paid to its executive officers.

It should be noted that Warren Buffett who left Coca-Cola's board in 2006, but remains the company's largest shareholder with 8.3% of common shares outstanding worth about $10 billion, is also a major investor in the PetroChina Oil Company which gets oil from Sudan and is targeted by the Sudan divestment community. "Oil has turned it [Sudan] into one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa — if not the world — emboldening the nation's already belligerent government and giving it the wherewithal to resist the Western demands to end the conflict in Darfur.