abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

27 Sep 2004

Roger Bate & Benjamin Schwab, American Enterprise Institute

Is Disengagement the Wisest Choice? [Sudan]

As The Economist stated in a fall 2000 report, "The dirty bottom line is that Talisman is helping the Sudan government finance its war." Though difficult to imagine a few years ago, the situation in Sudan has gone from awful to inconceivably worse. Which begs the question, "Should Talisman have left?"...Talisman effectively abandoned the Sudanese people to Chinese and Indian firms virtually immune to human rights pressures. [Chinese firm: China National Petroleum Corporation; Indian firm: ONGC (Oil & Natural Gas Corporation)] [also refers to Chevron & Shell]

Part of the following timelines

Darfur, Southern Sudan, and the Moral Imperative of (Equity) Divestment: Which companies and nations are propping up the Khartoum regime?

Divest Sudan campaign head: Siemens, ABB, Tatneft, PetroChina, Alcatel must suspend operations in Sudan to pressure Khartoum to stop Darfur genocide

Talisman lawsuit (re Sudan)