Tag Archives: Divest Terror/Terror-Free Investing

The Dirty Dozen #8: Hyundai

Hyundai Group Chairwoman Hyun Jeong-eun (left) with North Korean dictator Kim Jeong-il in Nov 2005.

Hyundai, the South Korean conglomerate, has extensive business ties to a number of state-sponsors of terrorism, but has come under closest scrutiny for its role in North Korea.  Numerous published reports indicate that the company engaged in secret, illegal funds transfers to Pyongyang totaling as much as $500 million in the immediate run-up to an important 2000 summit between the North and South Korean governments.  It has also been alleged that the South Korean government was aware and supportive of the fund transfers as a means of effectively bribing North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il to participate and, thereby, to advance the "Sunshine Policy" of his South Korean counterpart, then-President Kim daeJong.

Hyundai’s deplorable indifference to the potentially dangerous consequences of its actions in the North was evident in remarks attributed to a senior company official, Kim Yoon Kyu.  He was quoted as saying: "We made clear and told them [the North Koreans] half-jokingly not to use the money in making missiles."  He added, "I asked them where they used the money from us.  They said they can’t tell us the details, but they sure didn’t use the money to make missiles."1

Hyundai is likewise active in Iran, where the company and its subsidiaries are increasing their ties to the country and its despotic regime.  Among those projects are the supply of manufacturing components, energy-related construction and development work and ship repair. In 2005, Hyundai Heavy Industries and Daewoo signed a $1 billion joint deal to build oil tankers in direct violation of the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.2 Hyundai Engineering and Construction also made a deal in 2005 to build a gas processing plant worth $1.2 billion.3 Hyundai’s automotive wing in 2004 started a production line in the terror-sponsoring state of Iran. In the multi-million dollar deal with Iranian firm Kerman Motor, Hyundai hopes the Iranian partner will assemble and sell 100,000 Hyundai-model cars per year.4

Hyundai’s activities place it on the "Dirty Dozen" list for the following reasons:

  • Direct Money Transfer: The overarching objective of U.S. sanctions is to deprive terrorist-sponsoring states and proliferators of the type of funds required to build expensive weapons of mass destruction programs and sponsor terrorism.  Yet, the company has provided between $200 and $500 million in undisciplined, non-transparent cash transfers to the North Korean government.  The use to which one of the planet’s most threatening regimes has put these funds is unknown.
  • Scope: Hyundai and its subsidiaries are some of the most active public companies in terrorist-sponsoring states.  Its $2.6 billion in projects in Iran, for example, help enable the type of economic growth that allows the country to sponsor terrorism with impunity.
  • GeopoliticalMotives: Given Hyundai’s track record in terrorist-sponsoring states, it is clear that a country’s willingness to support terrorism currently plays no role in the corporation’s investment strategy and decision-making.  American investors may not feel the same way, however, and need to be aware that a company in which they hold shares is enabling a South Korean government policy that directly contradicts U.S. attempts to defeat terrorism. 
  • Moral and Political Cover:  When leading global companies such as Hyundai partner with terrorist-sponsoring states, it sends a clear message to these governments: Sponsoring terrorism is not a concern as long as there are corporate profits to be made.  This message undermines U.S. sanctions and international diplomatic efforts.

1. Washington Post, February 2, 2003.

2. Bloomberg News Service 5/9/05. Retrieved December 4, 2006 from IranFocus.com <http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2042>.

3. "Hyundai in Asalouyeh Gas Plant Contract." July 4, 2005. <http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2316/html/74142.>

4. "Hyundai Production Lines Operational." Iran Daily, 9/18/04. <http://www.irandaily.ir/1383/2091/html/economy.htm>.

Enlist to Divest Terror

The success of a national divestment campaign against companies doing business in or with terrorist-sponsoring states depends wholly on the dedication, perseverance and resolve of Americans across the country.  While DivestTerror.org can provide the architecture, coordination and tools for this campaign, success will be based on your efforts.   

Target State Officials First By Sending THIS LETTER (Word format)

The most important target for your efforts is your state legislature, which holds the power to mandate legislatively the divestment of stock by your state’s public pension systems.  As illustrated by our report entitled Terrorism Investments of the 50 States, most of America’s public pension systems invest in scores, or even hundreds, of companies that do business with terror-sponsoring states.  Because these public funds invest billions of dollars in such companies, pension systems have enormous leverage.  They also represent the quickest and most effective route to pressuring target companies to suspend their business operations in these countries until such time as state-sponsorship of terrorism there is ceased.  As South Africa taught us, however, these funds will not divest unless forced to do so. 

Addtionally, we call on EVERY American to send THIS LETTER (Word format) and demand from investment managers that everyportfolio they manage can exercise a certified "terror-free option."

The Dirty Dozen #9: Total SA

 

Total SA, headquartered in France, is among the leading energy investors in terrorist-sponsoring states, including Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and, prior to the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.  Its ties to these countries include ownership and development stakes in oil and gas fields that have generated significant revenues for the governments of these countries.  Total’s projects in these countries are valued at more than $3 billion and possibly much higher. 

Through close cooperation with Iran’s state-owned National Iranian Oil Company, Total is involved in joint research projects and contracts for the development and operation of numerous onshore and offshore oil fields in Iran.  Included in these are projects at Kharg Island and Dorood field, projects at the Balal oil field and a 40% stake in the South Pars natural gas field.  Total has openly stated its intention to spend as much as $2 billion on the development of South Pars alone. 1  

In the run-up to the Iraq war, it was reported that, in March 2003, Total SA negotiated a major contract with Saddam Hussein’s regime to develop Iraq’s southern oil fields.  The value of this contract was estimated at some $40-60 billion.  In Sudan, the company has been in control of Block B oilfield together with Kufpec and Marathon for a number of years. 2  

In Syria, it has been the lead developer of the $400 million Desgas project.  The project reportedly processes some 740 million cubic feet of gas per day.  Total’s oil industry investments generate an estimated 50,000 barrels of oil per day in close coordination with the state-owned Syrian Petroleum Company. 3

In response to Total’s actions in countries with no respectable human rights record, such as Burma or Sudan, Total’s website claims that "the worlds oil and gas reserves are not necessarily located in democracies." The company claims that despite its operations in countries with "repressive regimes" it will be committed to "developing economically viable projects while adhering to national and international laws."4 Yet Total still invests heavily in countries that support the very same violation international agreements and national laws by the host governments.

Total’s activities place it on the "Dirty Dozen" list for the following reasons:

  • U.S. Sanctions Violator : In 1997, Total became the first company to flout openly the U.S. Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.  That law was specifically designed to ensure that Iran and Libya were unable to realize substantial energy-related revenues that could be used to advance those countries sponsorship of terrorism.  Once Total ignored the law with impunity, a flood of foreign companies rushed to enter the energy market of those countries.
  • Revenues : The primary source of hard currency for most of the U.S.-designated terrorist-sponsoring states is the export of oil and natural gas.  Some 40-50 percent of Iran’s overall budget comes from oil and natural gas revenues.5   Syria and Sudan are likewise dependent on such revenues.  Put simply, without the revenues provided by companies like Total, these governments would be unable to support terrorism and maintain expensive weapons programs.
  • GeopoliticalMotives : It is widely accepted that a government’s sponsorship of terrorism plays no role in Total’s strategic planning.  Yet, the company has been accused of using its willingness to defy U.S. sanctions to its advantage in negotiations with sanctioned nations.  For example, some have speculated that the enormity of the reported $40-60 billion deal Total inked near the end of Saddam Hussein’s reign reflected the Iraqi dictator’s expectation that French political support would be assured by such a lucrative agreement.  It strains credulity that the U.S. would knowingly wish to hold the stock of a company whose corporate interests may lead it and its government to pursue an agenda antithetical to Western security interests and at odds with U.S. policies and laws for crass commercial reasons.  Yet, Total is one of the most widely held foreign stocks in the portfolios of public pension funds throughout the 50 states.6
  • Moral and Political Cover :  When leading global companies such as Total SA partner with terrorist-sponsoring states, it sends a clear message to these governments: Sponsoring terrorism is not a concern as long as there are corporate profits to be made. Its continued operation in countries with repressive regimes proves that the company values its own profits over the lives of innocents. This message undermines U.S. sanctions and international diplomatic efforts.

1. Company Global Report, 2001; The Regulatory News Service, 5/13/02; and Agence France Presse, 12/13/01.

2. The New Republic, 3/17/03; and Africa Energy Intelligence, 3/6/03.

3. Bloomberg News, 8/7/02; Platt’s Oilgram News, 8/8/02; Africa Review World of Information, 9/23/03; WWP- Report on Oil Gas & Petrochemicals in the Developing World, 1/1/03; and AFX/Regulatory News Service, 1/28/02.

4. Company website (retrieved 12/11/06). <http://burma.total.com/>. For more on democracy and human rights for Burma, visit the Free Burma Coalition’s website at http://www.freeburmacoalition.org/.

5. Country Analysis Briefs, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, May 2002; and Country Analysis Briefs, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, July, 2002.

6. The New Republic, 3/17/03.

The Dirty Dozen

 

There are some 400 public companies that do business with terrorist-sponsoring states.  Many of these companies provide critical revenues and advanced equipment and technology to these countries.  In addition, each of these European, Asian and U.S.-owned subsidiary companies provides moral and political cover to the governments of these countries, obscuring the fact that they are providing hard currency, weapons, technology and safe harbor to terrorists. 

Accordingly, DivestTerror.org does not differentiate among companies operating in terrorist-sponsoring states.  Until such time as these countries discontinue their sponsorship of terrorism, it is our view that no company, regardless of the scale of their operations, should be willing to do business with them. 

Regrettably, hundreds of multinational and American companies have, to date, refused voluntarily to send this vital security message to the terrorist-sponsoring governments.  A dozen of these companies exemplify the various ways in which this behavior is helping prop up such governments and, thereby, enabling their ability to aid and abet terrorism. (N.B. All of the information concerning the activities of this illustrative "Dirty Dozen" was derived from publicly available sources.).

"The Dirty Dozen"

Alcatel SA

BNP Paribas

ENI SPA

Hyundai

Lundin Petroleum

Oil & Natural Gas Corp.

PetroChina

Siemens AG

Statoil ASA

Stolt Nielsen

Technip Coflexip

Total SA

 

The Dirty Dozen #10: Lundin Petroleum

 

Lundin Petroleum of Sweden has ties to the oil industries of Iran and Sudan.  The company’s Iran projects are largely overshadowed, however, by its Sudan concessions that have been the subject of significant criticism and scrutiny.

In Iran, Lundin reportedly maintains a 30% non-operating interest in the country’s Munir oil block in the Khuzestan region.  In September 2003, the company announced that it had spent some $2.1 million that year on oil exploration activities in the country.1 

In Sudan, Lundin retains an interest in Block 5B of Sudan’s Muglad Basin.  According to the company, its current work in Sudan consists of analyzing existing data only, as on-the-ground operations have been suspended due to security concerns.  The company also reports that "Security permitting, drilling and seismic operations [in Sudan] will start simultaneously." 

In December 2005 Lundin announced that the security situation would allow them begin field operations on Block 5B.  This was to include the acquisition of 1,100 line kilometers of 2D seismic data in the first half of 2006, building of necessary infrastructure to support drilling operations, and drilling of up to three exploration wells commencing late 2006.2 

Lundin’s presence in Sudan is reportedly part of the company’s strategy to operate in risky countries where competitors often dare not go.  In the past, this strategy has led Lundin to establish operations in South Africa during the apartheid period, when many companies were coming under shareholder and other pressures to pull out, and in Zaire during the presidency of Sese Seko Mobutu.  Some reports have also cited ties to Syria and Iraq.3

Apart from Total SA, Lundin appears to be the only Western energy company that has not exited Sudan in response to humanitarian outrage over the oil industry’s role in perpetuating that country’s brutal civil war and the government-backed genocide. 

Lundin’s activities place it on the "Dirty Dozen" list for the following reasons:

  • Revenues: In the coming years, Lundin will help generate significant revenues for the governments of Iran and Sudan.  Such hard currency revenues pave the way for Iran to accelerate its dangerous weapons of mass destruction program and for both countries to continue supporting terrorism with impunity.
  • Moral and Political Cover:  A company’s willingness to partner with terrorist-sponsoring states diminishes the stigma associated with dangerous government policies.  In the case of Lundin, the company is apparently willing to retain interests in a country recently denounced by the U.S. Congress for genocidal attacks on its own Christian, animist and black Muslim populations.

1. Company Website, 10/2002.

2. Sudan Tribune,  8 December 2005

3. Company Website, 2003; and Global News Wire, 3/22/01.

Alcatel SA

Alcatel, headquartered in France, has significant operations in three terrorist-sponsoring countries: Iran, Libya and Sudan.  It likewise carried out major fiber optics contracts for Saddam Hussein prior to his overthow.  The total value of the company’s operations in terrorist-sponsoring states over the past five years is more than $300 million. 

Among its activities in Iran that have relevance to Tehran’s military and terrorism-related activities are contracts signed with state-controlled Iranian companies to provide data transmission and switching network capabilities.  These contracts have reportedly included the provision of hardware, software, technologies and training to Iranian companies.  It likewise is installing an undersea telecommunications cable in the country.  Most of its activities in Iran are undertaken with state-owned partners.1 

Prior to the Iraq war, Alcatel was reported to have significantly upgraded the Saddam Hussein regime’s fiber optic infrastructure.  Alcatel undertook those operations despite the publicly stated concerns of the U.S. government that the project could advance Iraqi military capabilities — and potentially cost American lives.2  In Libya and Sudan, the company is currently involved in similar telecommunications projects ranging from upgrading networks to the installment of underwater fiber optic cables.3

Alcatel’s activities place it on the "Dirty Dozen" list for the following reasons: 

  • Advanced Technology: As a world leader in the telecommunications sector, Alcatel is undertaking technologically-advanced projects in three terrorist-sponsoring states.  As evidenced by the company’s activities in Iraq, these types of projects can introduce technology that can have military purposes.  The likelihood that dual-use technology is diverted to nefarious purposes is increased when a company, as is the case with Alcatel, contracts with state-owned companies.
  • Revenues: Alcatel is involved in projects totaling over $300 million in terrorist-sponsoring states.  Not only does this create government revenues, but it also serves an engine for broader economic growth.
  • Moral and Political Cover:  When leading global companies such as Alcatel partner with terrorist-sponsoring states, it sends a clear message to these governments: Sponsoring terrorism is not a concern as long as there are corporate profits to be made.  This message undermines U.S. sanctions and international diplomatic efforts.

Alcatel sparked controversy with its merger with U.S. communications giant Lucent, who provides similar communications services to the U.S. Government. Among the services provided to government agencies is a communications network for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other classified government contracts. Although the company stated that it will move government contracts into one of its subsidiary companies to address security concerns, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter still voiced concern. In a letter to President Bush he stated, "I am concerned about potential transfers of technology or sensitive information to other countries with which Alcatel has business dealings, which have included Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria."

Despite an investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and Chairman Hunter’s objections, the merger was approved and completed on November 30, 2006.4 Despite new CEO Patricia Russo’s claim that she will not conduct business with Iran in accordance with the Iran-Libya Sanctions act, there talk of the formation of an Alcatel-Lucent subsidiary to maintain Alcatel’s work in Iran.5

1. Alcatel Company Website, 2002; and Modern Power System, April, 2000.

2. Washington Post, 9/5/01.

3.  Al Bawaba, 12/18/02; and Saudi Economic Survey, 7/10/02.

4. "Lucent-Alcatel execs set to testify before House committee." Market Watch, Inc. November 13, 2006.

5. Reuters (published on ZDNet India) December 2, 2006.  >.

Divest Terror’s Premise and Objectives

It is no surprise that sponsors of terrorism, like the Sudanese government, are some of the worst human rights abusers.

Premise:  The economies of terrorist-sponsoring states are almost entirely dependent on the revenues, expertise and advanced equipment and technology provided by global publicly traded companies in which millions of Americans own stock.  Accordingly, a basic premise of DivestTerror.org is that some, if not all, of these governments would likely choose to end their support for terrorism before suffering an economic collapse catalyzed by the withdrawal of these public companies. 

Such was the experience in an earlier application of financial leverage — the South African divestment campaign.  Pressed by the withdrawal of public companies whose share value and reputations were under withering attack by anti-apartheid activists, the  government in Cape Town ultimately abandoned its racist policies and surrendered power.

Objective:   To dissuade public companies from continuing to provide vital life-support (i.e., revenues, equipment, technology, etc.) to terrorist-sponsoring states, thereby forcing those governments to choose between their ongoing sponsorship of terrorism and an economic meltdown.

It is a little-known fact that some 400 large multinational and American corporations have demonstrated their determination to place profits ahead of ethical and terrorism-related concerns.  That calculation must be changed.

Toward that end, a grassroots campaign will be mounted to pressure leading institutional investors, asset managers and universities to use their financial leverage to divest the stock of any publicly traded company doing business in terrorist-sponsoring states.  The campaign will seek to create sustained shareholder insistence that public companies that help underwrite terrorist-sponsoring governments are presented with a stark choice:  Become part of the solution to state-sponsored terror or suffer significant  financial consequences.

The Dirty Dozen #11: Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd.

 

Oil & Natural Gas Corp., India’s largest oil exploration and production company, has business ties to both Sudan and formerly to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.  Its ties to these countries have stemmed from two unique business strategies: in Iraq, the company’s ties were, at least in part, due to a broader effort by the Indian government to open business ties with Baghdad; and in Sudan, the company has purchased the assets of Western companies that have fled the country due to moral objections to the odious policies of the Sudanese government.1

In Iraq, Oil and Natural Gas Corp. signed a number of contracts prior to the war, including exploration and development deals in the south as well as in other fields.  The company announced in 2001 that it would spend $5 million exploring these blocks for oil.  Operations on these contracts, however, never began due to UN economic sanctions.  As with Total’s deals with Saddam Hussein, such interests may have influenced the company’s government in its decision to oppose the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq.2

Oil & Natural Gas Corp. has acquired the Sudan assets of two Western oil companies after they divested their operations in that country.  Specifically, Oil & Natural Gas Corp. purchased Austrian OMV’s stake in two oil blocks and Canadian Talisman Energy’s stake in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Project.  Interestingly, Talisman’s decision to liquidate its Sudan interests followed intense pressure on its share value due to international outrage over the company’s role in providing revenues to the Khartoum government, revenues the latter actually acknowledged helped underwrite its brutal prosecution of a genocidal civil war.3

Oil and Natural Gas Corp.’s activities place it on the "Dirty Dozen" list for the following reasons:

  • GeopoliticalMotives: According to published reports, the company has been accused of using U.S. sanctions as a bargaining tool in negotiations.  For example, in the case of the company’s ties to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, some have speculated that company’s efforts dovetailed with the Indian governments efforts to expand its economic ties to that country.  Do American investors really want to hold the stock of a company that uses our country’s war on terrorism as a means of identifying business prospects?
  • Moral and Political Cover:  When leading global companies such as Oil & Natural Gas Corp. partner with terrorist-sponsoring states, it sends a clear message to these governments: Sponsoring terrorism is not a concern as long as there are corporate profits to be made.  This message undermines U.S. sanctions and international diplomatic efforts.  This is particularly egregious in a case such as Sudan’s, whose human rights violations are proven to be enough to drive out even energy companies like Talisman that were willing to overlook Khartoum’s sponsorship of terrorism.  It is appalling that Oil & Natural Gas Corp. appears to view such withdrawals as nothing more than business opportunities. 

1. InfoProd, 7/8/02.

2. Dow Jones, 11/30/00; Financial Express, 4/18/03; and Weekly Petroleum Argus, 7/15/02.

3. Company Website, 10/2003; Oil & Gas Journal, 9/22/03; Middle East Economic Digest, 8/9/02; and Financial Times, 9/16/03

The Dirty Dozen #12: PetroChina

China’s ever increasing industrial development makes its demand for oil more vital than ever.  Coupled with a depletion of its own oilfields that by the late 1990s already passed their peak production, China looked beyond its borders to fuel its growing energy needs.  PetroChina, an arm of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) found what it needed in Sudan and has invested more than $1 billion in a joint venture with the Sudanese government to boost oil production. [1]

CNPC and PetroChina own the most shares of Sudan’s oil group; in 2005, this amounted to more than half of Sudan’s oil exports. [2]   In short, China’s trade in the Sudanese oilfields and collaboration with the corrupt government amounts to support of the ongoing genocide through the supply of money and arms.  

It is estimated that 70 to 80 percent of Sudan’s oil revenues go to the government’s military, not surprising considering China has been supplying the Sudanese government with antipersonnel and antitank mines, ammunition, tanks, helicopters, and fighter planes since 1980. [3]   Further, China’s veto power in the United Nations has kept the U.N. from issuing a strong resolution on the situation, at a cost of millions of lives of dead and displaced people.

PetroChina’s activities place it on the "Dirty Dozen" list for the following reasons:

  • Exploitation:   PetroChina and the CNPC pursued a policy of increased investment in the Sudanese government, propping-up a murderous regime, thereby exploiting the unstable situation in its thirst for oil.
  • Supporting Genocide:   The enormous amount of investment money China pumps into Sudan for oil-production infrastructure comes out as funds for the oppressive government in Sudan, most of which goes to the oppressive military and Arab militiamen.   China also continues to be a supplier of various arms to Sudan, as well as actively blocking U.N. actions seeking to resolve the crisis in that region.

 

[1] "China Finishes Sudan Oil Projects," AP, Beijing, July 14, 1999.

[2] Russell, Jacob, "Petrochina to Affect WTO," UPI, Washington, Nov. 8, 2006.

[3] Human Rights Watch, "Sudan:   Global Trade, Local Impact, Arms Transfers to all Sides in the Civil War in Sudan," Vol. 10, No. 4 (a) (New York:   Human Rights Watch, August 1998), pp.28-29.

The Dirty Dozen #1: Seimens AG

Siemens AG of Germany, one of the world’s leading telecommunications companies, has long had significant operations in four terrorist-sponsoring states: Iran, Sudan, Syria and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.  These ties represent significant infrastructure projects, whose values total hundreds of millions of dollars.

Siemens has extensive ties to Iran via direct operations in the country and through the operations of a number of corporate subsidiaries, including Iranian subsidiaries.  Its projects in the country include development of a cell phone infrastructure and upgrade projects on the country’s fixed line network.  The company is also heavily involved in Iran’s power industry.  Siemens has provided equipment and technology in carrying out these projects.1 Recently Siemens signed a $570 million deal with Iran to build 150 railroad locomotives, increasing the number of locomotives in the country by nearly 50 percent.2

Siemens ties to pre-war Iraq were particularly notorious thanks to its sale to Saddam Hussein’s regime of six devices known as lithotripters. While these machines were purchased under the guise of using them for medical purposes (i.e., to smash kidney stones), when the electric switches that power them are strung together, they can be used as detonators for a nuclear weapon.  It was not until Iraq ordered numerous replacement switches, however, that the worrisome dual-use nature of this component became public knowledge.3

Siemens also has extensive ties to Sudan and Syria.  In Sudan, the company is involved in the country’s power generation industry and in Syria, Siemens has helped construct the country’s wireless phone system.4

In a related development, Siemens has recently undergone a probe after suspiscions of a massive overseas slush fund were uncovered. These funds were allegedly used to bribe officials and leaders in other countries in order to secure contracts. Suspected contractees included the Greek interior officials in charge of the 2004 Olympic games and the regime of the fomer Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha. Transparency International, a global bribery watchdog group, has threatened to end Siemens’ membership from the group pending the probe’s results.5

Siemens’ activities place it on the "Dirty Dozen" list for the following reasons:

  • Advanced Technology: Siemens’ work in the telecommunications and power generation industries of these countries involves advanced technology and equipment.  Siemens’ high-tech projects often introduce into terrorist-sponsoring and WMD-proliferating states technology that can have real military value.  The likelihood that dual-use technology will be diverted to nefarious purposes is increased when a company contracts with state-owned companies.  Such partnerships are common when foreign companies, such as Siemens, invest in rogue states.
  • Revenues: Siemens is involved in large-scale projects in these countries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.  Not only does this create revenues for the terrorist-sponsoring government in question.  It also serves as an engine for broader economic growth.
  • Moral and Political Cover:  When leading global companies such as Siemens AG partner with terrorist-sponsoring states, it sends a clear message to these governments: Sponsoring terrorism is not a concern as long as there are corporate profits to be made. It disregards the human rights issues caused by its customers, as is evident with its deals with Sudan and former Nigerian Dictators, and ignores standard business practices through the use of bribes. Its message undermines U.S. sanctions and international diplomatic efforts to bring change to these countries.

UPDATE: On Janaury 22nd, 2007 Siemens announced it was pulling out of Sudan within six months. Siemens though has no plans to stop doing business with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran. DivestTerror.org will continue to monitor Siemen’s actions to see if they still merit being on the Dirty Dozen list.

1. M2 Presswire, 7/15/02; Middle East Economic News Digest, 6/28/02; MEED, 12/7/01; MEED Weekly Special Report: Germany: Siemens, 12/7/01; and AFX European Focus, 11/27/00.

2. Middle East Times, 11/14/06. <http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061114-095520-1324r>

3. The Times, 10/29/02.

4. Company Website, 2/02; Financial Times, 4/1/01; and Gulf News, 8/14/01.

5. "Transparency International threatens to end Siemens’ membership," Agence France Presse, 12/7/06.