How to stop the killing in Sudan? A growing number of crusaders, impatient with the inertia of governments around the world, have mounted a divestment campaign aiming to cut off funds to the government in Khartoum.

Today, a group called the Sudan Divestment Task Force will hold a press conference highlighting tomorrow’s vote in the California Assembly on a bill that would require state pension plans to divest shares in certain companies doing business in Sudan.

Reminiscent of the multi-decade effort to abolish apartheid in South Africa, the campaign is pressuring public pension funds and university endowments across America, persuading them to remove offending companies from their portfolios.

In some respects the Sudan campaign is easier, in others more difficult than the offensive against the government of South Africa. Making the job simpler is the urgency of the situation; everyone agrees that the genocide in the western region of Darfur is horrific and must be stopped immediately. America responded to the Sudan atrocities as early as 1997 by imposing sanctions, and as recently as March, when President Bush reaffirmed the country’s outrage over the ongoing brutalities. Whereas apartheid took an insidious, long-term toll on the people of South Africa, the killing of as many as 400,000 Sudan citizens in the Darfur area is a catastrophe, now.

Also, the advocates of Sudan divestment have history behind them. The dumping of shares in companies with operations in South Africa is widely credited with having played a role in the subsequent demise of the segregated state. It is a great selling point for those engaged in today’s mission.

However, Sudan divestment is complex. The main issue is that few American companies are doing business in Sudan, because our government has made it illegal for most to do so. Consequently, the divestment effort is focused mainly on foreign energy companies, most of which are headquartered in China, India, and other emerging countries. It’s quite possible that such companies, and such countries for that matter, don’t give a hoot about the world’s moral outrage.

This inconvenient fact does not at all deter the efforts of the energetic young collegians behind the Sudan Divestment Task Force. To their credit, their thoughtful program includes the targeted divestment of a realistic list of offending companies.

They realize that some companies doing business in Sudan may actually be helping the people of that sad country, by supplying medical or food products. Coca-Cola, for instance, sells its cola base to a privately owned distributor in Sudan, which is viewed as beneficial to the population (or at least to their dentists). A company spokeswoman, Kari Djorhus, said Coca-Cola has no employees and no direct investment in the country. Because of the limited nature of the activity, the company is not on the Task Force divestment list.

Who are the offenders? Asked to name the top targets, a Task Force cofounder, Daniel Millenson, who is a (sometime) Brandeis student, lists PetroChina, Sinopec (also Chinese), Oil and Natural Gas Company Limited (India), Petronas (Malaysia), and Schlumberger, which has dual headquarters in Europe and America.

Who owns these stocks? Schlumberger (SLB, $65) is widely held in America and Europe. The company is a premier oil field services supplier that has long kept a low profile, as befits the confidential nature of its principal product, which gives oil companies early information about wells being drilled.

PetroChina (PTR, $110) a subsidiary of China National Petroleum Company that is mainly owned by the Chinese government, floated some public shares in 2000.The offering was not especially successful, in part due to the company’s Sudanese involvement. One of the largest holders of the shares today is Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, which owned $1.9 billion in “H” shares, or 1.3% of the company, as of the end of 2005.

Sinopec (SHI, $45), a subsidiary of Chinese Petroleum and Chemical Corporation, also sold shares in 2000, and is listed on the NYSE. Malaysia’s Petronas is government-owned, and ONGC is not listed in the U.S.

In other words, this is a tough battle. These are not core holdings for most portfolios. Nonetheless, these companies and some others on the Task Force’s list do have shareholders and bondholders, who will feel increasing heat as the campaign progresses.

To help investors avoid supporting the Sudan regime, there are organizations such as KLD Research and Analytics, which supplies investors with information on a number of socially responsible causes, including corporate governance, environmental issues, and, now, Sudan. Although the head of KLD, Peter Kinder, acknowledges the isolation of Sudan and the consequent difficulty of directly influencing the government, he concludes: “The only thing you can do is to bring pressure on them in the court of public opinion.”

Northern Trust and Barclay Global both offer investment products that are Sudan-free. As of March 31, Northern Trust had $8.5 billion under management in segregated accounts and another $8 billion in “special purpose institutional funds.”

These products have been created because, despite some difficulties, the campaign has gathered momentum. Currently, four states have passed divestment legislation: Illinois (the first), Oregon, New Jersey, and Maine. There are 22 others considering similar bills. Numerous universities and public pension plans have adopted divestment resolutions, and more are in the process of doing so.

New York has so far not implemented a divestment policy. A spokesman for the New York State Teachers Retirement System, John Cardillo, says his and 50 other pension funds wrote to the SEC and the Department of Treasury almost a year ago asking for guidance. They have not yet received a response. Meanwhile, about 97% of the fund’s assets are held in passively managed index funds. Those funds could be redeployed into sanitized products now becoming available. “There hasn’t been a large outcry from investors, but there has been some inquiry,” Mr. Cardillo says.

The Task Force group is concerned about certain lists being circulated. Some include all companies doing business in Sudan, an approach that could end up doing more harm than good. The objective is to target those companies supporting the government, which is financially strapped and dependent on oil output to, for instance, fund its weapons purchases.

If successful, the vote in California will start the process of bringing that state’s huge pension programs onboard. It is hoped that the pressure on companies supporting Sudan’s murderous government will mount, pushing them to leave or to influence the government’s behavior. At the least, as Peter Kinder says, the measures keep the atrocities “above the fold.”

peek10021@aol.com