GBCS Backs Down on Divestment, But Why?

"The United Methodist News Service released the following statement on April 17...

After direct meetings with Caterpillar Inc., the United Methodist Church's social action agency says it will withdraw a petition calling for divestment from the heavy equipment manufacturer.

The petition, sent to the denomination's top legislative body, charged that the company profits from illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and contributes to the occupation by supplying Israeli Defense Forces with heavy equipment.

Sending the petition to the 2008 United Methodist General Conference has achieved positive results, said Jim Winkler, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society in Washington.

Since January, Caterpillar has opened discussions with the board, issued a statement denouncing immoral use of its equipment, and agreed to continued dialogue...

The Caterpillar statement sent to Winkler said, "Caterpillar's products are designed to improve quality of life. ... We do not condone the illegal or immoral use of any Caterpillar equipment. ... We expect our customers to use our products in environmentally responsible ways and consistent with human rights and the requirements of international humanitarian law."

The statement affirmed the importance of continuing dialogue between Caterpillar and The United Methodist Church. "We are committed to further conversations and possible philanthropic activities in Palestinian areas."

About $5 million of the denomination's estimated $17 billion pension portfolio is invested in Caterpillar stock."

The Rev. Steve Sprecher, a director of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, was part of the committee that led the agency to send the petition to General Conference. He called divestment "a time-honored policy" within The United Methodist Church. He went on to say... "By engaging (Caterpillar chief executive) Jim Owen and Caterpillar in this way, Winkler has helped us underscore the value our denomination places on our interreligious relationships coupled with our commitment to social justice."

Here's my question - WHY NOW? We all know that the pressure has been tremendous. Delegates have been getting mailings condemning the position of possible divestment from a group calling itself "Christians for Fair Witness on The Middle East" (www.christianfairwitness.com/). Even local UM clergy have been getting phone calls from concerned local Jewish clergy. In doing a little research about some of the press that has been out there nationally, it becomes quite apparent that there are other forces at play here. If you want to know how the UMC is being looked at by some of the Jewish community across our country, I would suggest checking out the "Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism" website (http://rac.org/advocacy/specialresources/divestnomore/).

So what's wrong with this picture?

1) Much of the press that has been picked up on by the Jewish Community has been spun by the likes of the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD). Now why would an organization that is supposedly trying to "renew" United Methodist spirituality be portraying our Boards and Agencies as Anti-Israeli to the general public? Could it be that it is more about dismantling those Boards and Agencies than it is about truth telling and honest dialogue?

2) Several of the petitions are not calling for immediate divestment. They are however calling for constructive dialogue with several companies that have continued to profit from the ongoing unrest between the Israeli and Palestinian people. So why is all the focus on divestment? Could it be that if that option isn't on the table, those companies really won't have any interest in talking with the UMC in the first place? Let's look at Caterpillar as an example... How long has Chief Executive Jim Owen known about the "illegal or immoral use of any Caterpillar equipment" as he condemned yesterday?

Well, CBC News issued this release on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 | 2:21 PM ET:

A U.S.-based company has been warned by a United Nations expert not to sell bulldozers to Israel because of the way the Israeli army is using them.

Jean Ziegler, the UN's special expert on the right to food, sent a letter to Caterpillar Inc. saying that the company could be considered an accomplice in human rights violations.

The letter to Caterpillar chief executive James Owen expressed Ziegler's concerns "about the actions of the Israeli occupation forces in Rafah and in other locations in Gaza and the West Bank."

And from MAY 18, 2004:

A resolution passed this year by the UN Human Rights Commission extends responsibility to protect rights to "non-state actors."

Ziegler's letter, dated May 28, said the Israelis are "using armoured bulldozers supplied by your company to destroy agricultural farms, greenhouses, ancient olive groves and agricultural fields planted with crops."

There's been no comment from Caterpillar headquarters in Peoria, Ill.

The letter also says Caterpillar bulldozers have been used to destroy "numerous Palestinian homes and sometimes human lives, including that of the American peace activist Rachel Corrie."

Finally from MARCH 16, 2003: American protester killed in Gaza

Rachel Corrie, 23, was crushed to death in March 2003. She was trying to stop an Israeli army bulldozer from destroying Palestinian homes in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.

So again, my question for the General Board of Church & Society is why now? What guarantees did Mr. Owen and Caterpillar make that they are now, after four years of "no comment" to the UN and others-response, going to consider their accountability in profiting from human suffering?

3) I am actually more concerned about the allegations around the Mission Study guide that was produced than I am about the UMC considering divestment being an act of anti-Israeli sentiment. I need to get a hold of a copy and look at it in light of all of the criticisms I'm reading about.

FINALLY - Here's an idea - Since the UMC has already come out with a strong statement on the right of existence for, and the need for international recognition of Israel as a nation; let's make similar statements about the rights for a Palestinian state to exist without outside interference and manipulation. And, if we are going to engage companies around their involvement in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, let's also engage those nations that continue to promote and support anti-Israel terrorist groups and call for the eradication of the nation of Israel. But in the midst of that engagement, let's maintain our right to withhold UMC dollars and call for others to withhold their US dollars (divestment) as a last resort from companies that are unwilling to dialogue, listen and continue to offer only "no comment." And, at the same time, let's be balanced! Let's also maintain our right to criticise and challenge Nations and organizations... and call for the withholding of US dollars and goods (sanctions) when they refuse to dialogue and work for peace.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading mine!
Steve