Wesleyan University advertises that it is a socially responsible investor. To explain the lack of any appropriate policy and our holdings in weapons contractors, some argue that the semantic issues of the phrase “socially responsible investment” are beyond resolution. What an embarrassing cop-out for an educational institution. Sorry to do this, but according to our handy-dandy-free-online-Oxford English Dictionary, the word “socially” means “as a member of a body or society,” or “In respect of, with regard to, society.” “Responsible” means “morally accountable for one’s actions; capable of rational conduct.” As shareholders, we are morally accountable for the impact that our holdings have on society. Social harm, morally outrageous and irrational social harm, is so fundamental to the nature of weapons contractors, that owning their stocks is completely socially irresponsible.
Weapons contractors manufacture products designed for indiscriminate killing. By indiscriminate, we mean without a specific target or rational goal other than destruction at large. Raytheon, in response to the international outcry against cluster bombs, now creates “JSOWs,” fragmenting missiles designed for soft (human) and hard targets which can be programmed for “blast and fragmentation effects.” Until very recently, they have also manufactured cluster bomb delivery systems which are useful for the United States’ large stock of cluster bombs. But really, any old missile will do for causing indiscriminate civilian death, such as a Raytheon missile that killed 62 civilians in a Baghdad market in September 2003. Mytheos Holt ’10 argued in a letter to the board, that Raytheon and General Dynamics also manufacture “life-saving” or non-destructive products. This utilitarian logic of weighing GPSes against a body count is ruthless, disgusting and dangerous. If a murderer volunteers at a soup kitchen, s/he is still a murderer.
The logic of massive weapons supply is such that weapons linger in society for generations, fueling conflict and violence far beyond their original purpose. The more weapons are dispersed, the more demand there is for better technology, bigger guns. This is the bottom line for weapons manufacturers, as they constantly have to develop weapons to overpower the current stock. Unfortunately, weapons are not like iPods— the old ones still work. According to UNICEF, land mines, which “endanger generation after generation of civilians, especially children,” have killed over 1 million people since 1975 and are currently thought to kill 800 people a month. It is impossible to hold weapons to be socially responsible, impossible to hold manufacturers accountable for these far-ranging, unforeseen, and immensely socially destructive effects of weapons.
Some have made the argument that a “moral war” can justify providing a population with arms. This argument confuses a government’s decision to go to war with the empirical realities of weapons distribution. When anyone, including our government, sells arms to another country or to people, it is impossible to be responsible about it. Simple facts such as breaks in the chain of supply mean that entire shipments of weapons get stolen and end up in the wrong hands (assuming any hands are the right ones). More frightening is how fickle alliances can be, whether it’s alliances between individuals or on the bigger stage of foreign relations. Twenty years ago, the US armed the Islamic fundamentalists in a “covert” operation to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Reagan administration also gave weapons (including chemical) to Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War. Currently, the USA is the world’s largest exporter of arms, with client states including Bahrain, Egypt, Turkey, Taiwan, Israel, Columbia, Peru, Singapore, the list goes on. In twenty years, who will be on our hitlist? What share of carnage will we be responsible for? How much of the new science center will it have bought us?
Mytheos is right, though, that we “should not confuse the actions of Raytheon and General Dynamics with the actions of our government.”
Unfortunately, I don’t think either the weapons contractors or the government see things the same way. The revolving door policy between top weapons contractors and Department of State positions and the enormous stock holdings of top government officials in weapons contractors (Colin Powell admitted to holding $1 million in General Dynamics in 2000) show the perverse incentives of weapon suppliers. These insidious connections distort our democratic institutions and hinder the government’s already difficult job of keeping the reigns tight on weapons contractors. Halliburton’s shady use of off-shore subsidiaries in contracts in Iraq is one looming example. Business has always found ways to circumvent government regulation, but this particular marriage is not just dysfunctional— it’s scary.
The notion that Wesleyan University is in fact a socially responsible investor is a big, fat farce. The first step to correct this is divestment from Raytheon and General Dynamics. It will be easy and fairly painless. The next step is tougher— institution building. We have no good institutions, mechanisms or policies to ensure socially responsible investing. This is the semester when we begin. We have the Board’s ear, and they want to listen. Wesleyan has always prided itself on its purpose, on its capacity to make the world a better place. This is the semester that Wesleyan puts its money where its mouth is.
Leave a Reply