MRTI facing 'legitimate issues' after 2006 GA divestment action

...

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:00:00 +0100

Thank you for the clarification, although I still cannot discern whether these descriptions originated with Alexa Smith or Rev. Bill Somplatsky-Jarman. I gather from your response that you are intending to stand by what I believe are the false statements carried in your publication. The explanations you offer do not conform to the actual data. As a private publication, you certainly have the right to do so, but I must confess to being profoundly disappointed by this editorial choice. The original decision in 2004 was clearly in its rationale prompted by the occupation; and as I mentioned in my earlier, clearly included the descriptors phased and selective. Nonetheless, there is a tremendous distinction between what has been asserted and what was actually decided by the 216th General Assembly. The original overture clearly sought a divestment from all companies conducting more than one million dollars in business with Israel; this amounted to an attempt to divest from Israel across the board because of the occupation -- not to divest solely from those companies profiting from the occupation. The General Assembly modified this to conform to PC(USA) policy by including the "phased" and "selective" language. The General Assembly offered NO qualification of the type of business targeted. It was clearly and verifiably not targeted solely to companies "profiting from the occupation" as you have claimed. This clearly and intentionally put Israel into a fairly unique position in the history of PC(USA) actions. In only two prior cases had the PC(USA) specifically targeted a country -- not an activity -- for divestment: South Africa and Sudan. This may have been clumsy; it may have been unintentional, but it remains the action of the 216th General Assembly. That the MRTI developed a set of criteria that included the occupation in no way changes the original action. That this was the nature of the original action was clearly understood by Alexa Smith. The report of the General Assembly's action, "Assembly endorses Israel divestment: Palestinian says merely issuing another statement is not enough" (available at http://www.pcusa.org/ga216/news/ga04121.htm ) indicates that Smith clearly had this understanding -- at least until she was instructed to modify abandon it. The 217th General Assembly explicitly removed that instruction. It affirmed the customary practices of the MRTI, but the criteria developed in accordance with the no longer existing instruction are not the customary practices of the MRTI. Because the original mandate targeted a nation rather than an action, it is a non-customary process. In the absence of their original mandate, these criteria have no legitimacy; to continue to apply them violates both the spirit and the letter of the 2006 action. To portray this as an expansion of the 2004 action -- when that action was explicitly removed -- is Orwellian at best, if not patently immoral. If this interpretation is to be believed, then the purpose of the action of the 217th General Assembly was to deceive: to pretend that something had changed (as the plain language of the two relevant GA actions indicate, but as the subsequent denominational response attempts to obscure), when the alteration was one of wording only. I, for one, cannot believe the commissioners to the General Assembly intended such a deceitful action. You are certainly welcome to publish whatever you desire, but even in the best case scenario, these assertions amount to a gross distortion of the facts. - Will Spotts

Elder Commissioner for the 217th GA

Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:00:00 +0100

Some have said that Caterpillar has not sold a bulldozer to Israel in 10 years. If that is true, then I would like PCUSA to find out who is selling bulldozer parts to keep the machines running. I understand that some concerned churches in England are seeking other socially responsible investors, since their church's investment committee chose not to divest of Caterpillar. - Carla Shafer

...

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:00:00 +0100

I sincerely hope Alexa Smith did not represent the views and comments of Rev. Bill Somplatsky-Jarman in her article, "MRTI facing 'legitimate issues' after 2006 GA divestment action". I say this meaning no disrespect to Smith, but because the alternatives are quite dire. Rev. Somplatsky-Jarman is an employee of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and as such is ultimately accountable to and derives his authority from the General Assembly -- as is the case with the committee to which he is attached. If this article correctly represents his views and comments then either he has made two grave errors which raise questions about his ability to perform the functions entrusted to him, or he has chosen to deliberately provide false information to Presbyterians and to those outside our denomination -- an action grossly inappropriate in any organization that claims for itself the title Christian. A claim is made that, "The original language [of the 2004 Resolution] called for a process of phased, selective divestment of companies who profit from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.". This is patently false. The original language of the 2004 Resolution specifically and without qualification instructed the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee "to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel." This can be clearly seen by examining the minutes of the 216th General Assembly for July 2, 2004. If the MRTI decided that its selection criteria somehow involved its interpretation of the occupation, that was its own choice -- probably permitted by the word selective, not its instruction. Another claim is made that the 217th General Assembly "specifically expanded its mandate to study corporate involvement in Gaza, historically Palestinian East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israel." This interpretation defies belief. In point of fact, the 217th General Assembly explicitly removed the entire divestment instruction from the prior GA. This fact cannot be denied -- and to portray that explicit removal as somehow expanding the instruction is not only Orwellian, but sinister and harmful. Due to the severity of the discrepancy between the statements of the 216th and 217th General Assemblies on the one hand, and their presentation here on the other, and due to the seriousness of the issue, I would like to request a clarification. Does this represent a reporter's honest mistake? Does it represent a grave error on the part of a PC(USA) employee tasked with addressing the issue? Or does it represent a rather startling attempt to directly deceive Presbyterians and others? Will Spotts Editor's response: You have asked us to clarify some points made by Alexa Smith regarding the status of the PC(USA)'s program of corporate engagement with companies doing business in Israel. The call for selective divestment from Israel by the 2004 General Assembly was indeed selective. The rationale for the original overture sent to that GA and the committee discussions leading to the mandate were all set in the context of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. At its first meeting following the 2004 GA, the MRTI committee acknowledged that a huge number of multi-national corporations do business of one kind or another in Israel, but also acknowledged that it is possible for MRTI to engage only a limited number of companies at the same time. After initial research into the nature of the activities of particular corporations in Israel-Palestine, they identified a small number of companies and began to develop a strategy of corporate engagement with that select group of corporations, with the possible ultimate conclusion being a the developmente of a recommendation to be brought to a future General Assembly calling for the withdrawal of PC(USA) investments from them. It should be noted that the action of the 2004 GA set into motion a process that has long been established by past GA's that did not call for immediate withdrawal of investments from companies doing business in Israel. Rather, that established process always begins with the MRTI engaging in much research, particularly a process of determining which corporations fit the intended criteria established by the directing General Assembly. After making such identifications, the MRTI begins to engage in discussions with corporate leaders, develops and promotes shareholder resolutions and, only if unsuccessful, prepares plans for actual divestment. The final decision to withdraw investments does not get implemented without bringing those plans back to a future GA, which then votes to approve or reject the plans. In any such case, it is the Board of Pensions and The Presbyterian Foundation (the investing agencies themselves) who must take the final step to implement the General Assembly's actions. The actions of the 2006 General Assembly altered the 2004 action by adding the directive for the MRTI to look for ways the denomination may positively invest in peaceful corporate pursuits in both Israel proper and the Palestinian territories. It did not eliminate the possibility of divesting funds from corporations doing business in Israel, but it also did not authorize any actual withdrawal of investments at this time, hence taking that possibility off the table until at least the 2008 GA. As stated above, any such withdrawal of investments would require a specific directive from a future General Assembly and subsequent action by the investing agencies. - Will Spotts