Need a one page analysis of this article Divest from Nuclear Weapons Included in the one...

Transcribed Image Text:

Need a one page analysis of this article Divest from Nuclear Weapons Included in the one page analysis; also need something pertaining to this article from the bible. @ D Divestment is not only a feasible strategy but also a socially responsible and ethically sound way to watch over the money of clients. DIVEST from NUCLEAR WEAPONS Don't Bank On the Bomb Divestment by a few institutions based on the same ethical objection can have a significant impact on a company's strategic direction. B. Wilbert van der Zeiden uclear weapons are unacceptable weapons By design, they aim to cause large scale and long-term damage not only to enemy troops but to civilians as well N Humanity has successfully banned and eliminated less devastating weapons, but cndously we have come to live with the idea that some countries are entitled to keep nuclear weapons. Worse, we have come to accept that their production is nothing to be ashamed of and that investing in these com- panies is sound financial practice Investing in genocide is inexcusable, and it is time we tell our banks, pension funds, and insurance companies to stop financing the bomb. To that end, the Dutch peace organiza- ton PAX for which I'ma senfor researcher, produces an annual report called Don't Bank on the Bomb, providing a detailed overview of financial institutions that invest in com- panies building nuclear weapons. But the report does more: it highlighte positive examples of financial institutions actively divesting from nuclear weapons producers, showing that divestment is not only a fea- sible strategy but also a socially responsible and ethically sound way to watch over the money of clients. Divesting from nuclear weapons is not rocket science. Campaigning for divestment helps to curtail and eliminate nuclear weapons in more than one way. First, it helps to further stigmatize nuclear weapons. Most peo- ple are unaware that their savings help to finance the bomb, and when this is pointed out to them, most people are uneasy or even appalled by the idea. By providing customers with the facts, we stimulate their readiness to take it up with their banks and pension funds and give them notice to divest from these inhumane weapons. This stigmatiza- tion of nuclear weapons is more important than we may think. No weapon has ever been eliminated before it was outlawed. And no weapon is outlawed without first becom- ing stigmatized. Second, divestment can have very direct effect. By convincing financial institutions to move their money elsewhere, we can cut off funds for producing companies-make them feel their business is dirty, unwanted. While it is unlikely that divestment by a single financial institution would create suf- ficient pressure on a company for it to end its involvement in nuclear weapons work, divestment by even a few institutions based on the same ethical objection can have a significant impact on a company's strategic direction. Our sister campaign-Stop Explosive Investments-provides a good example. In that campaign, the focus is divestment from cluster munitions producers, Can you imagine a huge company such as Lockheed NAPO Martin actually paying attention to such a campaign, or ending their work on weap- ons? Well, it did, and the corporation said as much in a letter to PAX: "I hope our ces- sation of the activities in the area of cluster munitions would enable our removal from prohibited investment firms and allow investors to consider Lockheed Martin for inclusion in their portfolios." A $1 trillion industry The nine nuclear-armed states are plan- ning to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade to maintain and modernize their nuclear weapons. While the major ity of that money comes from taxpayers in the nuclear-armed countries, the Don't Bank on the Bomb report shows that 411 banks, pension funds, and asset managers in 31 countries made $402 billion available between January 2011 and August 2014 to 28 companies that produce, maintain, and modernize nuclear arsenals in France, India, Israel, the United Kingdom, and the a United States. The U.S. is overrepresented here. Roughly two-thirds of all investment in nuclear weapons producers is by U.S. finan- cial institutions. Of the top 10 investors, nine are from the U.S. The top three com- bined-State Street, Capital Group, and Blackrock-have more than $80 billion invested. The U.S. is underrepresented when it comes to positive examples. Of the 35 finan- cial institutions we highlight in our latest report for having a policy curtailing or fully excluding involvement in nuclear weap- ons producers, zero are based in the U.S. It may come as a surprise to U.S. audiences that in several European countries, having a policy prohibiting involvement in nuclear weapons production is actually encour aged. In fact, in countries such as Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, The Achilles' Heel of Terror and Switzerland, banks and pension funds exclude these dirty investments as part of building their image of being a responsi- ble, sensible, and reliable financial service provider. Over the past years, several countries: have started to experiment with regula tion or legislation to end involvement in the production of nuclear weapons. New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland already have national regulations curtailing the involvement of banks in nuclear weap ons production, and discussions on similar measures are ongoing in Australia, Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, and Ireland. An international treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons will be needed to fully eliminate them. To get to that prohibition, we need to demonstrate support from the whole of society for a world without nuclear weapons. y for work Don't Bank on the Bomb aids that pro- cess. It allows people to choose better banks, it pushes financial institutions to reconsider their involvement in a potential nuclear Armageddon, and it challenges the accept- ability of companies being involved in the production of weapons that are designed to perform crimes against humanity. DIVEST from TERRORISM Wilbert van der Zeijden is a political sci entist and senior researcher at the Dutch peace organization PAX (paxforpeace. nl). The most recent report can be found at DontBankontheBomb.com. Tackling their finances is perhaps the most effective way of restricting ter- rorist groups. By Rose Marie Berger T he so-called war on terror has dangerous and shifting financial Tront lines, Since the 9/11 attacks, a series of "anti-terrorism financ- ing laws have beemenacted that allow the government to designate certain charities as "terrorist organizations or as financing terror. The government can effectively shut down organizations without ever bringing criminal charges or providing evidence against them, according to the ACLU. "As a result, it reported, "American Muslim organizations and individuals are unfairly targeted In addition to fostering Islamophobia in the large society and fear within Islamic and other faith communities, overzealous application of these laws can actually inhibit the war on terror It risks crippling the very Islamic charities that can effectively com- bat radicalization in places vullnerable to extremists. Stephen Bubb, head of a charity network in Butrin, where financial terror laws are similar to those in the U.S., has emphasized "sensible credible, proportion- ate regulation of Islamic charities. "I have witnessed firsthand the difficulties faced by Need a one page analysis of this article Divest from Nuclear Weapons Included in the one page analysis; also need something pertaining to this article from the bible. @ D Divestment is not only a feasible strategy but also a socially responsible and ethically sound way to watch over the money of clients. DIVEST from NUCLEAR WEAPONS Don't Bank On the Bomb Divestment by a few institutions based on the same ethical objection can have a significant impact on a company's strategic direction. B. Wilbert van der Zeiden uclear weapons are unacceptable weapons By design, they aim to cause large scale and long-term damage not only to enemy troops but to civilians as well N Humanity has successfully banned and eliminated less devastating weapons, but cndously we have come to live with the idea that some countries are entitled to keep nuclear weapons. Worse, we have come to accept that their production is nothing to be ashamed of and that investing in these com- panies is sound financial practice Investing in genocide is inexcusable, and it is time we tell our banks, pension funds, and insurance companies to stop financing the bomb. To that end, the Dutch peace organiza- ton PAX for which I'ma senfor researcher, produces an annual report called Don't Bank on the Bomb, providing a detailed overview of financial institutions that invest in com- panies building nuclear weapons. But the report does more: it highlighte positive examples of financial institutions actively divesting from nuclear weapons producers, showing that divestment is not only a fea- sible strategy but also a socially responsible and ethically sound way to watch over the money of clients. Divesting from nuclear weapons is not rocket science. Campaigning for divestment helps to curtail and eliminate nuclear weapons in more than one way. First, it helps to further stigmatize nuclear weapons. Most peo- ple are unaware that their savings help to finance the bomb, and when this is pointed out to them, most people are uneasy or even appalled by the idea. By providing customers with the facts, we stimulate their readiness to take it up with their banks and pension funds and give them notice to divest from these inhumane weapons. This stigmatiza- tion of nuclear weapons is more important than we may think. No weapon has ever been eliminated before it was outlawed. And no weapon is outlawed without first becom- ing stigmatized. Second, divestment can have very direct effect. By convincing financial institutions to move their money elsewhere, we can cut off funds for producing companies-make them feel their business is dirty, unwanted. While it is unlikely that divestment by a single financial institution would create suf- ficient pressure on a company for it to end its involvement in nuclear weapons work, divestment by even a few institutions based on the same ethical objection can have a significant impact on a company's strategic direction. Our sister campaign-Stop Explosive Investments-provides a good example. In that campaign, the focus is divestment from cluster munitions producers, Can you imagine a huge company such as Lockheed NAPO Martin actually paying attention to such a campaign, or ending their work on weap- ons? Well, it did, and the corporation said as much in a letter to PAX: "I hope our ces- sation of the activities in the area of cluster munitions would enable our removal from prohibited investment firms and allow investors to consider Lockheed Martin for inclusion in their portfolios." A $1 trillion industry The nine nuclear-armed states are plan- ning to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade to maintain and modernize their nuclear weapons. While the major ity of that money comes from taxpayers in the nuclear-armed countries, the Don't Bank on the Bomb report shows that 411 banks, pension funds, and asset managers in 31 countries made $402 billion available between January 2011 and August 2014 to 28 companies that produce, maintain, and modernize nuclear arsenals in France, India, Israel, the United Kingdom, and the a United States. The U.S. is overrepresented here. Roughly two-thirds of all investment in nuclear weapons producers is by U.S. finan- cial institutions. Of the top 10 investors, nine are from the U.S. The top three com- bined-State Street, Capital Group, and Blackrock-have more than $80 billion invested. The U.S. is underrepresented when it comes to positive examples. Of the 35 finan- cial institutions we highlight in our latest report for having a policy curtailing or fully excluding involvement in nuclear weap- ons producers, zero are based in the U.S. It may come as a surprise to U.S. audiences that in several European countries, having a policy prohibiting involvement in nuclear weapons production is actually encour aged. In fact, in countries such as Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, The Achilles' Heel of Terror and Switzerland, banks and pension funds exclude these dirty investments as part of building their image of being a responsi- ble, sensible, and reliable financial service provider. Over the past years, several countries: have started to experiment with regula tion or legislation to end involvement in the production of nuclear weapons. New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland already have national regulations curtailing the involvement of banks in nuclear weap ons production, and discussions on similar measures are ongoing in Australia, Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, and Ireland. An international treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons will be needed to fully eliminate them. To get to that prohibition, we need to demonstrate support from the whole of society for a world without nuclear weapons. y for work Don't Bank on the Bomb aids that pro- cess. It allows people to choose better banks, it pushes financial institutions to reconsider their involvement in a potential nuclear Armageddon, and it challenges the accept- ability of companies being involved in the production of weapons that are designed to perform crimes against humanity. DIVEST from TERRORISM Wilbert van der Zeijden is a political sci entist and senior researcher at the Dutch peace organization PAX (paxforpeace. nl). The most recent report can be found at DontBankontheBomb.com. Tackling their finances is perhaps the most effective way of restricting ter- rorist groups. By Rose Marie Berger T he so-called war on terror has dangerous and shifting financial Tront lines, Since the 9/11 attacks, a series of "anti-terrorism financ- ing laws have beemenacted that allow the government to designate certain charities as "terrorist organizations or as financing terror. The government can effectively shut down organizations without ever bringing criminal charges or providing evidence against them, according to the ACLU. "As a result, it reported, "American Muslim organizations and individuals are unfairly targeted In addition to fostering Islamophobia in the large society and fear within Islamic and other faith communities, overzealous application of these laws can actually inhibit the war on terror It risks crippling the very Islamic charities that can effectively com- bat radicalization in places vullnerable to extremists. Stephen Bubb, head of a charity network in Butrin, where financial terror laws are similar to those in the U.S., has emphasized "sensible credible, proportion- ate regulation of Islamic charities. "I have witnessed firsthand the difficulties faced by

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

MALACHI 41 For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven and all the proud yea and all that d... View the full answer