Posted on 05/18/2004 12:06:06 PM PDT by Cuttnhorse
RENO, NV (Mineweb.com) -- Nearly a year ago, this reporter called an old friend, who was the chairman and chief exectuive of Caterpillar (CAT) at the time.
During the call, the executive expressed his concern and frustration about the use of CAT equipment by Israel’s military to bulldoze Palestinian settlements. There was no way he would support or in any way condone the use of the equipment to violate human rights. But, thus far, he was helpless to stop it. As far as we were concerned, the most complicated issue was: How can a company control a buyer’s use of its equipment or merchandise? Since we couldn’t come up with an obvious answer at the time, this reporter relegated the discussion to some foggy memory until today.
In a column published in the Motley Fool Monday, contributor Selena Maranjian wrote that “the war on terrorism has, in the eyes of some, a new villain. It’s not a person, not a government, and not a shadow association of any kind. It’s a public company, more than 75 years old, based in Peoria, Ill., and, in its own words, the largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, and industry gas turbine company: Caterpillar.”
The Israeli Defense Forces use CAT bulldozers to demolish houses of suicide bombers and buildings it believes are used by militants. The Israeli government says the demolitions are necessary to fight terrorism. But, NGOs have organized a campaign against Caterpillar, insisting that the company’s board of directors name a panel of outside directors to evaluate whether the sale of bulldozers violates the company’s code of business conduct. The Mercy Investment Program, the Sisters of Loretto, and the Ursuline Sisters introduced a resolution at this year’s CAT shareholders’ meeting asking Caterpillar to take a close look at the risks it’s taking by selling bulldozers to the Israeli military. Liat Weingart of the Jewish Voice for Peace told shareholders that “Caterpillar has become the target of negative publicity, protests and boycotts. …In the Arab world, the name Caterpillar has become synonymous with the destruction of homes, with destroying infrastructure rather than building it.”
Mary Ann McGivern of the Sisters of Loretto admitted that Caterpillar is not selling bulldozers to the Israeli Department of Transportation and Housing, and that the Israelis were using the bulldozers for military purposes. Rather, Caterpillar is selling bulldozers to the U.S. Department of Defense for delivery to the Israeli military under a Foreign Military Sales Agreement. The issue, she argues, is: Does Caterpillar have the responsibility to monitor if its heavy equipment is being used as weapons of war?
Last month, demonstrators in downtown Peoria delivering their message that they wanted Cat to stop the sale of bulldozers to Israel. In a letter presented to the demonstrators, new CAT CEO James Owens said that the company did not have the ability or the legal right to dictate how their equipment is used. In its opposition to the resolution introduced by the Catholic nuns, CAT’s Board of Directors responded: “Caterpillar shares the world’s concern over unrest in the Middle East and we certainly have compassion for all those affected by the political strife. However, more than 2 million Caterpillar machines and engineers are at work in virtually every country of the world each day. We have neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use of that equipment. We believe any comments on political conflict in the region are best left to our government leaders who have the ability to impact action and advance the peace process.”
CAT equipment dealers are also being targeted by the “Stop Caterpillar” campaign. Some 50 members of the Jewish Voice for Peace showed up unannounced at the Peterson Tractor Company in San Leandro, California on March 16. Standing in the lobby of the equipment dealer, the protestors recited Kaddish for Rachel Corrie, who died last year after being run over by a bulldozer as she tried to prevent a Palestinian home from being demolished on the Gaza Strip.
The protestors demanded that Peterson ask Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., to support a House of Representatives resolution for an independent investigation into Corrie’s death. They asked the dealership to communicate to Caterpillar that Peterson does not want its equipment being sold to violate human rights.
E-mail campaigns by the NGOs and religious groups have been launched asking that letters of concern be sent to Caterpillar. Letters have also been sent to 46 Caterpillar dealers.
So, why should mining care? If Caterpillar is responsible for the use of its equipment by the military, does a mining company have to worry about the use of its trucks, bulldozers, or shovels once they are sold by the operator? For instance, would a behemoth Rio Tinto or a very junior miner have to start tracking the whereabouts of every piece of heavy equipment it has sold and its uses during its equipment life? Would CAT be held responsible for the actions of its equipment if a mining company pollutes or involuntarily relocates a village or town?
Would a shareholder, an institutional investor, or a bank be happy if CAT or a mining company left money on the table, or turned down a mining project, because they fear human rights violations might be committed because of that mining operation? Would adherence to such a philosophy eliminate mining and exploration in a number of developing nations?
To what degree does a company adhere to its social responsibility corporate statement? Should a company be held civilly, if not criminally responsible, for the misuse of its equipment? Does a mining operator leave a nation whose government is headed by a dictator who uses mining revenue to abuse or kill his nation’s citizens? Has a mining operator pulled out in protest of a country whose government violated human rights or slaughtered people? How often has a mining operator stood mute as military or para-military groups called in to protect that mine killed anti-mining protestors? To what degree is a company responsible for the actions of a government or its military?
This reporter has no doubt that the Caterpillar executive cared deeply about the situation. He is a moral and extremely compassionate man with an excellent track record of social activism, who possesses a great deal of integrity. In fact, as a member of the National Mining Association Board of Directors, he was a strong advocate for environmental and social reform within the nation’s mining industry. But, is there anything he, his successor, or their company can really do about the situation?
Finally, do the moral concerns of a few shareholders over the actions of a company, or the use of its equipment outweigh the financial needs of institutional investors, banks, and a company to earn a profit?
From under what rock did these weirdos crawl?
Operating the big equipment is a responsible job. We had a head-on collision at a relative 100 mph of two scrapers. Awesome. The real awesome job, though, belongs to the man who fixes flats.
Fine. Switch to JDAMs.
Thought you'd be on this thread...
Look at this, found through Google image search - evidently on a pro-Palestinian website:
I wonder how the Palestinians would feel about paying Ted Sturgeon's estate for the use of a copyrighted name?
When it comes time to repower my boat, I'll have to give the nice folks at Caterpillar due consideration.
Finally, do the moral concerns of a few shareholders over the actions of a company, or the use of its equipment outweigh the financial needs of institutional investors, banks, and a company to earn a profit?
Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. -Spock.
Man I hope so!
Kill Dozer...LOL! Priceless!!
Seems I recall Clint Eastwood using a dozer to attack a machine gun nest when the Marines landed in Grenada, in the movie "Heartbreak Ridge".
Question.
If a company can't, why does DELL Computer refuse to sell any of it's equipment to any company that has the remotest connection to... "the gun industry"?
If you will recall a few years back there was a BIG brouhaha over DELL refusing to sell a system to a gun dealer. IIRC they said it was their company policy. NO DELL's to the "gun industry" - period!
And Google® won't take paid ads from "the gun industry" either. Do a Google Search for 'guns' and not one 'sponsored link' (ad) will appear on the right side of the page. Then search 'autos'.
So it appears that a company 'could' control the final use of it's product. Not that I agree with that, except for hi-tech stuff going to our 'enemies'.
I do recall the big flap when Dell refused to sell computers to anything associated with the gun industry.
But, in my thinking, companies who do this are acknowledging they have some responsibility regarding the final use of their products...and if one buys into this lame bit of logic, one must also buy into the argument that gun manufacturers indeed are responsible for where their products are used.
I don't buy it at any level. If CAT manufactures and sells a legal product, they are in no way responsible if a nutcase like Rachel Corries decides to commit an act of self-pancakeization under a D-9.
You should look at Perkins engines also - Perkins is owned by Cat but the engines are a lot lighter (for engines in comparable power ranges) - Perkins is the standard engine in many US & UK tracked military vehicles
Crowd cheered as the stunned B went up the incline towards the Cat.
So much for fame....BBC won't show the real pics......as it is obvious Rachel is a moron/Darwin award winner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.