While Unitarian Universalism may be considered a “free faith” in which “every human being needs to be absolutely free to follow his or her own conscience,” it’s still pretty clear here at the UUA General Assembly in Portland, Ore., that you don’t need a dogmatic sets of beliefs to rally around critical causes of the day.

And that’s a relief. On issues ranging from racism to sexual orientation to the genocide in Darfur, UUs are debating, advocating, and joining hands to take action. Here at the UUSC booth, a constant stream of individuals interested in connecting their spirituality with social action have been asking questions, signing our letter to the International Olympic Committee to pressure China to do better on Darfur, and making the choice to join UUSC in our efforts to promote human rights and social justice. UUSC's national cochairs Sarah Karstaedt, Nancy Nowak, Marje Park, and Jack Stiefel have spent hours upon hours manning the Drumbeat for Darfur tables and educating people about our booth's "Kalma Camp," a mock tent that teaches about the daily struggles of Darfur’s internally displaced people.

With all this energy and action, it’s hard not to see this microcosm of the political left and worry just a little bit. Surrounded by workshops ranging from “What the Buddha Really Said about Gender” to “Gaping, Gawking, Staring: Living in Marked Bodies” and “Letters from Young Activists: Today’s Rebels Speak Out,” there’s space for numerous perspectives to be shared here at GA. But the liberal left has often been criticized as being scattered, working on too many issues and changing focus too often, thus failing to do what the radical right has done through institutions such as the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute which:

“Through the constant repetition and dissemination of conservative policy ideas…[conservative think tanks]…have provided a philosophical underpinning for many of the most important fiscal and social policies developed and implemented over the past 16 years. And in the end, they have succeeded in making 'positive government action in social welfare and economic development policy seem off limits and inappropriate.'"

Perhaps one critical challenge for the left, and for UUSC as an organization working for justice in solidarity with people who face severe oppression and vulnerability, is that achieving human rights requires openness, tolerance, and understanding in a way that appears in stark contrast to the dogmatic agendas of the political right where issues such as sexual orientation are boiled down to “right” and “wrong” and religion is a matter of “believing” or not.

But witnessing the inspiration with which UUs here at General Assembly are taking action on issues like Darfur, it’s hard not to feel that we’re doing something right!

Fidelity Investments is facing a growing movement of anti-genocide activists that are demanding that Fidelity divest its large holdings in Petrochina and Sinopec, two Chinese oil companies that are supporting the Sudanese government’s genocidal campaign.

And yet, this week Fidelity announced that it is opening a back office in China. Rather than reducing its connections with China, Fidelity is at this very moment building a greater presence in a country with a government that has shamelessly wooed the Sudanese government. Earlier this year, President Hu Jintao of China traveled to Sudan to provide millions in loans and grants for infrastructure including a palace for President Bashir, the leading perpetrator of the genocide.

Besides the workers’ rights issues and the fact that Fidelity will be paying its Chinese employees a fraction of what it would have to pay its U.S. staff, this type of investment in China will bolster the Chinese government’s image at a time when it should be condemned.

Fidelity Investments seems to feel that it can insulate itself from any moral responsibility related to the genocide in Darfur. And yet, Fidelity’s flaw is not an act of omission; it’s an act of commission. Fidelity, whether it will admit it or not, is providing the fuel – namely millions of dollars in oil revenue - for the government of Sudan to continue its genocidal campaign against the people of Darfur.

Almost four years since the start of the genocide in Darfur, dedicated activists are understandably frustrated by the lack of progress towards peace in Sudan. For too long, the anti-genocide movement has been fragmented with few moments of joint action combined with a unified voice of what specifically must be done to “save Darfur.”

But thanks to focused thinking and a deep understanding of Sudan’s political history, John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group and cofounder of the newly formed organization ENOUGH has put together a set of policy prescriptions that could realistically help end the crisis in Darfur.

Offering “a six-part Rubik’s Cube” of policy objectives, “The Answer to Darfur” recommends the following:

• Support rebel unity.
• Build an effective peace process.
• Secure full-time, high-level U.S. diplomacy.
• Accelerate military planning and action for protection.
• Impose punitive measures now.
• Ramp up global activism.

Whether or not advocates for peace in Darfur can agree on all six of these objectives, especially the recommendation to ramp up military planning, this document provides the thoughtful leadership necessary for the anti-genocide movement to build a loud, unified voice for peace in Darfur.

One vital point this document makes clear is that there is much more that the United States and other governments can do. While violent conflicts such as the one in Darfur often appear impenetrable, it is clear from Sudan’s history that the level of diplomatic pressure and the international commitment to a real peace process in Darfur are far from what has been done in the past. This also means that there is a major role for individuals, communities, and congregations to play in putting massive pressure on their policymakers to make Darfur a higher priority.

Drumbeat for Darfur advocates throughout the country are doing exactly this. Join them in raising the decibel level of voices that are demanding the political will to end the genocide in Darfur.

Releasing its 2006 Annual Human Rights report, the U.S. State Department declared that the genocide in Darfur is the world’s gravest human rights abuse. In line with U.S. foreign policy priorities, it also focused its toughest criticisms on Iran and North Korea.

But surprisingly this year, the United States acknowledged that it, too, had failed to meet international human rights standards toward terrorist suspects. Larry Cox, Amnesty International U.S.A.'s executive director, commented:

“Until the United States changes its own policies of holding detainees indefinitely, in secret prisons, and without basic rights, it cannot credibly be viewed as a world human rights leader. Human rights abuses must not be hidden behind a facade of national security rhetoric.”

The report itself mentions, “Our democratic system of government is not infallible, but it is accountable.”

Nice that the U.S. government recognizes this. But U.S. failures to uphold human rights are not simply flaws in otherwise just humanitarian policies. Our invasion of Iraq and the resulting deaths of anywhere between 58,000-100,000 civilians and 3,000 U.S. troops, justified by an imaginary program of weapons of mass destruction, was a direct result of U.S. policy, not a mistake.

Our history of intervention in Latin America for reasons of economic and political hegemony violated human rights both directly and through our political and financial support for dictators.

And our current war on terror, allowing governments such as Sudan’s genocidal one to commit horrendous atrocities with impunity, is also a matter of policy, not a sudden lapse in thinking. Let’s not let the U.S. government continue to hide behind its rhetoric. The State Department has identified the genocide for what it is; it’s time for the United States to use its power to enforce its convictions.

I woke up yesterday morning to read some seemingly good news -- A Washington Post headline read, “Bush Approves Plan to Pressure Sudan.” Apparently, as part of his mysterious Plan B, President Bush approved a plan for the U.S. Treasury to aggressively block U.S. commercial bank transactions connected to the government of Sudan.

Sounds significant, but as Eric Reeves points out, “Treasury's plan to block commercial bank transactions connected to the Khartoum regime, even those involving oil revenues, will be only a minor, short-term inconvenience.”

A short-term, minor inconvenience is not going to convince President Bashir to stop arming the government-organized Janjaweed militias responsible for the genocide of the Darfurian people.

Let’s be honest, President Bush. Darfur is not at the top of your priority list, is it? If it were, you would have said more than “save the people of Darfur” in your State of the Union address. You would not invite one of Sudan’s chief perpetrators of the genocide to the United States just months after declaring that it is, in fact, a genocide.

If you gave Darfur the attention it deserves, you would have laid out a powerful plan for mounting pressure on Sudan. This plan would use U.S. economic and political ties with Europe, China, and Russia to stop business in Sudan. This plan would recognize the potential role of the Arab League in ending the genocide. And this plan would raise the priority of Darfur in each and every one of your international negotiations, not giving Sudan any room to waver on its promises to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force.

Can this work?

Africa Action, an informed U.S. organization working on Darfur policy, notes, “In the 1990s, as a result of U.S. sanctions and the removal of any American diplomatic presence from Khartoum, the Sudanese government expelled Osama bin Laden and distanced itself from terrorist networks. . . . Time and again, the Sudanese government has acted in response to punitive measures, while it has ignored international pleas and condemnation.”

World leaders can do more -- and we can keep the pressure on them to do so.

Talk about strategic thinking. The horrific genocide in Darfur has motivated people throughout the world to march to the drumbeat. One powerful approach has been divestment from companies that do business in Sudan, a tactic launched by college students at Harvard. The idea is to engage with companies to encourage them to stop business in Sudan. If they refuse, a campaign is launched to divest from that company.

Not exactly what some might call “business-friendly.”

So when I noticed an article yesterday on CNNMoney.com about a similar campaign calling for divestment from Fidelity, I was prepared for the usual arguments about free trade and the typical portrayal of human rights and corporate accountability campaigners as uninformed and misdirected.

Thankfully, I was wrong. This article about “Fidelity’s Sudan Problem” by a senior writer from Fortune magazine not only praises the divestment campaign, but also criticizes Fidelity’s inaction and suggests that “Fidelity won't be the last target.” The writer offers up other potential targets such as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and Berkshire Hathaway which invest in Chinese oil companies doing business in Sudan.

Eric Cohen, a campaigner for the Fidelity Out of Sudan campaign states, “It’s not that Fidelity is killing people. They're not. . . . But Fidelity is the biggest investor in PetroChina. PetroChina is one of the largest companies operating in Sudan. They're pumping tons of oil. And that's generating massive amounts of revenue for the government of Sudan."

Revenue to buy arms to perpetuate the genocide in Darfur.

What more can you do for Darfur? Visit the Fidelity Out of Sudan campaign and the Sudan Divestment Task Force

Last December, in his meeting with South African President Thabo Mbeki, President Bush made yet another embarrassing misstatement. Referring to the failing global trade talks, Bush mentioned the “Darfur round” of trade talks, instead of the Doha round.

Rather than dwell on what was possibly going through (or not going through) his mind, it may be worthwhile to consider how, in fact, Doha and Darfur are related.

China, which now imports 64 percent of Sudan’s oil exports, clearly holds strong economic influence over Sudan. It could join the United States in imposing sanctions on Sudan, thereby cutting the steadily increasing stream of revenues funding the Sudanese government and likely its arms purchases. And being Sudan’s largest supplier of arms, the impact of sanctions by China could be even more direct – limiting the Sudanese government’s ability to continue arming the Janjaweed.

Instead, China maintains a cautious role, arguing that pressure and sanctions are “not practical.”

Or did they mean to say “not profitable”?

Global trade and an insatiable desire for ever-increasing profits seem to take priority over other objectives such as human rights and peace. Many believe China’s position is unlikely to change dramatically, but who knows? Eric Reeves, an expert analyst on the Darfur genocide, writes, “China seeks acceptance at the world's diplomatic top table -- and this cause is unlikely to be advanced if China is perceived to be complicit in genocide. Imagine the newspaper ads leading up to the Beijing Games in 2008: Human rights campaigners will call on the world to boycott the Genocide Olympics.”

Keep the pressure on – Let’s make Darfur a top priority, one that can’t be sacrificed for economic gain.