Report: The Case for UA Divestment from Companies Caterpillar, Inc., and Motorola, Inc.

UA Community for Human Rights (UCHR), UA Student Club

Prepared by Gabriel Matthew Schivone, Co-director

Updated Nov. 2010

CONTENTS:

PREFACE AND STATEMENT OF CONTEXT

UA Community for Human Rights (UCHR)

I. AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A. University of Arizona's Intellectual, Business and Moral Principles: A Proper Starting Point

B. Domestic Legality and Beyond

II. CASE STUDY: CATERPILLAR, INC.

Killer, Killer, Caterpillar: The Case Against Caterpillar, Inc.

III. CASE STUDY: MOTOROLA, INC.

"Remote Control Death": The Case Against Motorola

IV. ABSENCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY OR REMEDIATION: A “WILLFUL BLINDNESS”

V. CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations and Alternatives

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Shareholders' Proposal, Caterpillar, Inc.

Appendix B: Company's Response to Shareholders' Proposal

Appendix C: Shareholders' Proposal, Motorola, Inc.

Appendix D: Company's Response to Shareholders' Proposal

CITATIONS

PREFACE AND STATEMENT OF CONTEXT

UA Community for Human Rights (UCHR)

The ad hoc group, UA Community for Human Rights (UCHR), is a student-led committee that
monitors specifically the corporate relations of the University of Arizona. Although student-led,
it is comprised also of advisors and supporters from within and without the university, including
UA faculty.

We are universally against all violations of human rights, no matter where they occur in
the world and regardless of who commits them. Human rights abuses are condemnable no
matter the political, social or economic circumstances. We resound the words of Amnesty
International's Secretary General Irene Khan, "[C]ompanies cannot escape responsibility or be
silent witnesses to widespread human rights violations. Human rights are not a luxury for good
times – they must be respected and upheld at all times under all circumstances, by all actors,
state or corporate."1

About UCHR

The committee undertakes a campaign once human rights abuses that affiliate our university
are detected. We then operate advocacy and education programs to exact economic and other
forms of pressure mainly by, though not limited to, championing divestment. All our efforts are
volunteer-based, tasks are self-selected and collectively coordinated, and our resources
include all the means and privileges at our disposal as individuals, students, professionals, and
engaged members of civil society.

Last semester we were honored to support the anti-sweatshop divestment campaign

led by students in Sweatshop-Free Coalition (SFC) who, along with the faculty-based
University Committee for Monitoring Labor and Human Rights Issues (UCMLHRI), and the
Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) – an independent global labor rights monitoring group of
which the UA is a university affiliate – successfully lobbied the University of Arizona to divest its
contractual relationship with the garment company Russell Athletic, (owned by Fruit of the
Loom, Inc.,) due to violations of the UA code of conduct and various international labor and
human rights standards. The University terminated its contract with Russell at the beginning of
July, 2009, for failing "to achieve implementation of a remediation plan" imposed on the
company for its violation of the university's Labor Code of Conduct, indicating an "interest in
reconsidering the termination decision if Russell can demonstrate full compliance."2

Months later, the university's conditions were unmet; the termination remained. At the
end of the Russell affair (20 October 2009), the university officially stated that it "will continue
to work" with the appropriate labor and human rights monitoring bodies "to hold corporations
accountable in supporting" international humanitarian and human rights standards.3 (For
background information of the matter, beginning as a public issue carrying through to the
announcement of the Russell contract termination, see: "Behold, the Fruit of a Bitter Loom,"
Wildcat, 15 April 2009; "Factory May Violate UA Code," Wildcat, 15 April 2009; "Shelton Keeps
Contract Intact," Wildcat, 16 April 2009; "Horror Movie Lies Behind UA Corporate Contracts,"
Wildcat, 21 April 2009; "Fleecing Out the Facts," Wildcat, 28 April 2009; "UA to Discontinue

1 Amnesty International, "The UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business
Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights". Online. Accessible: http://www.amnestyusa.org/business-and-human-
rights/legal-accountability/un-norms/page.do?id=1081041

2 "UA to Discontinue Relationship with Russell Corporation," UA News, 13 July 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://uanews.org/node/26395

3 "Russell's Reign Officially Comes to an End," Wildcat, 20 October 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/news/russell-s-reign-officially-comes-to-an-end-1.792933#5
Relationship with Russell Corporation," UA News, 13 July 2009; "Labor Pains," Wildcat, 25 July
2009; and "Russell's Reign Officially Comes to an End," Wildcat, 20 October 2009.4)

As a contextual note, the violations discussed in this report, documented concurrently

and serving as the basis of divestment recommendations by international and local human
rights groups, are being committed in the world conflict zone of Israel/Palestine. This area of
conflict is perhaps the most heavily monitored in the world by human rights groups and other
non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It is an area in which military occupation prevails in
the form of "daily humiliations – large and small"5 – imposed upon the Palestinian people, to
quote U.S. President Barack Obama, echoing similar observations by the United Nations and
other international human rights bodies. It is an area in which terrorism is committed by all
sides, albeit in scales disproportionate.

Needless to say, the ad hoc committee is aware of the extremely contentious nature of
the conflict, whether real or perceived. We would therefore like to make it clear that we are not
taking "sides" in the conflict. Our side is that of human rights.

Our position on the occupation, in the vein of universal human rights concerns, then, is
naturally an uncontroversial one. We concur with the unanimity of leading and respected
human rights groups local to the area (both Israeli and Palestinian)6, as well as the major
international human rights groups (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), who,
while tireless in their efforts, incisive in their critical judgment, and reliable in their accuracy and
keen reflections, report that the occupation is not favorable for anybody, Palestinian or Israeli.
In fact, it is an "intolerable" reality (Obama)7, and therefore must come to an end in order to
authentically preserve health and human rights each for Palestinians and Israelis.

Suffice it to say that, beyond our guiding principle of the universality of human rights,
we are not invoking a political position by the university on the issue of divestment. Through
our recommendations in this report, based on those of notable human rights groups, we do not
presume to petition the university to divest as a political decision anymore than we presume

4 See: "Behold, the Fruit of a Bitter Loom," Wildcat, 15 April 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/2.2255/behold-the-fruit-of-a-bitter-loom-1.161147#4; "Factory May Violate UA Code,"
Wildcat, 15 April 2009. Online. Accessible: http://wildcat.arizona.edu/2.2257/factory-may-violate-ua-code-1.161157;
"Shelton Keeps Contract Intact," Wildcat, 16 April 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/2.2257/shelton-keeps-contract-intact-1.161116; "Horror Movie Lies Behind UA Corporate
Contracts," Wildcat, 21 April 2009. Online. Accessible: http://wildcat.arizona.edu/2.2255/a-horror-movie-lies-behind-
ua-corporate-contracts-1.161026; "Fleecing Out the Facts," Wildcat, 28 April 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/2.2255/fleecing-the-facts-on-the-russell-case-1.160884; "UA to Discontinue Relationship
with Russell Corporation," UA News, 13 July 2009. Online. Accessible: http://uanews.org/node/26395; "Labor
Pains," Wildcat, 25 July 2009. Online. Accessible: http://wildcat.arizona.edu/labor-pains-1.155342; "Russell's Reign
Officially Comes to an End," Wildcat, 20 October 2009. Online. Accessible: http://wildcat.arizona.edu/news/russell-
s-reign-officially-comes-to-an-end-1.792933#5

5 "Text: Obama's Speech in Cairo," New York Times, published 4 June 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html

6 For more information on local Israeli and Palestinian health and human rights groups, among others, see: Al-Haq,
Addameer Prisoners' Support & Human Rights Association; Ad-Dameer Association for Human Rights; Al-Mezan
Center for Human Rights; Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI); B’Tselem – The Israeli Center for Human
Rights in the Occupied Territories; Defence for Children International; Ensan Center for Democracy & Human
Rights; Gaza Community Mental Health Program (GCMHP); Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR);
Jerusalem Legal Aid & Human Rights Center (JLAC); Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR); Palestinian
Centre for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, Musawa; Palestinian Human Rights
Monitoring Group (PHRMG); Physicians for Human Rights in Israel (PHR-Israel), Public Committee Against Torture;
Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies (RCHRS); Union of Health Work Committees; Women's Center for
Legal Aid and Counceling (WCLAC); Women's Studies Center (Jerusalem); The Palestinian Non-Governmental
Organizations' Network (PNGO).
7 See note 5.
that it did not, in a political manner, decide to invest in the first place in companies which are
profiting financially from the occupation. Rather, in light of the facts discussed in this report, we
call on the university to take a human rights initiative and disinvest from these companies in
order to preserve its own principles and disassociate itself from contributing to more human
rights violations in the future.

Moreover, we are not advocating any sort of political settlement to the conflict, which is
a different, though relevant, discussion. The issue here is the illegal activities of specific
companies connected with the university, as well as the prime concern that the university's
various legal, ethical, and business codes are upheld. Accordingly, we address only the
violations that the university has the power to do anything about directly.

Finally, we do not claim to offer a comprehensive portrait of all the crimes committed, by
all parties to conflict. Although a mere glimpse of the encompassing violations is afforded in
this report, it is enough to cast a light, beyond any doubt, on the illegal activities of companies
directly affiliated with the University of Arizona.

BACKGROUND/STATUS OF LICENSING AGREEMENTS

Since 2004, the Caterpillar Corporation has provided "nonexclusive license" of various
copyrighted software generously "at no cost" to the University for special use by the
Department of Mining & Geological Engineering. The contract is set to expire in June, 2014.8

In 1999 the University entered into an equipment and services agreement with Motorola
Corporation for the price of $200,000.9

I. AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT

As honest and honorable students, faculty, staff, and employees of the University of Arizona
(UA), we are terribly concerned with the concurrent business relationships which companies
Motorola, Inc., and Caterpillar, Inc. maintain with our university. This report outlines, in some
detail, while complimented by commentary and analysis, a case for UA licensing divestment
from the above companies owing to their involvement in grave abuses of U.S., as well as
international human rights and humanitarian law.

On 9 July 2004, at the request of the UN General Assembly, the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, rendered an "advisory
opinion" on the legality of the Separation Wall under construction by Israel throughout the
Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The Court ruled that "Construction of the wall within the
Occupied Territories severely impedes on the Palestinian people's right to self-determination
and is therefore a breach of Israel's obligation to respect that right." The ICJ therefore
proclaimed that the entire international community is, at a minimum, under legal and moral
obligation "not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the wall and not to render aid or
assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction," as well as "to ensure
compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in [the Fourth Geneva]
Convention," relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.10

8 Licensing Agreements with Motorola and Caterpillar obtained from UA Media Office.

9 Ibid.

10 ICJ Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory," 9 July 2004. Online. Accessible: http://www.icj-
 Taking up their legal and moral duty as world citizens, organizations and individuals
throughout the planet (as well as most recently the state of Norway in September 2009) have
begun to withdraw support, "aid or assistance" to the "illegal situation" ruled by the ICJ.

This year, prestigious American educational institution Hampshire College, along with
the Church of England and the government of Norway as three notable international examples
together have divested millions of dollars from companies involved in human rights violations
comparable to those of Motorola and Caterpillar. (While notably in the cases of Hampshire and
the C of E, Caterpillar is a specific company that was divested.)11 In the case of Norway, 20
Israeli peace, human rights and justice groups appealed to the Norwegian government
explicitly calling for the divestment that followed four months later.12

Meanwhile, faith organizations, NGOs, human rights groups, student-led coalitions and
others have begun to fan broad, calculated waves of divestment. The London School of
Economics Student Union voted last year (Feb. 2008) to lobby its own school, as well as its
partner school, the National University of Singapore, to divest from companies involved in the
occupation.13 Furthermore, over the past several years, on roughly 40 college campuses
throughout the United States – including Columbia, Princeton, UPenn, Berkeley, Stanford and
others – company divestment campaigns have been initiated in one way or another, along
similar lines reflected in this report.14

The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC), meeting in Geneva,
Switzerland, in February 2005, called on its 349 member denominations (representing 560
million Christians in 110 countries) "to work for peace in new ways and give serious
consideration" to divestment from companies profiting from what the ICJ reminds the world is
an "illegal situation" in the OPT.15 Prominent Israeli journal Ha'aretz quoted the WCC's
declaration: "This action [of divestment] is commendable in both method and manner, uses
criteria rooted in faith and calls members to do the 'things that make for peace'," quoting St.

cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

11 For Hampshire College's divestment earlier this year, see: Peter Schworm, “Hampshire College Cuts Ties with
Fund Invested in Israel,” Boston Globe, 12 February 2009. Online.
Accessible:http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/02/hamphire_colleg.html And for the Church of
England, see: Jewish Telegraph Agency Report, “Church of England Divested from Caterpillar,” 10 February 2009.
Online. Accessible: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/10/1002897/church-of-england-divests-from-caterpillar; and
The Times Online (UK), “Synod in Disinvestment Snub to Israel,” 7 February 2006. Online. Accessible:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article728027.ece

12 For information on the divestment decision of Norway, see: Amira Hass and Barak Ravid, "Israel Summons
Norway Envoy to Protest Divestment from Arms Firm," Ha'aretz, 8 September 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1112218.html

13 The London School of Economics Student Union's general meeting minutes postings can be found on their
website. The minutes from 14 February 2008 state the resolution to "Establish an LSE SU campaign to lobby the
school and NUS to divest from...companies that a) provide military support for or weaponry to support the
occupation b) facilitate the building or maintenance of the illegal "annexation" wall or the demolition of Palestinian
homes or c) operate on illegally occupied land and within Jewish-only settlements, with the goal of maintaining the
divestment, in the case of said companies, until they cease such practices..."

14 Princeton's divestment is Online. Accessible: http://www.princeton.edu/~speac/apartheid.htm; Columbia's

divestment campaign, Online. Accessible: http://www.columbiadivest.org/index.html; Stanford: Online. Accessible:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scai/; University of Mississippi: http://apartheidresistance.com/; University of North
Carolina: http://www.ncdivest.org/; Berkeley: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/students/jrnlorgs/orgs/orglist/lsjp.html.

15 World Council of Churches News Release, "WCC Calls to Freeze and Dismantle Israeli Settlements," 9
February 2009.
Luke's Gospel. "Economic pressure, appropriately and openly applied, is one such means of
action."16

Similarly, the WCC also gave immense praise and support to the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s April 2004 decision to institute "a process of phased,
selective divestment" from companies that are involved in human rights crimes in the OPT.17

Shortly after the WCC's declaration, in June 2007, the New England Conference of the
United Methodist Church (USA) passed its resolution 204 “On Divesting from Companies that
are Supporting, in a Significant Way, the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories.” Noting
that “a number of American and Israeli Jewish peace groups, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and
other religious leaders have called for selective divestment from Israel as a means of ending
settlement expansion and ending the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands,” the NEC
resolution stated “the United Methodist Church should not profit from the occupation of
Palestinian land or the destruction of Palestinian homes, orchards, and lives...[and]...we are
committed to ensuring our denomination's money is used in a manner consistent with our
beliefs, with international law, and with Christ's teaching”.18 The resolution also cited the
General Conference of the Methodist Church's Resolution 312, passed the previous year
(2004), entitled 'Opposition to Israeli Settlements in Palestinian Land' which called for an end
to the occupation of Palestinian land by Israel”.

In the same month as Resolution 204, the Task Force of the UMC released its
recommendation report and listed 20 companies as targets of divestiture, including Caterpillar
and Motorola.19

The largest and most prominent Presbyterian denomination in the United States, the 11
million-member United Methodist church (UMC), at its most recent General Conference
affirmed its resolution of divestment as an option against profiting from Israel's occupation of
Palestine.20 General Secretary of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, Jim
Winkler, said: "Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land has continued for more than 40
years...Undeniable misery is experienced every day by Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
Our church should not profit from it."21

16"World Council of Churches Calls for Divestment from Israel," Ha'aretz, 5 October 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=543924&contrassID=13. View the full text of the call for
divestment here: Full text: http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/central-committee/geneva-
2005/reports-and-documents/genpub-5-second-report-of-the-public-issues-committee.html.

17 The Christian Century News Release, "WCC Endorses Divestment from Israel," 22 March 2005. Online.
Accessible: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-130970702.html

18 United Methodist Church New England Conference Resolution 204, “On Divesting From Companies that are
Supporting, in a Significant Way the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories, June 2005. Online. Accessible:
http://neconference.brickriver.com/files/oFiles_Library_XZXLCZ/Res-204-2005_2JTPGT8M.pdf; see also: New
England Conference News Report, “New England Conference Urges Divestiture from Israeli Occupation,” 20 June
2005. Online. Accessible: http://www.neumc.org/news_detail.asp?PKValue=60

19 UMC Press Release, “Task Force Issues Divestment Recommendations,” 21 June 2007. Online. Accessible:
http://www.neumc.org/news_detail.asp?pkvalue=165. See also: United Methodist Church New England Conference
Divestment Task Force Report and Recommendations, June 2007. Online. Accessible:
http://www.neumc.org/pages/detail/178

20 Jewish Voice for Peace Press Release, “Methodists Affirm Divestment as an Option to End Israel's
Occupation,” 2 May 2008. Online. Accessible: http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_1053.shtml

21 United Methodist News Service Report, “Agency Withdraws Petition on Caterpillar,” 17 2008. Online.
Accessible: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2072519&ct=5250125; see also:
Seth Gitell, “Methodists to Mull Divestment from Israel,” New York Sun, 24 January 2008. Online. Accessible:
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/methodists-to-mull-divestment-from-israel/70089/.
 In 2005, The General Synod of the United Church of Christ, with 1.1 million members
and 5300 local congregations, voted to divest as a measure of “economic leverage” against
the occupation, while calling on Israel to “tear down” the Separation Wall deemed illegal by the
ICJ.22

And in June 2005, The Anglican Consultative Council voted unanimously to

recommend its 38 provinces that they consider conducting economic pressure, including
divestment, upon firms that support the occupation.23

All of the above calls for divestment stem from resounding invocations by the
Palestinian human rights community that the world abide by the law of nations set forth in the
UN Charter, related articles in the Geneva Conventions and the European Union (EU)
guidelines that stipulate compliance to international humanitarian law.24

Worthy of note, here on the University of Arizona campus, the issues raised within this
report have been a public matter since this past April, having been included in the Wildcat's
annual "issues of the year (2008-09)". (See "Horror Movie Lies Behind UA Corporate
Contracts," Wildcat, 21 April 2009; "The Daily Wildcat Opinions Desk Picks the Issues of the
Year," Wildcat, 13 May 2009; and "Israel's 'Prisoners of Conscience'," Wildcat, 21September
2009.25)

The first part of the report presents the legal and ethical framework around which our
university is structured. The second part examines case by case a glimpse of the transgressive
activities of each Motorola, Inc., and Caterpillar, Inc., as documented by major international
and local human rights groups.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

University of Arizona's Intellectual, Business and Moral Principles: A Proper Starting

Point

As a proper mode of social, moral and legal guidance in this matter, it is first pertinent to refer,
as a starting point, to our university's purpose as "a leading public research institution in the
American Southwest," considering that we are, indeed, in the words of our official "about"
statement, a "diverse community of people that thrive on innovation and collaboration."26

Our university's stated goals are established to "discover, educate, serve and inspire"
upon our scientific work, passionately undertaken in order to "improve the human condition"

22 NGO Monitor, "United Church of Christ's Israel Divestment Action 'Troubling' Contravenes Months of Interfaith
Dialogue,” 6 July 2005. Online. Accessible: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=1024.

23 See “Anglicans May Pull Israeli Investments, Chicago Tribune, 25 June 2005; and “Anglicans Pressure Firms
Backing Israeli Occupation,” Reuters, 24 June 2005.

24 Al-Haq Urgent Release, “Palestinian Human Rights Community Calls for International Action,” 27 December
2008. Online. Accessible: http://www.alhaq.org/etemplate.php?id=409.

25 "Horror Movie Lies Behind UA Corporate Contracts," Wildcat, 21 April 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/2.2255/a-horror-movie-lies-behind-ua-corporate-contracts-1.161026; "The Daily Wildcat
Opinions Desk Picks the Issues of the Year," Wildcat, 13 May 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/2.2255/the-daily-wildcat-opinions-desk-picks-the-issues-of-the-year-1.160657; "Israel's
'Prisoners of Conscience'," Wildcat, 21September 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/opinions/israel-s-prisoners-of-conscience-1.524099.

26 UA Mission. Online. Accessible: http://www.arizona.edu/home/aboutua.php.

and "enrich communities around the state and around the world."27 Moreover, in accordance
with our mutual standards of the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), the University of
Arizona is "committed to conducting [our] business affairs in a socially responsible manner
consistent" with the above "education, research and/or service" goals, while also committed "to
protecting and preserving the global environment." In further elaboration on this point, the
preamble to the UA Labor Code of Conduct states that, "While CLC [and the University of
Arizona] believe that Licensees [Motorola and Caterpillar] share this commitment," CLC and
UA have "adopted the following Labor Code Standards (the Code) which requires that all
Licensees, at a minimum, adhere to the principles set forth [in it]."28

To this end, consider principally the clause in the Code under "Standards" (Article II, A):
Licensees must comply with all applicable legal requirements of the country(ies)
manufacture in conducting business related to or involving the production or sale of
Licensed Articles."29

In other words, Licensees Motorola and Caterpillar, both American firms, must comply
to U.S. law regarding not only the conditions under which their goods are produced, but also
regarding the actual use of their products or services by those entities (i.e. clients such as
people, institutions, states, etc.) with whom such companies do business.

Perhaps the most robust of all our university principles is the document in which all of
the above standards are crystallized, the UA "Policy on Corporate Relations." As the policy's
first section entitled "philosophy" reminds us eloquently, "The primary purpose of a public
university is the generation and dissemination of knowledge." It is a "factual and esthetic"
"repository of information and ideas," providing an "atmosphere in which students and faculty
can explore new ideas and search for truth." And, in order to "accomplish its mission" as well
as be "a place where students can learn, mature and acquire thinking skills," the doctrine
continues, a structural condition is that the "appropriate atmosphere" for these virtues to take
place and be nurtured must be one that is "really present and is perceived to be present by the
public".30

The policy explicitly states in Section II, "Purpose and Intent":

It is the intent of this policy that all agreements entered into by the University of Arizona
result in the enhancement of the primary mission and purpose of the University. Any
restrictions or requirements resulting from such contracts or gifts should not detract from
these purposes. In order for the institution to remain a symbol of the quest for truth and
knowledge, it must preserve its reputation as one of absolute integrity and avoid
affiliations that may tarnish its image in the public eye. The name of the University should
never be used to endorse any products or corporations whose products are instruments
of destruction or known to cause harm to humans (emphasis added).31

Finally, the policy confers a solemn warning upon the university leadership over the grave
responsibility over these matters:
The most important aspect of this policy is that those with authority to commit the
institution to corporate relationships have the great responsibility to carry out its mission

27 Ibid.

28 Intro to UA Code. Online. Accessible: http://www.licensing.arizona.edu/laborcode.php

29 UA Code of Conduct. Online. Accessible: http://www.licensing.arizona.edu/pdf/LaborCodeofConduct.pdf

30 UA Policy on Corporate Relations: Online. Accessible: http://web.arizona.edu/~policy/corp-rel.shtml

31 Ibid.
 and to maintain its intellectual independence. They must proceed with more than the
usual caution, because of the potential consequences of their actions and possible
damage to the institution for decades to come.32

Domestic Legality and Beyond

The "applicable legal requirements" stated in the UA Code of Conduct apply first to U.S.
domestic law, to which each Caterpillar and Motorola are beholden as American firms.

The world's largest human rights group, Amnesty International (AI), in a prominent
human rights report released in November 2000, maintains that "All states have a duty to
refrain from the supply of arms and military assistance to states where there is a clear risk that
the arms or other assistance would be used for violations of international human rights or
humanitarian law." Continuing, "The International Law Commission affirmed this principle in its
commentary on the international customary law on state responsibility. A growing number of
states, including the USA, have laws and policies that prohibit the export of arms to human
rights violators or war criminals."33

A relevant article of US code to which Amnesty is referring is the Arms Export Act of
1976 (AECA), which is an elaboration of the "Congressional Statement of Purpose" stating that
"An ultimate goal of the United States is a world which is free from the scourge of war and the
dangers and burdens of armaments; in which the use of force has been subordinated to the
rule of law; and in which international adjustments to a changing world are achieved
peacefully." (U.S.C. 22, Chapter 39, article 2551)34

Following such grandiloquent principles, the specific stipulations which are to regulate
the Act as it races to adjust to a "changing world" become more clear. The article entitled
"Purposes for which military sales or leases by the United States are authorized..." states that
"Defense articles and defense services shall be sold or leased by the United States
Government to friendly countries solely for internal security," or extendedly for "legitimate self-
defense." (U.S.C. 22, Chapter 39, article 2754.)35

The most recent trial of these principles occurred earlier this year during Israel's
massive military assaults upon Gaza in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). In a letter
dated 5 January 2009 U.S. Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) wrote to former Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice expressing his concerns over Israel's assault on Gaza, requesting "an
examination of Israel’s compliance with the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976
(AECA)."36 As Israel is by far the leading recipient of U.S. military aid in the world, a call for
32 Ibid.

33 Amesty International (AI) Report, “Imported Arms Used in Israel and the Occupied Territories with Excessive
Force Resulting In Unlawful Killings and Unwarranted Injuries,” 17 November 2000. Online. Accessible:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/065/2000/en/fd3baa78-dcff-11dd-a007-
3753b71c3d78/mde150652000en.html. See also: Amnesty International (AI) Report, "Israel and the Occupied
Territories: Under the rubble: House demolition and destruction of land and property\n\n" 17 May 2004. Online.
Accessible: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/040/2004/en.

34 Congressional Statement of Purpose. Online. Accessible:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/usc_sec_22_00002551----000-.html

35 Purposes for which military sales or leases by the United States are authorized; report to Congress. Online.
Accessible: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/usc_sec_22_00002754----000-.html

36 Kucinich Letter to Secretary of State Rice on 6 January 2009. Dennis Kucinich, "Israel May Be in Violation of
Arms Export Control Act: Kucinich Requests Report to Congress," 6 January 2009. Online. Accessible:
compliance to the AECA is of prime importance for ensuring the Act's viable integrity. (For
Israel's current standing in U.S. military aid, see, among other items, Steven Erlanger, "Israel
to Get $30 Billion in Military Aid From U.S.," 17 August 2007. Online. Accessible:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/world/middleeast/17israel.html.)

In his letter, Kucinich explores the nature of the AECA points; he as well applies them
quite comfortably to the case of the Gaza assaults: "While neither the AECA nor the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) define 'internal security' and 'legitimate self-defense,'" Kucinich
asserts, "I believe that Israel’s most recent attacks neither further internal security nor do they
constitute 'legitimate' acts of self-defense. They do, however, 'increase the possibility of an
outbreak or escalation of conflict,' because they are a vastly disproportionate response to the
provocation, and because the Palestinian population is suffering from those military attacks in
numbers far exceeding Israeli losses in life and property."37

Further citing world press and United Nations reports, Kucinich also reflects his
profound concern over attacks upon civilians and property:
Israel’s current military campaign in Gaza has inflicted a significant toll on Palestinian
civilians and society. Israel’s recent aerial and ground offensive against Gaza has killed
nearly 600 and injured over 2,500. The Associated Press reported: 'children are paying
the price. . . . The United Nations has said the death toll includes 34 children. . . . But the
broad range of Israel's targets – police compounds, fire stations, homes of militants,
Hamas-run mosques and university buildings – means most shelling is occurring in
residential areas.' The extensive destruction of such civilian institutions violates Article 33
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the wanton destruction of property and
collective punishment of a civilian population.38

A virtually unanimous international human rights record, particularly over the past
several years, corroborates the above conditions as a most deplorable norm.

Amnesty International (AI)'s November 2000 report (referred to above), entitled

"Imported arms used in Israel and the Occupied Territories with excessive force resulted in
unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries," declares that AI "is opposed to the transfer of
military, security or police equipment, technology, expertise and personnel where it can
reasonably be assumed that such a transfer will contribute to serious human rights violations"
(emphasis added). Furthermore, with specific regard to urging that all governments,
"particularly the US government," "respect their international obligations to refrain from" the
involvement in "human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law,"
Amnesty argues that "governments should immediately cease the supply to Israel of military
helicopters, tanks, armoured vehicles, missiles, cannon and associated munitions, spare parts
and technologies." 39 (The most recent of AI's reports on these matters corroborate the
evidence and gravity of the issues to the present date.40)

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=108151

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 See note 33.

40 For recent, related reports, see: "Foreign-supplied weapons used against civilians by Israel and Hamas," AI
Report, 20 February 2009. Online. Accessible: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/foreign-supplied-
weapons-used-against-civilians-israel-and-hamas-20090220; and "Fueling Conflict," AI Report, 23 February 2009.
Online. Accessible: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/012/2009/en
Beyond States: International Legality

It is instructive to note that while Amnesty directly appeals to governments as

responsible parties to regulate companies under its jurisdiction according to state and
international law, AI and other international law bodies take great pains to demonstrate that
such obligations of states translate to corporations as well. The United Nations reminds us that
"even though States have the primary responsibility to promote,...respect,...and protect human
rights, transnational corporations and other business enterprises, as organs of society, are also
responsible for promoting and securing the human rights set forth in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights".41

The UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other

Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, adopted in 2003, affirm that companies
"shall not engage in nor benefit from" violations of international humanitarian and human rights
law. Furthermore, the Norms continue, "Transnational corporations and other business
enterprises shall refrain from any activity which supports, solicits, or encourages States or any
other entities to abuse human rights" and they "shall further seek to ensure that the goods and
services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights.”42 In essence, the Norms
mandate “businesses to exercise due diligence regarding the source or potential uses of
goods or services, and in some instances to forego business opportunities in order to avoid
complicity in, or encouragement of, human rights violations.”

Amnesty, too, clarifies that the Norms "do not create new legal obligations, but simply
explain how existing obligations under international law are relevant to companies and their
global operations." The clarification is meant to answer concerns expressed by governments
and corporations alike in response to the adoption of the Norms that nation states alone
should be held accountable to enforce domestic human rights standards. Amnesty responds
that "[t]his approach ignores the tremendous influence and power that corporations exercise in
the global economy. In many countries, governments are either unwilling or unable to step in
when corporate activities have a negative impact on the human rights of their workforce or the
communities where they operate. The business community cannot continue to ignore the fact
that corporations, like individuals, can be the subjects of international law."43

Worth repeating, AI's Secretary General Irene Khan's assertion that "companies cannot
escape responsibility or be silent witnesses to widespread human rights violations" is of
foremost concern in this case. As she remarked, "Human rights are not a luxury for good times
– they must be respected and upheld at all times under all circumstances, by all actors, state
or corporate."44

As stated in the preface, the question that concerns the committee through this report
is the direct influence the university can exact, if only to cease its own involvement in what the
evidence reflects as criminal activities.

41 Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to
Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003). Online. Accessible:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/norms-Aug2003.html

42 Ibid.

43 See note 1.

44 Ibid.
 The report will now focus on the activities of the two companies in question.

III. CASE STUDY: CATERPILLAR, INC.

Killer, Killer, Caterpillar: The Case Against Caterpillar, Inc.

Respected international human rights bodies have amassed an ample historical record of
Caterpillar's criminal activities over recent years, notably since 2002, as discussed below,
though pertinently up to the present date. The company has also felt the effects of human
rights investigations, as well as lobbying and recommendations by such groups, notably
Human Rights Watch, all enacted in order to urge that Caterpillar conform to international law,
which the company has consistently failed to do, as the below evidence shows.

Human Rights Watch, among the most respected human rights organizations in the
world, has amassed perhaps the most extensively documented case of Caterpillar's
involvement in extremely gross violations of human rights. A November 2004 HRW report
entitled "Israel: Caterpillar Should Suspend Bulldozer Sales: Weaponized Bulldozers Used to
Destroy Civilian Property and Infrastructure," quotes Middle East director at HRW, Sarah Leah
Whitson, saying, "'Caterpillar betrays its stated values when it sells bulldozers to Israel knowing
that they are being used to illegally destroy Palestinian homes. Until Israel stops these
practices, Caterpillar’s continued sales will make the company complicit in human rights
abuses.'"45

Referring to the most recent case, namely the Israeli military assault on Gaza earlier
this year, a report released in July 2009 by Breaking the Silence, an organization comprised of
veteran Israeli soldiers, gathered 54 testimonies of Israeli soldiers who participated in the Dec.
27-Jan.18 Gaza incursions. Under "Testimony 9: Rules of Engagement and House
Demolitions, an Israeli soldier testified to the scope of house demolitions in Gaza using the
Caterpillar D-9:
Q. "Were there house demolitions in your area?

A. All the time. Houses were demolished everywhere. You see clearly that these houses
had been fired at with tremendous power. We didn't see a single house that remained
intact, beginning with such scenes as you saw photographed – a house totally shattered
or a house with a huge hole in it or many bullet hits on it. We didn't see a single house
that was not hit. The entire infrastructure, tracks, fields, roads – was in total ruin. The D-
9 had gone over everything, building up the tank positions and preparing the routes.
Nothing much was left in our designated area. It looked awful, like in those World War II
films where nothing remained. A totally destroyed city. The few houses that were still
inhabitable were taken by the army. The less a house was damaged, all the more chance
that it would be entered by soldiers to spend the day or night. As I said, there were lots of
abandoned, miserable animals."46

Furthermore, the conclusions of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza
Conflict, released on 15 September 2009, are very striking, yet unsurprising, and confirm past
reports. Under the "Conclusions" section of Chapter XIII, "ATTACKS ON THE FOUNDATIONS
OF CIVILIAN LIFE IN GAZA: DESTRUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, FOOD
PRODUCTION, WATER INSTALLATIONS, SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND HOUSING",
Section E: "Analysis of the pattern of widespread destruction of economic and infrastructural

45 "Israel: Caterpillar Should Suspend Bulldozer Sales," HRW Report, 21 November 2004. Online. Accessible:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/21/israel-caterpillar-should-suspend-bulldozer-sales

46 "Breaking the Silence: Soldiers' Testimony from Operation Cast Lead, Gaza," Breaking the Silence, 15 July
2009 (page 26). Online. Accessible: http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/ENGLISH_oferet.pdf
targets," the Mission writes: "The facts ascertained by the Mission indicate that there was a
deliberate and systematic policy on the part of the Israeli armed forces to target industrial sites
and water installations. In a number of testimonies given to Breaking the Silence, Israeli
soldiers have described in detail the way in which what is at one point euphemistically referred
to as 'infrastructure work' was carried out. The deployment of bulldozers for systematic
destruction is graphically recounted. Soldiers confirm in considerable detail information
provided to the Mission by witnesses."47

In the report's Summary of Legal Findings, which included charges of "Grave breaches
of the Geneva Conventions and acts raising individual criminal responsibility under
international criminal law" on the part of Israel, the Mission concludes that: "The continued
construction of settlements in occupied territory constitutes a violation of article 46 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention. The extensive destruction and appropriation of property, including
land confiscation and house demolitions in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, not
justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, amounts to a grave
breach of the Geneva Conventions under Article 147 GCIV."48

HRW Traces Caterpillar's Military sales programs to Israel

In its November 2004 report, HRW describes Caterpillar's sales program in keen detail:
"Caterpillar makes the D9 to military specifications and sells the bulldozers to Israel as
weapons under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program, a government-to-government
program for selling U.S.-made defense equipment. Once exported to Israel, the bulldozers are
armoured by the state-owned Israel Military Industries Ltd. Weighing roughly 64 tons, the
armored D9 is more than 13 feet tall and 26 feet long with front and rear blades."49

A similar report by HRW released the prior month, in October 2004, entitled "Razing
Rafah," documents the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)'s "systematic use of the D9 bulldozer in
illegal demolitions throughout the occupied Palestinian territories."50 A joint study, entitled
"Broken Homes: Addressing the Impact of House Demolitions on Palestinian Children and
Families," conducted by Save the Children, The Palestinian Counseling Centre, and Welfare
Association was released in June 2009 and documents the sheer amount of house demolitions
in Palestine, especially in recent years, as well as the effects on children and families.51

"The IDF has demolished over 2,500 Palestinian homes...[between 2000 and 2004]...in
the Gaza Strip alone, most of them without the military necessity required by international
humanitarian law," Human Rights Watch reported. "Nearly two-thirds of those homes were in
Rafah, a town and refugee camp on Gaza’s southern border with Egypt. The Israeli military
has used the Caterpillar bulldozer to raze the homes of more than 10 percent of the population
in Rafah. The government plan to expand a 'buffer zone' along the border would entail the

47 Report on the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, UN Human Rights Council, 15
September 2009 (pg. 279). Online. Accessible:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

48 Ibid, pg. 540.

49 See note 45.

50 Human Rights Watch Report, "Razing Rafah," 17 October 2004. Online. Accessible:
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11963/section/17

51 Save the Children, The Palestinian Counseling Centre, and Welfare Association Report: "Broken Homes:
Addressing the Impact of House Demolitions on Palestinian Children and Families,” June 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_8431.htm
destruction of hundreds more homes. In May, the IDF destroyed more than 50 percent of
Rafah’s roads and damaged more than 40 miles of water and sewage pipes with a blade on
the bulldozer’s back known as 'the ripper.'"52

HRW Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson corroborates B’Tselem’s findings: "'We
found no legal justification for the senseless destruction of infrastructure essential to the health
of the civilian population.'"53

According to the June 2009 Broken Homes report, "Since Israel's 1967 occupation of
the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and Gaza, it is estimated that Israeli civil and military
authorities have destroyed 18,000 Palestinian homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(OPT)."54 Furthermore, "The rate of house demolitions has risen significantly since the Second
Intifada began in September 2000 and, as the study shows, house demolitions have become a
major cause of forced displacement in the OPT."55

The report indicates that it is "unique in not only looking at the impact of house
demolitions on both children and their parents, but also in going on to relate the accumulative
impact on the family unit (in terms of its mental, physical and economic health and access to
familial and wider social support) to the responsibilities of duty bearers to protect and assist."56

In its June 2007 divestment report, the New England Conference of the United
Methodist Church reported not only on the past use of Caterpillar bulldozers, but on the
business prospects for future destruction: “Despite years of corporate engagement by
investors, Caterpillar is expanding its role in the occupation, recently announcing a joint
venture with InRobTech to deveop unmanned remote-controlled bulldozers for Israel.”57

Caterpillar Tools of Destruction: Used under "Pressing Military Necessity"?:

Noting that "The IDF claims the destruction is militarily necessary to block smugglers’ tunnels
from Egypt and to protect its forces, which regularly come under fire from Palestinian armed
groups," Human Rights Watch finds that "the IDF has failed to use well-established methods of
tunnel detection and destruction – like seismic sensors, electromagnetic induction and ground-
penetrating radar – which would obviate the need for home demolitions." And "In terms of
protecting its soldiers, the IDF completed construction of an 8-meter-high metal wall in 2003
but despite this extra protection, the rate of home demolitions in Rafah tripled in comparison
with the previous two years."58

52 See note 50.

53 See note 45.

54 See note 41.

55 See note 43.

56 See note 43.

57 NE-UMC Divestment Task Force Report, “Companies Recommended for Divestment,” June 2007. Online.
Accessible:
http://neconference.brickriver.com/files/oFiles_Library_XZXLCZ/Companies_Recommended_for_Divestment_HJKK
VNTP.pdf.

58 See note 50.

 Leading Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, concurs with HRW's above analysis in its
2002 report, "Policy of Destruction: House Demolition and Destruction of Agricultural Land in
the Gaza Strip". "Injury of this kind to the civilian population cannot be justified on the grounds
of 'pressing military necessity,' as Israeli officials contend." Concluding: "Israel's policy [of
demolition 'clearing actions'] flagrantly violates international humanitarian law. The demolition
of houses and the destruction of agricultural land causes extensive damage to the civilian
population, which will bear the consequences for many years to come." B’Tselem concludes:
"A policy that harms thousands of innocent people and whose consequences are so
horrendous and long lasting constitutes collective punishment, which is forbidden by
international law."59

B'Tselem further notes that "Three international entities – the ICRC [International
Committee of the Red Cross], the delegation from the UN Human Rights Commission, and the
Mitchell Committee – harshly criticized Israel's extensive destruction in the Gaza Strip. They all
determined that the policy violates international humanitarian law and called on Israel to cease
implementation of the policy immediately."

B'Tselem next provides the eye-witness accounts it has collected concerning house
demolitions in the occupied territories:
EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS

These acts have left thousands of residents homeless and harmed the livelihood of
thousands. The house demolitions took place mostly at night, without any warning given
to the residents, and some were forced to flee from their homes when the bulldozers
were at their doorstep, and could not remove their possessions. The IDF uprooted trees
and destroyed crops in a manner that severely damaged the land. In some cases, it will
be impossible to replant trees on the land for many years to come.

"In some cases, the uprooting caused long-term damage, and in some instances even
irreversible damage.":

"The bulldozer uprooted a tree and then drove over it and crushed it. After it uprooted
and crushed all the trees in the field, the bulldozer dug a big hole, put the trees in, and
covered it with dirt. Then it flattened the land and moved on to the adjacent field."

—From the testimony of Khaled Taher, whose crops were destroyed by IDF bulldozers in
late April 2001

"Around 12:40 A.M., I woke up to the sound of gunfire and shelling and the noise of
bulldozers and tanks that we hear on a daily basis. We did not expect them to demolish
houses in our area. Neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli side gave us any warning to
vacate our houses [...]Suddenly, one of the children screamed, 'Get out, [the Israeli
army] is [sic] demolishing the houses,' and began to throw stones at the neighbors' doors
to wake them up. He was sobbing and shouting."

—From the testimony of Mithqal Abu Taha, 37, married and the father of two children,
whose House was demolished by IDF bulldozers in July 2001

"On Wednesday [14 November 2001], at 11:00 P.M., we woke up to the sound of
shelling. The shelling also woke the children. We were frightened because we didn’t
know what happened. The children and my wife screamed and cried every time a shell
was fi red. We didn’t know what to do. After half an hour of non-stop shelling, some

59 B’Tselem Report, Policy of Destruction: House Demolition and Destruction of Agricultural Land in the Gaza
Strip, February 2002. Online. Accessible: http://www.btselem.org/Download/200202_Policy_of_Destruction_Eng.pdf
 young men from the neighborhood came and told me to leave the house. They said the
Israeli army had entered the area and was demolishing houses without checking if
people were inside. We didn’t get any warning [from the Israelis] to leave the house. I
couldn’t leave because we have many children, and the shooting outside was still
intense. At 11:45 P.M., the sound of shelling increased, and we heard tanks coming from
the Tofah checkpoint. The tanks were moving westward and were about seventy meters
from my house. We heard two more enormous explosions. The same young men came
back and took the children from the house without getting my consent. The children were
crying and screaming, and my boys asked me to go with them, but I refused. We also
evacuated everyone from the house. I was the only one who remained. I stayed to
protect it and to see what happens. Ten minutes later, the tanks approached the house. I
also heard the sound of bulldozers. I was on the southern side of the house, the side that
does not face the main road. I heard the bulldozers destroying the house. I didn’t dare
approach or peek outside, because the tanks were firing long bursts of gunfire in all
directions and were shelling the area. When I saw that thick dust was filling the house
and that the electricity had been cut off, I went outside through the southern gate so that
the Israeli soldiers wouldn't see me"

—From the testimony of Osama Abu Amuneh, 40, married and father of seven children,
whose house was destroyed by IDF bulldozers in November 2001.60

"Arguing 'pressing military necessity,'" B'Tselem reports, "Israel denies residents whose
houses are demolished or agricultural land destroyed the opportunity to state their claims
before any official person or entity. However, the contention that the necessity is 'pressing' is
inconsistent with the lengthy decision-making process relating to demolitions, and with the IDF
Spokesperson's statement that the IDF delayed execution of demolitions to a time that it found
suitable."61

Continuing: "Even according to the state's argument that there is a pressing need for
the destruction and that insufficient time exists for a hearing prior to execution, the state still
must, at least, enable the people to leave their houses and remove their property before the
houses are demolished. Gunfire in the middle of the night at houses in which civilians,
including small children, are living, cannot be deemed an acceptable way to remove people
from their homes."62

HRW: Caterpillar Molests Self-Conduct

In the 2004 report, HRW points out that "Caterpillar’s own code of conduct requires it to
consider the broad impact of its business. The company’s Code of Worldwide Business
Conduct states that 'Caterpillar accepts the responsibilities of global citizenship.'"63 "Wherever
we conduct business or invest our resources around the world," the code states, the
company’s "commitment to financial success must also take into account social, economic,
political and environmental priorities."

Human Rights Watch to Caterpillar: "Suspend Sales"

60 See note 59.

61 See note 59.

62 See note 59.

63 See note 45.

Also in the report cited above, HRW recounts that it sent a letter on October 29 of that year to
Caterpillar's Chief Executive Officer and board of directors calling on the company "to cease all
sales to the Israeli military of the D9, as well as parts and maintenance services, so long as the
military continues to use the bulldozer to violate international human rights and humanitarian
law."64

The company's response to these efforts is of considerable interest in demonstrating

the company's regard of international legal violations to which it contributes. As HRW testifies:
"Caterpillar’s CEO James Owens responded to Human Rights Watch in a letter dated
November 12 [2004] by saying the company did 'not have the practical ability or legal right to
determine how our products are used after they are sold.'" In response, HRW concludes that
"This head-in-the-sand approach ignores international standards on corporate social
responsibility and the requirements of Caterpillar’s own code of conduct."65

The company's response to proposals for remediation are also notable. Beginning in
April 2004 and continuing through the present year, Caterpillar shareholders have repeatedly
submitted their "Proposal 5" (see Appendix A) at the company's Annual Shareholders Meeting.
The proposal notes that the "Use of Caterpillar equipment by foreign militaries in actions that
violate human rights and international humanitarian law raises issues for Caterpillar's corporate
policy and risks damage to the Company's reputation."66

Additionally, in May 2004, Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food,
like HRW, wrote a letter to James Owens, arguing that the destruction of Palestinian
agricultural resources by the Israeli occupational forces using Caterpillar bulldozers "further
limit[s] the sustainable means for the Palestinian people to enjoy physical and economic
access to food," indicating a clear and present violation of international law.67

See Chapter IV for more discussion on the subject of matters of remediation.

Death by Bulldozer, Caterpillar Style

Human Rights Watch reported in 2004 that Rachel Corrie, a 23 year-old American college
student, "was run over and killed last year [March 2003] by an armored D9 when she was
trying to block the bulldozer from destroying a Rafah home. At least three Palestinians have
been killed by the bulldozer and falling debris in the last two years because they could not flee
their homes in time."68

Less than a month after Rachel's death, her family released a letter to be read at
coordinated peace rallies around the world on 12 April 2003:
"On March 16, our daughter and sister Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli army
bulldozer while she was trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in the
Gaza Strip. Rachel chose to go to Rafah, a city at the southern tip of Gaza, because she
believed the world had forsaken this place. During her time there, Rachel became our
eyes and ears of as she told us about the tanks and bulldozers passing by, about the
homes with tank-shell holes in their walls, about the rapidly multiplying Israeli army

64 See note 45.

65 See note 45.

66 See Appendix B.
67 See note 50.

68 See note 45.

 towers with snipers lurking along the horizon, about apache helicopters and invisible
drones buzzing over the city for hours at a time, about wells and greenhouses, and olive
groves destroyed, and about the giant metal wall being built around Gaza...She also told
us about Ali, the eight-year old Palestinian boy shot and killed two days before she
arrived, about large groups of Palestinian men rounded up and held for hours at a time,
about Palestinian students and workers who could not get to their university or to their
jobs because of closed checkpoints, and about Palestinian municipal water workers fired
upon while trying to make repairs. She told us, too, of sleeping on the floor and sharing
blankets with a family of five, of helping the young boy Nidal with his English as he
helped her with her Arabic, and of kind Palestinians who gave her lemony drinks to cure
her flu bug. She wrote, 'I am also discovering a degree of strength and of basic ability for
humans to remain human in the direst of circumstances. I think the word is dignity.'"69

Since Rachel's death, her family, along with their community, created the Rachel Corrie
Foundation for Peace and Justice "to continue the kind of work that [Rachel] began and hoped
to accomplish." Through education and art projects that deliberately build local to global
connections with people and places, "The foundation encourages and supports grassroots
efforts in pursuit of human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice, which we
view as pre-requisites for world peace."70

III. CASE STUDY: MOTOROLA, INC.

"Remote Control Death": The Case Against Motorola

We have reviewed Caterpillar's uniquely depraved human rights record in some detail, notably
through HRW's carefully serious and considered monitoring/recommendation reports. Similarly,
Human Rights Watch has conducted comparable studies upon the business practices of
Motorola, Inc., which amount to no less than stark complicity in well-documented cases of
mass murder of Palestinian civilians. In a March 2009 article published in The Nation
magazine, written by HRW's senior military analyst Marc Garlasco and consultant Darryl Li, the
Israeli assault on Gaza was reviewed in relation to the military use of drone technology, in
which Israel is the "world's leader". As the authors comment:
"...drones were the IDF [Israeli Defense Force]'s weapon of choice when Israel launched
its military campaign on December 27 with an attack on the Gaza City police
headquarters, which killed at least forty cadets during a police academy graduation
ceremony. According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the proposal to attack this event
was hotly debated within the IDF for months. IDF lawyers knew that these policemen
were presumptively civilians under international law, which would consider them
legitimate targets only if they were directly participating in hostilities against Israel. At the
site of this attack Human Rights Watch researchers found hundreds of perfectly cubic
pieces of metal shrapnel, circuit boards and other parts (including some marked with
Motorola serial numbers), and four small impact craters – all consistent with drone-fired
missiles."71

69 “A Message From Rachel's Parents,” Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace & Justice. Online.
Available: http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/rachel.

70 Ibid.

71 Marc Garlasco and Darryl Li, "Remote Control Death," Human Rights Watch report, 20 March 2009. Online.
Accessible: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/20/remote-control-death
 The American activist group, U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, reports that
on 1 April 2009, in the wake of HRW's expository investigations, Motorola sold its Government
Electronics Department (GED) which was providing bomb fuses to the Israeli military. In
addition to non-accountability at the present time regarding Motorola's involvement in the most
grisly of human rights crimes, U.S. Campaign reports that Motorola still provides an abundance
of crucial services to "aid and assist" the "illegal situation" created by the Separation Wall as
ruled by the International Court of Justice, including the company's "Mountain Rose
Communications System," its "Wide Area Surveillance System" (WASS), microprocessors for
use in UAVs (i.e. drones), as well as facilitating communications contracts through the
company's subsidiary MIRS communications for use in UN-ruled illegal settlements in the
OPT.72

In its June 2007 report recommending divestment from Motorola and 19 other
companies (including Caterpillar), the New England Conference of the United Methodist
Church (USA), as justification for its recommended action, reported on the contracts that
Motorola has in the occupation:

Motorola: (NYSE: MOT) is engaged in a 400 million NIS ($93 million) project to provide
radar systems for enhancing security at illegal West Bank settlements deep inside
Palestinian territory. Motorola also has a $90-million contract to provide the Israeli army
with an advanced “Mountain Rose” cell phone communications system. Its wholly owned
subsidiary in Israel has a contract to develop encrypted wireless communications
featuring vehicle-mounted antenna that will enable military use in the occupied territories
and other remote areas.73

IV. ABSENCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY OR REMEDIATION: A "WILLFUL BLINDNESS"

A proper question to ask is, what opportunity, if any, is each company (Motorola and
Caterpillar) taking toward remediation of Code violations?

Undertaking the rational language of Amnesty in this case: not only may a "clear risk"
"reasonably be assumed" in the future regarding particular the equipment, services,
"technology and training" (AI Report, 11/17/00, cited above) provided by Motorola and
Caterpillar, which indisputably have been, and are continually, used in illegal activities in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT); of particular interest to our university is the fact that
both companies have, over the past several years, been approached by numerous religious,
civil, and human rights groups and urged to cease their sales and business associations with
the Israeli government over these matters.

Observes Human Rights Watch: "Caterpillar does not appear to have implemented [the
UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations] with regard to bulldozer sales
to Israel. Instead, the company claims it is not responsible for how its equipment is used. In
response to complaints from the organization Jewish Voice for Peace about the bulldozers' use
in illegal house demolitions, CEO James W. Owens wrote that Caterpillar has 'neither the legal
right nor the ability to monitor and police individual use of that equipment.' The claim was

72 U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation fact-sheet, "Motorola Profits from Israeli Apartheid Policies."
Online. Accessible: http://www.endtheoccupation.org/downloads/whymoto.pdf. See also: Ibid, "Motorola Bends to
Our Boycott: What Moto's Sale of their Israeli Government Electronics Department Means for Hang Up On
Motorola." Online. Accessible: http://www.endtheoccupation.org/downloads/motogedsalefactsheet.
73 See note 57.
repeated verbatim in a Caterpillar statement on the Middle East. 'We believe any comments on
political conflict in the region are best left to our governmental leaders who have the ability to
impact action and advance the peace process,' the statement said."74

Continuing, HRW notes: "The letter from Owens further explained that Caterpillar's
sales to Israel were conducted through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program (FMS),
whereby the U.S. Department of Defense purchases goods from U.S. manufacturers and
resells them to foreign governments."75

The farthest Caterpillar has gone has been to mouth generalizations in reflection of its
own code of conduct, with no specific alternatives, remediation or admission of responsibility
over even the likely use of its products (much less their actual use, overwhelmingly
documented) put forward. Beginning in January 2008, the United Methodist Press Service
reports, “Caterpillar has opened discussions with the [United Methodist General Board of
Church and Society], issued a statement denouncing immoral use of its equipment, and
agreed to continued dialogue,” making it the first time the company has ever agreed with
discussions with groups concerned about the issue. In a statement to Winkler, the company
said: "Caterpillar's products are designed to improve quality of life...We do not condone the
illegal or immoral use of any Caterpillar equipment...We expect our customers to use our
products in environmentally responsible ways and consistent with human rights and the
requirements of international humanitarian law."76

Such statements came at a time when the United Methodist Church, with significant
investments in Caterpillar, proposed a divestment as possible action against the company.
When Caterpillar agreed to continued dialogue, the proposal was shelved for the time being in
order to favor open talks with the company. Silence resounds from Caterpillar.77

With resounding conclusion and resolve, "Human Rights Watch believes that
Caterpillar's products have been used to further violations of international humanitarian law
and that the company should take steps to ensure that this does not occur in the future. Such
steps could include: agreeing to abide by standards such as the U.N. Norms and refusing to
participate in the FMS program with Israel or to reject sales to governments or other parties
where there is a risk that the company's products will be used in the perpetuation of human
rights violations. Otherwise, Caterpillar will remain complicit in the international humanitarian
law violations that occurred because of excessive and unwarranted demolitions by the Israeli
government while using the company's bulldozers."78

Slighted Shareholders

Beyond leading world human rights analysts and lobbyists urging that Caterpillar respect
international law, and being flatly rejected by each company, serious moral and legal concern
has reached even Caterpillar's own shareholders, who have taken upon themselves to raise
proposals at annual meetings that their respective companies simply adhere to internationally

74 See note 50.

75 Ibid.

76 United Methodist News Service Report, “Agency Withdraws Petition on Caterpillar,” 17 2008. Online.
Accessible: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?
c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2072519&ct=5250125.

77 Ibid.
78 See note 50.
accepted human rights standards. Their proposals, offering specific resolutions and providing
careful scrutiny, have been accompanied by credible human rights sources and documentation
such as those cited above, and have been met with comparable disdain by both companies.

The company shareholders who co-filed proposal #5 presented at the Caterpillar

Corporation's annual shareholder meeting held on 10 June 2009:
Jewish Voice for Peace, Mercy Investment Program, Sisters of Loretto-MO, Benedictine
Sisters of Fort Smith - St. Scholastica Monastery, Benedictine Sisters of Mount St.
Scholastica, Benedictine Sisters of Virginia, Congregation of Benedictine Sisters, Boerne
TX, Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Houston, Maryknoll
Sisters, Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Providence Trust, Sisters of Mercy
Reg., Community of Detroit Charitable Trust, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia,
Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, MO, Sisters of St. Joseph of La Grange, Illinois,
Sisters of St. Joseph, Nazareth, Sisters of the Holy Spirit and Mary Immaculate.79

Sharing the American Red Cross' assertion that "the greater the availability of arms, the
greater the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law," Caterpillar's
shareholders have put forth in their "Proposal 5" (cited above) year after year since 2004 that
the company simply report with transparency the standards, processes, and criteria by which it
sells equipment to foreign governments, as well as how it goes about choosing such clients.80

The company's response to their shareholders' proposal is instructive. "After thoughtful

consideration, the board recommends voting AGAINST this proposal because it believes
completing the requested report is an inappropriate use of company resources....and not in the
best interests of the company or its stockholders."81

Similarly, Motorola's response to its shareholders, who raised their concerns at the
2009 Annual Shareholder Meeting82, has been to reject the human rights initiative as
"unnecessary"83. Company shareholders expressed their beliefs that "Motorola's current human
rights policies are limited in scope, and provide little or no guidance for determining business
relationships where our products or services could entangle the company in human rights
violations. We believe that our company's policies should reflect a more comprehensive
understanding of human rights."

Legal Implications of Turning a "Blind" Eye

Reuters reported this past April that New York District Judge Shira Scheindlin allowed a
lawsuit to proceed against a number of major U.S. companies accused of knowingly aiding and
abetting the apartheid South African government while it committed grave human rights
abuses. Responding to IBM's defense that it was not responsible for how its clients used its
products, Judge Scheindlin ruled: "That level of willful blindness in the face of crimes in
violation of the law of nations cannot defeat an otherwise clear showing of knowledge that the
assistance IBM provided would directly and substantially support apartheid."84

79 Information provided by humanitarian organization Jewish Voice for Peace. Online. Accessible:
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/downloads/CAThandbill2009.pdf.

80 See Appendix A.

81 See Appendix B.

82 For Motorola Shareholder "Proposal No. 9", see Appendix C.

83 For Motorola’s response to Proposal No. 9, see Appendix D.

V. CONCLUSIONS

Aside the rational predictions of violations continuing in the future, the present moment
reaches far beyond any "clear risk" and reasonable assumption in these matters. By the
strongest language of the UA's own internal law, Caterpillar's products are indeed "instruments
of destruction" and are "known to cause harm to humans" while they are concurrently
endorsed by our university. Such active endorsement presents a clear and dreadful violation of
our most cherished principles, in fact, fulfilling the warning of the university's policy named
earlier which confers the "great responsibility" upon the university's authoritative administration
to "proceed with more than usual caution" to prevent reputable "damage to the institution for
decades to come."

In the conclusive words of Human Rights Watch, "Despite the guidelines set out in the
U.N. Norms and the company's own commitment to socially-responsible practices, Caterpillar
has not taken meaningful steps to ensure that its products do not contribute to violations. In
the case of the company's bulldozers, there is strong and credible evidence that they have
been used for unnecessary and excessive house and property demolitions that amount to
violations of international humanitarian law."85

Motorola's indubitable involvement in mass murder requires considerably less basis for
argument. The fact that the company has simply sold its department that was culpable in
human rights crimes neither absolves it from responsibility nor from conforming to adequate
accountability. And while it continues to supply the “illegal situation” arising from the Wall (ICJ
ruling) concurrently implicates the company to a stark “level of willful blindness in the face of
crimes in violation of the law of nations” which “cannot defeat an otherwise clear showing of
knowledge” – provided directly to the company by numerous human rights groups and the
company’s own shareholders – that the crucial assistance Motorola provided would “directly
and substantially support” illegal activities.

Recommendations and Alternatives

At the end of the instructive Russell affair, the UA declared a strong promise that it would
continue to "hold corporations accountable" for violations of international human rights and
humanitarian law, extending to the domestic law of the United States as well as those codes
and guidelines internal to the university itself.

The University of Arizona is an institution not devoid of honor and principles. Our legal,
business and ethical framework not only allow but encourage the redress of grievances and
code violations. But the fact that a viable judicial and moral structure is available to us does not
satisfyingly predict that justice in this respect will be enacted. The structure for redress is rather
dependent on our actions to fulfill its potential. Our principles merely afford us the opportunity
to animate the university's ideals and unleash a spirit of justice over these matters, at least as
far as our university is concerned. Will and choice are the only instruments of a better future for
our university, in this matter and in all others. After all, our foremost prospect in such
considerations is that we, as members of the UA community, can choose not to be implicated
in these crimes. We cannot control what both companies do, but we can control the

84 Reuters, "U.S. Judge Rules Apartheid Suits Can Proceed," 8 April 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://www.reuters.com/article/CMPTRS/idUSN0854717520090408. See also: The Associated Press, "US Judge
Rules in Favor of Apartheid Victims," 9 April 2009. Online. Accessible:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/09/court-ruling-apartheid-victims-south-africa
85 See note 50.
association we have with them. We can, and should, do this as a means of not only ensuring
that we fulfill our own principles but also by doing our own (however small) part in exacting
economic leverage upon the companies to pressure them to hold true to their own principles
and ethical codes.

In relaying the facts, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Motorola and
Caterpillar have even taken the proper step of recognizing their legal responsibility in these
matters, much less adhering to appropriate standards of remediation. Nor is there basis to
make a rational judgment that they will ever make such recognition and efforts to redress,
based on the facts. Contrarily, the evidence available shows that both companies refuse to
even acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns of respected human rights groups, as well as
similar concerns of their very own shareholders. In fact, as each company's response to their
shareholder's proposal has shown, both companies roundly shirk any recognition of
wrongdoing. Company responses to human rights organizations, as discussed above, reveal a
similar disregard, supplemented by a perceptible disdain.

Perhaps the most robust of all our university principles is the document in which all of
the above standards are crystallized, the UA "Policy on Corporate Relations." As the policy's
first section entitled "philosophy" reminds us eloquently, "The primary purpose of a public
university is the generation and dissemination of knowledge." It is a "factual and esthetic"
"repository of information and ideas," providing an "atmosphere in which students and faculty
can explore new ideas and search for truth." And, in order to "accomplish its mission" as well
as be "a place where students can learn, mature and acquire thinking skills," the doctrine
continues, a structural condition is that the "appropriate atmosphere" for these virtues to take
place and be nurtured must be one that is "really present and is perceived to be present by the
public"

Motorola on Campus

With respect to Motorola products on campus, they are not crucial to realize our education,
research or service goals; nor would the price be desirable to pay if they were.

As for alternatives, the university, as well as the surrounding region, is not without
assets. According to a recent business report entitled "Systems Alternatives and
Recommendations," authored by CTA Communications Consultants, there are a number of
options for the communications needs of Pima County, including UAPD, which facilitates the
Motorola services of our university. Two alternatives to Motorola covered in the report include
companies M/A-COM and E.F. Johnson, both of which, it seems, offer comparable radio
system technology to that which UAPD employs from Motorola products.86 Namely, the two-
way technology which UAPD Commander Robert Somerfeld described in a meeting with the
UCHR on 8 October 2009.87

86 CTA Communications Consultants, "System Alternatives and Recommendations Report: Pima County Wireless
Integrated Network (PCWIN), 26 June 2007. Online. Accessible:
http://www.pima.gov/bonds/wireless/pdf/SystemAlternativesRecommendationsReportFinal%20Rev1.pdf

87 Meeting of the author and Commander Somerfeld, Thursday 8 October 2009.

 There are also a number of options for other types of communications services, such
as wireless technology. Local human rights group No More Deaths/No Mas Muertes contracts
the communications company Alltel for its wireless and cellular needs.88 We recommend that
the university take on any other partner for its own communication needs – in every aspect
required, whether cellular, equipment and/or services – so long as the practices of that
company(ies) do not contribute to human rights violations.

Caterpillar on Campus

Concerning Caterpillar, Inc. products, it is certain the package of software items they provide
("FPC (Fleet Production and Cost Analysis); Caterpillar Cycle Timer; and PHB (Performance
Handbook on CD") is helpful to the education and innovative intellectual activities of the
institution, particularly the department of Mining and Geological Engineering which utilizes the
contract services.

Yet again, however, one may re-invoke the principles of the university's Policy on
Corporate Relations: "There should be no degradation of the institution's image even if a
proposed agreement partially improves the University's ability to carry out its mission." The
primary question is whether the price of "no cost" financially is to be paid by a grossly immoral,
indecent and criminal association with what are grave infractions upon international human
rights and humanitarian law, as the overwhelming evidence provided by the various human
rights groups referred above shows.

It is with prime urgency and firm recommendation of the ad hoc group University
Community for Human Rights (UCHR) that the University of Arizona's business contracts with
each Motorola, Inc., and Caterpillar, Inc. be immediately terminated until each company
complies with appropriate domestic law and international human rights standards, as well as
with the company's own stated code of conduct and the codes of conduct of the University of
Arizona and Collegiate Licensing Company, all of which continue to be supremely violated.

Such steps, although blunt, represent last-resort actions formulated from a "reasonable
caution" that singularly would "prevent decisions that could destroy the ability of the University
to remain a symbol of hope and truth," to again quote the University's Policy on Corporate
Relations.

The only honorable and viable option open to us at the moment is to take such action
and sever business ties with both companies over these concerns, disassociating the
university, and ourselves, from the crimes in which these two companies continue to be
complicit.

Such action sends the message that the University of Arizona will not tolerate violations of our
ethical, legal and business codes. Such action fulfills the institutional promise of contributing to
the creation of a better, more just world.

88 Information provided by No More Deaths media spokesperson Geoffrey Boyce (media@nomoredeaths.org;

520-240-1641).