War-torn Darfur is more than 7,000 miles from St. Louis Park. But for the city's Human Rights Commission, it's not so far away that members can't take a stand opposing violence that has killed at least 300,000 people and left 2.7 million more homeless.
Last month, the commission adopted a resolution that says the city should divest itself of investments in nations or companies "whose operations are complicit in aiding the government of Sudan or of the government of any nation that is supporting genocide."
But does anyone really care what a small panel of citizens in a Minneapolis suburb thinks about what is going on halfway around the world?
Is it even appropriate for cities to take stands on international issues when most residents are more concerned with whether streets get plowed?
Elected officials in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Hopkins, Winona, Virginia and Red Wing have all adopted divestment resolutions in the past two years, according to Ellen Kennedy, a University of Minnesota professor who soon will devote all of her time to a Twin Cities nonprofit called World Without Genocide. Most of them did so after hearing her talk about the issue.
Kennedy, interim director of the U's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, argues that city resolutions send a grass-roots message that reverberates to Washington. She points to the slaughter in Rwanda, which began during Bill Clinton's presidency. One reason Clinton didn't act, she said, was because he was never pressured by Congress to do so. She said Congress didn't hear from constituents.
"Acts like this begin to make a difference," Kennedy said. "The people we send to Washington depend on us to let them know how they should vote. So the ordinary homeowner in St. Louis Park has as powerful a political voice as anyone."
But in Edina, City Council Member Scot Housh abstained on two measures that concerned the genocide in Darfur and divestment.