SANTA MONICA, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Earlier this week, President Bush stepped up pressure on Sudan to end the genocide there by exerting new economic sanctions.
 

"The people of Darfur are crying out for help," Bush said. He effectively froze out from U.S. investments 31 companies that are conducting business in Sudan. Critics say many of these companies will skirt the ban anyway, and that Bush could have done more. Agreed, he could have, but his message was strong, if not strong enough. 

Regimes engaged in atrocities need to be sent signals that their actions aren't tolerable. People should know that their cries are being heard. That's why it's important for Berkshire Hathaway to divest of its holdings in PetroChina, a company that is owned by China National Petroleum Corp., which is linked to Sudanese activity and supporting government interests there. 

A recent shareholder proposal asked for Berkshire to withdraw its $3.3 billion worth of holdings in PetroChina. Berkshire, politely declined. It wrote: "The proposal objects to Berkshire's investment in PetroChina because of the atrocities that are occurring in Sudan. Berkshire agrees that conditions in that country are deplorable and sympathizes with the proposer's desire to remedy them. We believe, however, that she is wrong in both her analysis of PetroChina's connection to these conditions and her belief that our divesting our PetroChina holdings would in any way have a beneficial effect on Sudanese behavior." 
 

In fact, Berkshire's position is that Sudan would be better off if CNPC removed itself from Sudan because it would allow greater profits to flow to the Sudanese government. 
 

Berkshire's facts about PetroChina are accurate. But its conclusions are misguided. 
 

Harvard University recently joined the ranks of investors that have withdrawn their positions in PetroChina as a message to Sudan. Fidelity Investments, albeit after much protest, also slashed its position in the oil company. 

Numerous other organizations and people have petitioned China to pressure Sudan to change its ways. Some people have even threatened to link the upcoming Olympics held in China to Sudan. And that reportedly spurred discussion between a Chinese delegate and the Sudanese government. 

Berkshire should look beyond the dollar signs and its black and white conclusions to the gray area of divestment pressure. 
 

The Sudan Divestment Task Force writes: "As Mr. [Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren] Buffett pointed out to the Omaha World-Herald, 'Nebraska Furniture Mart doesn't dictate policy to Berkshire [Hathaway], its parent company ... Those (Chinese) companies don't tell their government what to do.'" 

Berkshire Hathaway, in its statement on the company's PetroChina holdings, further extended the analogy by noting that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two U.S. government sponsored enterprises, have no control over U.S. government policies. While it is true that subsidiaries don't usually have significant influence with their parent companies, the comparison between PetroChina and Nebraska Furniture Mart or Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae is inexact. 

If the comparison were to hold, NFM's executive team would include at least Mr. Buffett and Marc Hamburg, Berkshire's CFO. The senior executives at NFM would be executives at Berkshire Hathaway. And, perhaps most significantly, Nebraska Furniture Mart would represent 64% of Berkshire Hathaway's total assets as well as 50% of Berkshire's profits. 
 

If this hypothetical were, in fact, the reality of the present relationship between Berkshire and NFM and the latter were publicly traded, it would be astounding if shareholder pressure on NFM for a Berkshire Hathaway transgression didn't at least inspire serious discussion at Berkshire. 
 

In other words, it's the message that should be considered with investment dollars, not just the financial focus of those dollars in a vacuum. Berkshire's name and reputation could cause a stir at PetroChina if there were divestiture. It is the type of high-profile action that will garner more attention to the atrocities taking place in Sudan. 

Berkshire should use its formidable stature to produce change, not defend a financial position for profit. There are plenty of other opportunities for investments 
 

Buffett is the second richest man on the planet due to his ability to pick good investments. Good, in this instance, should mean more than investment return. But it's just such an expanded definition that Berkshire doesn't want to see.