Director and producer Steven Spielberg resigned his non-paying artistic director advisory role for the 2008 Summer Olympics Games in Beijing because he has become disenchanted with China's lack of effort to use its influence in Sudan to end violence in the Darfur region.

The Chinese want to be players on the world stage without accepting the responsibility that goes along with it, and that was not acceptable to Spielberg. There has been growing pressure around the world on the Chinese, who purchase most of Sudan's oil and sell them weapons, to exert political and economic pressure on the government of Sudan. While Spielberg is only one more voice in a long list condemning Chinese actions and the lack there of, he is a very prominent voice.

Governments, Olympic athletes, religious leaders and shareholders have been complaining that China was not doing enough, if anything to curb the violence. This was an issue with Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) shareholders at their 2007 annual meeting. While stating that he sold off BRK's interest in PetroChina (NYSE: PTR) based on valuation, Warren Buffett was completely divested in a matter of months and the stock has fallen almost 40% from its highs.

According to the Financial Times, "Companies doing business in "terrorist-sponsoring states" could once again have their names under scrutiny under a controversial plan being revived by the Securities and Exchange Commission."

In June, the SEC sparked controversy by posting the names of companies that did business with Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. The agency quickly removed the list amid complaints from companies, who complained that the SEC didn't research the materiality of the connections.

Now the SEC is considering putting the list back up, and rightfully so. This is all about disclosure and transparency: if investors don't feel that the connections are material, they can ignore the list. But there are people who want to know whether the companies they're investing in have ties to terrorist states, and the SEC has a role in making information available to investors who request it.

More information for investors is always a good thing and if companies are embarrassed about showing up on the list, maybe they should reconsider their ties to these countries.

While Warren Buffett has come under fire for declining to part with his company's stake in PetroChina (NYSE: PTR) in light of its parent company's ties with the Sudan, Claymore Securities has stepped forward with an ETF for investors looking to avoid the region. The Claymore/KLD Sudan Free Large-Cap Core (AMEX: KSF) debuted last week with an expense ratio of 0.5% -- higher than a comparable index fund, but low enough that it shouldn't hurt your returns too much if you're looking to avoid the region in your investments. The fund also has traditional social responsibility screens in place, and does not invest in companies associated with the alcohol, tobacco, gambling and firearms industries. According to the fund manager's press release accompanying its debut, the fund screens out any company that:

• Owns or controls property or assets in Sudan

• Has employees or facilities in Sudan

• Provides goods or services to companies domiciled in Sudan

• Obtains goods or services from Sudan

• Has distribution agreements with companies domiciled in Sudan

• Issues credits or loans to companies domiciled in Sudan

• Purchases goods or commercial paper issued by the Government of Sudan

With outrage over the crisis in the Sudan increasing daily, this fund should perform quite well, and it looks like a good option for socially conscious investors.

I'm just about as big of a Warren Buffett fan as you'll find, but I found myself somewhat disillusioned when he declined to divest Berkshire Hathaway's (NYSE: BRK.A) stake in PetroChina (NYSE: PTR), after critics proposed such a move because of the company's ties to Darfur. Fidelity Investments recently sold its share of PetroChina for just that reason.

Buffett defended the investment by saying that it was Chinese state oil company CNPC, the parent of PetroChina that was involved with Darfur. But in a piece on TheStreet.com, Brett Arends points out just how closely the companies are linked. He discusses the numerous insiders at PetroChina who also work for or did work for CNPC; PetroChina's Chairman, Chen Geng, was General Manager at CNPC until last November.

Over at the Motley Fool, Emil Lee opined that Buffett should go ahead and sell the shares: "Both sides of the divestment argument are entitled to their own opinions, but I think that Berkshire should divest, not because it will help save Darfur victims -- the problems go much, much deeper than who owns PetroChina's shares -- but more because Berkshire has always been a beacon of light for investors everywhere, and it would be a tragedy for that light to be clouded, regardless of whether the reasoning was even slightly correct."

Lee summed it up perfectly. Berkshire's investment in PetroChina just smells bad, even if the company really isn't to blame. The arguments for divestiture were powerful enough to sway Fidelity, and I just really wish Berkshire would go ahead and sell the shares, if only to preserve its squeaky clean image.

Activists should leave Warren Buffett out of the debate over the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Following Buffett's suggestion, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s (NYSE: BRK.A) shareholders on Saturday defeated a proposal requiring the company to divest its holdings in PetroChina Co. (NYSE: PTR) because of the ties of its parent company to Sudan.

Though I share the outrage over the Darfur genocide, people who are trying to pressure Buffett are misguided. Though he is the largest shareholder in PetroChina, his influence is dwarfed by the the Chinese government, the real bosses of the company's management.

Why would the Chinese government listen to Buffett? Shouldn't the U.S. government and the UN be pressuring the Chinese to pressure the Sudanese?

Maybe Buffett could send a message by selling PetroChina's shares. But for every seller, there is a buyer. All Buffett would do is wind up making someone else rich, negating any message he was trying to send.

If you want to express your political views in your portfolio, invest in one of the many socially conscious mutual funds, including Citizens Funds or Domini Social investments. Investment News says that this category is the fastest growing segment of managed money.

But trying to separate the good companies from the bad ones isn't always easy.

"The pressure on social investing portfolios to achieve a beta comparable with those of such popular benchmarks as the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index means that social funds include companies that are involved tangentially in socially conscious activities," according to Investment News.

The annual meeting for Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A) is usually a happy one and one with lots of praise and respect for Warren Buffett. Tomorrow may be a different tone, at least for the people walking inside. The company may have a new issue to deal with this weekend: Protesters.

There are supposed to be protesters outside of the location (not inside yelling at Warren) because of indirect investment into Sudan. Some activists are calling for Berkshire Hathaway to sell its approximate 1.1% stake in PetroChina Co. Ltd. (ADR) (NYSE: PTR)), whose parent (China National Petroleum) operates in Sudan. By operating in Sudan it is tossed in with the pro-genocide camp by "using capitalism as an endorsement" and it has been noted as being pro-government and siding with evil because the government controls the oil.