Business lobbyists scored a quiet win this week when lawmakers approved a long-stalled Sudan sanctions bill without language protecting states’ ability to force the sale of public holdings tied to the African dictatorship — but the legislative battle is far from over.

The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), which represents more than 300 multinational companies, had led the lobbying campaign against a section on state investments inserted during House consideration of the Sudan sanctions bill earlier this year. The bill passed Congress late Monday, as the Sudanese government continued to block a United Nations force aimed at halting mass killings in its Darfur region.

The clause at issue, added with bipartisan support that included International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), would have preserved states’ rights to pass divestment laws, which require public money to be withdrawn from any corporation doing business with Sudan. The NFTC, which is locked in a court battle with the state of Illinois over its divestment law, objected to the clause as an encouragement for states to develop their own foreign policy.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) concurred with the perspective of the NFTC and its allies, and worked with stakeholders to reach agreement on striking the divestment clause. “Including this language in the bill would be bad public policy,” Lugar wrote in a letter to The Hill earlier this month on the issue, predicting that the sanctions measure would stall if the divestment clause remained.

“It is a big win,” said another lobbyist tracking the effort. “I don’t think anyone is doing a victory dance about it, [because] a lot of us come from the school that sanctions don’t do that much work in affecting the behavior of these nations. But at least [in this bill] it’s done in a way that clearly reflects U.S. interests, as opposed to 50 different states’ policies.”

Bill Primosch, director of international business policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, placed concerns about the Sudan bill in the context of his group’s general opposition to sanctions that can stymie U.S. companies to the benefit of their competitors.

“We are concerned about unilateral U.S. sanctions that, in the end, don’t have any effect [on abusive regimes] but add to the cost for U.S. businesses,” Primosch said. “…What is the impact of this, if you have other key foreign countries that provide a lot of investment in the region, if no one else is imposing similar kinds of requirements? It doesn’t have a practical impact; it becomes a symbolic gesture.”

The Sudan measure would freeze assets and block visas of any person tied to the violence in Darfur, which Bush administration and international officials have called genocide. In addition, oil tankers and cargo ships stopping in Sudan would be refused entry to U.S. ports.

Hyde’s office did not return requests for comment by press time, but Lugar spokesman Andy Fisher noted that the Indianan played a central role in the 1986 sanctions bill against the apartheid-era government of South Africa. When imprisoned South African leader Nelson Mandela was finally released and able to become president, Fisher noted, the country had to contend with lingering state-level sanctions against it.

“You need to … have some provisions that, when people and behaviors change, you’re not continuing to hurt the people of the country,” Fisher said.

Still, the lack of congressional cover for state divestment laws has not slowed the movement’s momentum.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) signed his state’s new divestment law this week alongside Don Cheadle and George Clooney, two fellow actors leading the charge for U.S. and U.N. action in Darfur, and divestment advocates say 15 more state legislatures are poised to take up their own bipartisan bills in January. The Sudan Divestment Task Force, a research group raising awareness of the issue, is opening a Washington office this week.

“The [federal] bill is a good first step, but it does not absolve Congress of the need to continue to work on this issue as circumstances change” in the region, said Alex Meixner, policy coordinator for the Save Darfur Coalition.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), an International Relations panel member who helped attach the original divestment language, has already laid down a marker for future action. She introduced a bill late last week, backed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and International Relations ranking Democrat Tom Lantos (Calif.) that would restore the excised language and prevent corporations doing business in Sudan from receiving federal contracts.

“It does appear that we’ve lost this battle, but we’re not throwing in the towel,” said Lee spokesman Nathan Britton, who stressed support for the effort among International Relations Republicans. “She feels very strongly that there is a moral imperative to use every tool at our disposal to stop this genocide.”

Lee’s office released a preliminary list of four companies operating in Sudan that have won more than $

“We do hope that, when Congress next has the opportunity to consider legislation, Sen. Lugar will be more supportive of protecting the rights of the American people to, in their own way, combat genocide in Sudan,” Meixner added. 600 million in federal contracts while the Darfur genocide was taking place. Two of the companies, Siemens and ABB, are members of the NFTC’s board of directors.

NFTC President Bill Reinsch, in an interview last week, remained optimistic that the group would prevail in its suit against the Illinois law but also did not rule out the return of the Sudan-divestment debate. “I don’t think the book is ever closed on things like this,” he said.