Izključno: Univerza v Cambridgeu se je umaknila od orožarskih podjetij.

The University of Cambridge has reversed course on its commitment to reduce investments in arms manufacturers, according to internal documents obtained by Middle East Eye. The reversal occurred after the University Council, the institution’s main governing body, had previously endorsed a monitoring regime aimed at tracking the university’s financial exposure to companies primarily engaged in producing conventional weapons. This shift follows a series of protests led by students advocating for Palestinian rights, which prompted the university to establish a working group focused on reviewing its investment policies. On 16 April, the University Council approved the introduction of a “monitoring regime” for investments in conventional weapons. This initiative was proposed by the Cambridge University Endowment Trustee Body (CUETB), responsible for overseeing the university’s investments. According to the Council, the monitoring regime would assess the endowment fund’s exposure to companies that mainly produce conventional weapons. If the fund’s exposure exceeded a specific threshold relative to its total assets, discussions would begin with the University of Cambridge Investment Management Limited (UCIM), which manages the endowment, regarding potential steps to reduce that exposure over time. The decision followed a report by a working group on investments formed in 2024 in response to a student-led encampment organized by Cambridge for Palestine. The group’s findings likely influenced the initial push toward implementing the monitoring regime. However, recent developments suggest that the university has altered its approach. In July 2026, the CUETB agreed to set the threshold for arms-related investments at zero percent under the monitoring regime. This meant that even minimal exposure to arms companies would trigger discussions about reducing that exposure. Despite this seemingly decisive step toward divestment, sources familiar with the situation revealed that the university has quietly abandoned the plan. Under the revised strategy, while the zero percent threshold remains intact, there is no requirement to initiate discussions on reducing exposure to arms companies. This change, which has not been publicly disclosed, was reportedly decided by the CUETB without being submitted to the University Council. Several council members indicated they were unaware of the modification. A representative from Cambridge for Palestine expressed concern over the university’s actions, stating that the group was both shocked and unsurprised by the reversal. They noted that the April notice from the University Council clearly outlined that if arms investments surpassed a yet-to-be-defined threshold, the university would take measures to reduce its exposure. That mechanism was reiterated in a recent statement addressing staff calls for complete divestment. Now, however, the university appears to have disregarded these commitments, choosing instead to bypass the established procedures for reducing investment exposure. The spokesperson for Cambridge for Palestine further criticized the lack of transparency surrounding the decision, highlighting that it seems to have been enacted unilaterally by the CUETB, without approval from the University Council. Additionally, they pointed out that the motion related to divestment, known as the Grace motion, has not yet been formally considered by the Regent House, the university’s formal governing body. The university has not responded to repeated requests for comment on the changes to its investment policy. As the situation unfolds, stakeholders continue to await clarity on the university’s stance and the implications of its decisions on its financial practices and ethical commitments.