Israel's bomb, and international finance as the undoing of foreign policy

"Some sovereign wealth funds are non-transparent, meaning they do not report their holdings or strategies to the Public. Some experts say they are passive investments, while others fear they are a matter of national security. These are causes for concern for many people, investors, and governments; and will eventually fuel the fires of protectionism."

However what we do know is that by one measure, the Qatari fund is rated a 5 from 10 – when a score of 8 is said to be the minimum, "adequate" recommended standard.

What is needed then is for QIA to publicly state what it has blacklisted from its investment portfolio.

For instance, in September 2005 Norway's own sovereign wealth fund asked target companies the following:

"In connection with the implementation of these Guidelines, we have been asked by the Advisory Council on Ethics for the Government Petroleum Fund to enquire into whether your company, or any of its subsidiaries, is involved in the development, testing, production, assembly or maintenance of components made for nuclear weapons."

As a result of these sorts of conversations, all recorded on Norway's website, we know what Norway does not invest in, and why.

I have no capacity to ask such questions of the Qatar Investment Authority.

Except write this.

Only the Qatar Investment Authority can put cold water on my otherwise tentative claims – confirming that it has policies and procedures in place, including an Ethical Committee like the Norwegians, to review the nature of its investments for any conflicts with government policy as they may arise.

Because they do.

Qatar is not alone

But I also don't mean to pick on Al Jazeera's owners either; many states have sovereign wealth funds. Other Arab states, such as the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia all maintain sovereign wealth funds, and some with lower levels of sophistication and transparency.