Email 
Print 
VIEWPOINT: Conflict minerals and crimes against humanity in Congo
Written by: Enough
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
Violent armed groups that control many Congolese mines generate an estimated $144 million each year by trading in tin, tungsten, tantalum (coltan), and gold. Photo from the Enough Project
This blog is written by David Sullivan, Research Associate at Enough, the project to end genocide and crimes against humanity at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C. The minerals underneath the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo may not have caused the atrocities that have wracked its people for far too long, but that shouldn't mean we allow them to continue to fuel flagrant crimes against humanity. Despite billions of dollars spent on aid, peacekeeping, and elections, Congo's conflict has doggedly resisted resolution. An alphabet soup of armed groups continues to wreak havoc on Congo's civilian population - in part because profit maximising pressures for inexpensive mobile phones and laptops have driven international demand for the minerals which keep the country's militias well-funded. This demand consistently outpaces efforts to create state authorities willing and able to restore order and regulate the trade of Congo's wealth for the benefit of its people. Reducing the means by which the most egregious actors, particularly the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels linked to the Rwandan genocide, are able to sustain themselves is critical to making Congo's conflict manageable. Equally clearly, without a credible effort to take on the problem of conflict minerals, Congo's militias will remain a perpetual motion machine, ruining countless lives in the process. Beyond natural resources, complex and highly contested questions of land tenure, citizenship and identity have also driven conflict in Congo at the local, national, and regional levels. But getting to a point where such issues can be negotiated requires immediate steps to stop the financing of the most flagrant rights abusers. CUTTING REBEL FUNDS Reducing demand for the minerals that benefit armed groups is a critical entry point for a wider peace strategy. Efforts to address the economic underpinnings of the Congo conflict have focused exclusively on sanctioning individual actors. Efforts to build government capacity have been piecemeal. There has been no coherent approach to alter the incentive structures that keep Congo's institutions weak and dysfunctional. Without real political pressure from within or without that might actually change the status quo, ordinary Congolese remain trapped, their livelihoods dependent on an exploitative minerals trade that leaves the state sapped of resources and keeps armed groups entrenched. Most damaging to Congo's economic prospects is that the artisanal mining sector, which could provide an engine for growth, is stigmatised. Meanwhile, for the rest of the world, business continues as usual, with few questions asked. Transparency is the first step toward altering the conflict economy in Congo. The ability of end users to trace, audit, and verify the supply chains for metal products in electronics products back to where they originated in eastern Congo is a critical step to channelling international demand away from armed groups and toward legitimate sources. The consumer electronics industry has enormous expertise on corporate responsibility issues, but its focus has been on immediate suppliers, such as component manufacturers and assembly factories in Asia. With enough consumer pressure, the industry can take the right steps and put its own pressure on critical actors in the supply chain who continue to buy minerals from known war criminals. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY Developing institutions capable of securing mineral-rich regions of eastern Congo is perhaps the most vexing aspect of this challenge. In the short-term, most important is what not to do. Any military action by the Congolese army or U.N. peacekeeping force against militia groups needs to be well thought out and planned, with international support for intelligence and logistics. In previous cases, little attention was paid to civilian protection, and innocent bystanders quickly faced brutal reprisals from militias. Further, if Congo's army improved its own human rights record and practices, it would be in a much better position to take and hold territory, including key mines, and protect civilian populations. If the United Nations and Congo's army can meet these thresholds, the FDLR and other factions can be dislodged from key mines and hold these territories, enabling a modicum of security that is a prerequisite for legitimate economic activity. Because Congo's mineral wealth continues to enrich illicit networks of political and military elites who subvert the resources need to build state authority, governance structures remain mired in a pernicious cycle of corruption and predation. To date, Congolese efforts to reform the mining sector and renegotiate contracts have failed. But with Congo's economic crisis, comes an opportunity for reform. Donors should extract from the Congolese government not just commitments but demonstrable reforms related to the regulation of mining, commerce, and taxation. Temporary internationalisation of revenue collection, modelled upon successful efforts in Liberia, should inform the development of an inclusive, Congolese process of reform. INVESTMENT AND LIVELIHOODS There is no denying that there are short-term economic consequences from the increased costs that will accompany these efforts to reform the mineral trade. But without such measures, the horrific logic of predation and corruption will continue. A sizeable investment in alternative livelihoods, transitional support for affected miners, and investment in labour-intensive infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, and electricity will mitigate these effects and pave the way toward viable long-term development. Transparent supply chains, secure mining sites, functioning oversight, and decent livelihood options may seem implausible in eastern Congo. But several years ago, most observers would have scoffed at the notion that Liberia could achieve a measure of stability. Just months ago, the notion that Congo and Rwanda might collaborate to address mutual security concerns sounded equally improbable. Congo's continuing and seismic shifts are full of peril, but also offer an opportunity to finally address the conflict's economic drivers, provided local governments and international actors can cohere around a common approach. Consumers and activists can lead the way. There is no way to know whether there are conflict minerals from Congo in the computer, blackberry, or phone that you are using right now. We need to use these devices to demand that this unacceptable situation change. Visit the Raise Hope for Congo website to find out more about Enough's campaign to protect Congolese women and girls. Read more about Enough's work in general by visiting their website: http://www.enoughproject.org/ To read a slightly different take on these issues why not take a look at: VIEWPOINT: Why disrupting Congo's mineral trade won't solve the conflict
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
8 responses to “VIEWPOINT: Conflict minerals and crimes against humanity in Congo”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content in this article, including by framing or by similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
21 Apr 2009 22:37:40 GMT
Notice that now that some organisations are coming out of the wood work, they are obviously worried that something might be done about the supply of cheap minerals. You can often tell thier agenda as they manage to both say that a scheme will never work or all the miners will lose out, or both at the same Time!
A more likely outcome is if people do start to crack down on conflict mineral is a slow decline of the trade enabling the people of the Congo to face less chance of being raped, killed or enlisted by the militia who will have steadily less money to arm themselves. Also would be very wary about taking any advice from anyone that has any connection with the mining trade. On a completely different tack of course the resource consulting services blog and report. Do not crack down on the trade as the criminal elements may turn to other forms of crime what a joke. Maybe we should not be mean to murders in case they start robbing houses or car-jackers in case they turn to parking in a handicapped space. Beefing up the Congolese army that would be a bit like giving a alcoholic the keys to liquor cabinet. "our recent report based on several months of on-the-ground research" in other words been looking into the issue for a few weeks and we now know better then everyone else who has been following the issue for years. As for their report that is a laughable they say themselves that "which generated at least 4m US$ to the Congolese state in tax revenue in 2008, " in other words peanuts and at the same time say "Yet, mineral resources are central to Congo's development, ...... "because they are the principal source of revenue for the state." You probably have corrupt officials making a multiple of that let alone what all the other corrupt people and organisations are making. The Congo government are hardly getting a dribble into state coffers. They talk about "limited" choices miners have, but why are their choices limited? Could it be because the are living in a war zone? Iin their blog there is practically no mention of the international companies that profit from the conflict mineral trade very curious, maybe they were not in the Congo long enough to notice any. Robert22 Apr 2009 13:19:35 GMT
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your comments - Harrison from RCS here. I think that main difference we have is that we feel that cracking down on the mineral trade will not have the effect that some suggest it will, as military groups will be able to diversify their income through other forms of wealth collection. Or, in the case of the FDLR, have access to an essentially untraceable mineral - gold, making attempts to stop it futile. We don't think the causitive link between minerals and the violence is as strong as some suggest, rather the violence and predation in the mineral sector is a symptom of the lack of governance and insecurity. But this is not to say that military groups are not benefiting - they are. We just have doubts whether focussing exclusively on the trade will make as much difference as is suggested. But that doesn't mean that companies that trade and buy minerals shouldn't be asked to do more. We actually suggest a number of ways in which the trade could be improved in the report - transparency being one key way. Companies are clearly still exporting minerals illegally from DRC and not paying tax. This must also stop. They should also completely stop trading with the FDLR. We previously documented the way in which companies were buying from the DRCongo for the Financial Times in an investigation published last year, hence the difference in emphasis in this report. Channelling income into the state and away from corrupt officials is indeed a difficult challenge - we did not address it fully in our report simply for time and space reasons. But there are a number of initiatives such as EITI (++) which are working on these areas. I agree that $4m doesn't seem that much compared with the total value of exports in 2008 which we estimate to be at least $200m. But those are local minimum receipts for the Kivu's only and don't include data from the national tax office. One should also not forget the number of jobs that this sector employs. But should DRC earn more from its minerals? Yes. How do they do that given the institutional weakness and aforementioned problem with smuggling? We suggest that end user governments (importers) and regional neighbours help by publishing import data and sharing information with the DRC to ensure proper tax has been paid. As for our credentials - we have not and do not work for mining companies in DRC or the Great Lakes, and have no plans to do so in the future. The limited work we have done with some small companies has been exclusively on trying to set up ethical assurance systems with artisanal miners in Sierra Leone and Madagascar. The research for this report was based on 3 months between Dec 08 and Feb 09 and prior to that several months work (including 6 months based in North Kivu in 07-08). Thanks for the opportunity to present further thoughts.22 Apr 2009 17:56:19 GMT
This genocide/atrocities based article is fundamentally flawed in several key ways: 1. Notice no mention of Uganda a strong ally and beneficiary of US military and financial largess. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) charged Uganda with systematically looting Congo's Wealth and committing crimes against Humanity in the Congo. How about some pressure from ENOUGH on Uganda to pay the $10 billion in reparations to Congo that the ICJ calls for.http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/116/10455.pdf
2. ABSOLUTELY no mention of Rwanda who has made hundreds of millions of dollars (http://tinyurl.com/rwanda-23 Apr 2009 14:58:25 GMT
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your comments and your clear commitment to helping the people of Congo. I must strenuously disagree with your characterization of both my post and our work on Congo. Rwanda and Uganda have played an enormous and problematic role in eastern Congo's instability and they have profited handsomely from these endeavors. This must change, and a more even-handed approach from the United States and other actors would be vital to improving political dynamics in the Great Lakes region. The most recent UN Group of Experts report and the pressure on Rwanda it generated points to the need for more action on this front. As far as the role of western mining companies in the Congo, there is no lack of controversy and the role they are playing may not be what is best for the Congolese people. But this is a separate topic that is not directly related to the continuing violence in eastern Congo fueled by conflict minerals. I am concerned that your comment seems to attribute little responsibility to the Congolese government for its role in the ongoing crisis in the east. Despite your support for local institutions, which I very much support, you seem convinced that Congo's plight is solely the fault of external forces. Shining a light on the supply chain for the minerals that are financing human rights abusers in eastern Congo will expose those actors in Congo, in the region, and around the world who are contributing to this crisis, and is a critical first step toward accountability and ending the cycle of impunity that has compounded the suffering in Congo. Thanks for this opportunity to comment.23 Apr 2009 15:05:39 GMT
Dave there is more information on the website and you have to remember the enough campaign has only been running a couple of years. I find organisations like Global witness more impressive as they managed to convince the U N. There are plenty of campaign groups fighting for more to be done in the Congo most who would agree with lot of your points as i do and probably the enough campaign do.
In fact most your points could also be directed at the resource consulting service article. http://alertness/deb/logs/23 Apr 2009 15:18:13 GMT
Hello Mitchell,
Thank you for your reply to my comments i respect the fact that you did not just keep your head down. I think one of main difference in our options could be i think you could be drastically underestimating the money being made out of the mineral trade. The trouble with any illegal trade is of course working out it size, which can be very hard due to its very nature. In Congo's case it is possible to get a clue of its huge size by the effect it has had on the "clean" Tantalum industry. http://conversations.nokia.24 Apr 2009 08:11:49 GMT
Sorry about the same bits in both posts. I posted the second one first but thought it had got lost some how. So i did it again slightly differently to answer Daves post as well.
Robert24 Apr 2009 08:13:53 GMT
Robert,
You are right regarding Rwanda but it is HIGHLY unlikely that David and ENOUGH will ever come out against Rwandan. I do disagree with you though in that Rwanda is NOT susceptible to pressure. We see how they have responded to world pressure already and I maintain this is one of the key paths to bringing about a cessation of the conflict or at least make it manageable. Remember the conflict arose as a result of Rwanda and Uganda invading the Congo twice (1996 & 1998) and maintaining destabilizing proxy groups in the Congo for over a decade. Pressuring Rwanda has been and will continue to be far more effective than the so-called conflict mineral campaign which mainly serves to muddle the waters and appears to have been poorly thought out. David's earlier points are remarkable, Rwanda and Uganda have played an enormous and problematic role he says?? What - over 5.4 million people dead and you call that enormous and problematic? Even handed approach from the US? The US military is in Congo right now with Uganda and Rwanda (early January 2009) if we are to believe the reports of the New York Times and Washington Post. Plus the US has funded and given carte blanche to both countries while millions of Congolese have died and their women systematically raped to the tunes of hundreds of thousands and you say the US could be more even handed? But I understand a bit where this may be coming from with two former National Security Council officials on your board and founders of your organization you cannot really say anything that would remotely appear to be against the interests of the United States and her allies (Rwanda & Uganda). This ties your hands a bit and makes it more difficult for you to be a genuine grassroo! ts movement. Grassroots movements are usually pressuring governments to do the right thing not serving as an extension of their foreign policy. You say more action is needed on the Rwandan front but you are certainly not organizing around it. Rwanda is not even mentioned in your article/blog. In spite of the fact that pressure on Rwanda has generated the best results to date. Obviously pressure on Rwanda and Uganda is the BEST way to end the conflict not some warmed over Blood Diamonds or cutesy triple T Conflict minerals campaign. Mining companies a separate topic not related to the violence in the east you say? Hhhm, isn't ENOUGH one of the leaders in the Darfur movement? So is the Chinese investment in Sudan a separate topic from the violence in Western Sudan? What is taking place in Congo is a resource war and the mining companies are central to this economic war (Please david go back and read the UN Reports on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other Forms of Wealth in the DRC from 2001 - 2003). Aren+//3//f/9-t these the same mining companies that supply the fifth and sixth level electronics companies that you are going after? Wont Nokia and Motororla need the cobalt for the batteries in their phones, the cobalt that Freeport is mining in Katanga? It is for this reason I say you guys over there at ENOUGH got it all wrong when you look at things through a genocide and atrocity lens. Its good for your PR and funding but bad for Africans in this case Congo. No Congo is not solely the fault of extrenal forces at all but we must never underestimate the external forces. Wasn't it Antonio Guterres that said that congo is being systematically looted by the international community? BTW, I got some news for you. We know who the actors are who are and have been committing the atrocities and looting the Congo. That is why it baffles me that you have overlooked the reams of data on who these players are and are going after electronics companies while doing nothing about the known actors. If you were going after electronics companies and the people (Dan Gertler, Benny Steinmetz, Maurice Templesman, George Forrest, Lurent Nkunda, Paul Kagame, Yoweri Museveni, James Kabarebe, Bosco Ntanganda, etc) and companies (Freeport McMoran, Banro, AngloGold Ashanti, OM Group, First Quantum, etc) we know, you would have more credibility but as it stands your credibility is in serious question on this issue. We do not need a supply chain campaign to find out what+//3//f/9-s happening - UN Reports from 2001 - 2003, Lutundula report by the Congolese parliament, Human Rights Watch 2005 Curse of Gold report; Digging in Corruption 2005 Global Witness Report, I mean I can go on. We know who these folks are its just that ENOUGH has not EVER mentioned them or maybe its because you really dont know and if that is the case I am shocked that you have the platform that you have gotten to disseminate ignorance. Just google what I have mentioned above and you will get up to speed on the Congo. Pressure on Rwanda and Uganda will deliver in months what your so-called conflict mineral campaign may deliver in years. Opening of political space in both authoritarian countries will do wonders for the region and if the West stops meddling in the Congo, the Congolese people will take care of the leaders currently in place whose ascension was facilitated by the West (see the Crisis Group 2007 study Consolidating the Peace). A bit of advice David, consult with Congolese and act in the interest of the Congolese and you will have credibility and be on the right side of history.