• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • DRC’s Conflict Minerals: Can U.S. Law Impact the Violence?

    July 13, 2010 By Schuyler Null
    Apple CEO Steve Jobs, in a personal email posted by Wired, recently tried to explain to a concerned iPhone customer the complexity of ensuring Apple’s devices do not use conflict minerals like those helping to fund the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. However much one might be tempted to pile on Apple at the moment, Mr. Jobs is on to something with regard to the conflict minerals trade – expressing outrage and raising awareness of the problem is one thing but actually implementing an effective solution is quite another.

    As finely articulated in a number of recent articles about conflict minerals in the DRC (see the New York Times, Guardian, and Foreign Policy for example), the Congo is, and has been for some time, a failed state.

    Although a ceasefire was signed in 2003, fighting has continued in the far east of the country around North and South Kivu provinces, home to heavy deposits of tin, gold, coltan, and other minerals. The remote area is very diverse ethnically and has seen clashing between government troops and various militias from the Congo itself as well as encroachments by its neighbors Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi. Referred to as “the Third World War” by many, there are by some accounts 23 different armed groups involved in the fighting, and accusations of massacres, rampant human rights abuses, extortion, and pillaging are common. According to the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, “there is almost total impunity for rape in the Congo,” and a survey by the International Rescue Committee puts the estimated dead from preventable diseases, malnutrition, and conflict in the area at over five million over the past decade (or 45,000 deaths a month).

    At a recent event in Washington, DC on this terrible conflict (see Natural Security for an excellent summary), DRC Ambassador Faida Mitifu expressed her hope to the audience and panel (including U.S. Under Secretary of State Robert Hormats) that they would not limit themselves to “just talking.” Hosts John Pendergast and Andrew Sullivan of the NGO Enough Project hope to address the demand side of Congo’s mineral trade by pushing Congress to pass the Conflict Minerals Trade Act, which would require U.S. companies to face independent audits to certify their products are conflict mineral-free.

    But Laura Seay, of Texas in Africa and the Christian Science Monitor, is dubious of this proposal, pointing out that:
    Without the basic tools of public order in place and functioning as instruments of the public good in the DRC, the provisions of this bill are likely to work about as well as the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme does in weak states that lack functioning governmental institutions – which is to say, not at all.
    The Kimberely Process (KP) is a certification scheme that is supposed to stem the flow of “blood diamonds” that support corrupt regimes and fuel human rights abuses. But the KP’s governing body has recently reached a crisis of action over whether or not to punish Zimbabwe for alleged abuses, with one diamond magnate even claiming, according to IRIN, that “corrupt governments have turned the KP on its head – instead of eliminating human rights violations, the KP is legitimizing them.”

    The problem with international transparency schemes like the Kimberely Process, the proposed Conflict Minerals Act, or even EITI, is that at the very least, a functioning government – if not a beneficent one – is needed to enforce regulations at the source. In the DRC’s case, not only does the government have little to no authority over the affected areas, but the mining militias are smuggling their loot, on foot in some cases, directly into neighboring countries anyway. By the time they reach U.S. companies (if ever – Americans are not the only consumers in the world), conflict minerals have passed hands so many times that proving their provenance is next to impossible.

    Then there is the question of whether or not cutting off the militias, rogue military officials, and government forces from conflict mineral monies would even end violence in the region in the first place. Certainly many armed groups gain a great deal from their illegal mining activities (as do some locals), but is it the root cause of their discontent? In the best case scenario where mining revenues are actually decreased, would that really convince the remnants of the Hutu Interahamwe, fleeing retribution from the now majority-Tutsi Rwandan government, to suddenly put down their weapons? How about the Mai Mai, who are fighting the Hutu incursion into their homeland?

    I for one find that hard to believe. Stopping the conflict mineral trade from afar is very difficult, if not impossible, and even if we could end the trade, it would not necessarily stop the suffering. Illegal mining does play a large part in supporting rebel groups, but to address the human security problems that have so horrified the world, international attention ought to first be turned toward improving governance mechanisms in the Congo and rethinking the troubled UN peacekeeping mission (how about more involvement out of U.S. AFRICOM too?). The failure of the current UN mission is well documented, but withdrawing the largest peacekeeping force in the world in the face of continued violence, including the recent death of Congo’s most famous human rights activist under suspicious circumstances, seems more likely to cause harm than good.

    Would passing the Conflict Minerals Act make Apple consumers feel better? Perhaps. But that’s not the point. Environmental security measures that prevent the DRC’s tremendous mineral wealth from being used to fund conflict can only make an impact if the government has some measure of accountable control over the area. To make a real difference in east Congo, human security must first be addressed directly and forcefully.

    Sources: BBC, Christian Science Monitor, Daily Beast, Human Rights Watch, IPS News, IRIN News, International Rescue Committee, Enough Project, Foreign Policy, GlobalSecurity.org, Globe and Mail, New York Times, Share the World’s Resources, Southern Times, Times Online, UN, Wired.

    Image Credit: “Minerals and Forests of the DRC” from ECSP Report 12, courtesy of Philippe Rekacewicz, Le Monde diplomatique, Paris, and Environment and Security Institute, The Hague, January 2003.
    Topics: Africa, conflict, Congress, DRC, environmental security, foreign policy, gender, humanitarian, military, minerals, natural resources, security
    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15604275098987748466 steckarrr

      Hi! Just discovered your blog and I've really enjoyed reading it so far. Do you think the recent $50 million grant from the World Bank to ensure transparency in the mineral trade in DRC will make a difference? [http://www.africanmanager.com/site_eng/detail_article.php?art_id=15239]

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10648727700659999180 Schuyler Null

      Thanks for your comment steckarrr. According to the World Bank, a central aim of the grant is to help the DRC move towards full compliance with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The trouble with EITI in the DRC’s case, as mentioned above, is that it does little to immediately address violence in the country, which is the result we're all looking for. That being said, every little bit counts and joining EITI and other transparency initiatives will certainly be important moving forward.

      For more info on EITI in conflict countries, see our interview with Jill Shankleman on Afghanistan.

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10648727700659999180 Schuyler Null

      Update: The Washington Post reports the Financial Reform Bill with the resource transparency provision has passed the Senate:

      "The legislation requires companies doing business in Congo and neighboring countries to disclose the origin of any minerals they trade in as specifically as possible. The requirement applies to any company listed on a U.S. stock exchange.

      The legislation specifies four minerals believed to be funding the conflict, including gold and tin ore. It would give the U.S. secretary of state the ability to expand the list."

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10648727700659999180 Schuyler Null

      Update: The Hill reports the White House will push other countries to adopt similar transparency rules.

      Some industry groups fear the law may give a competitive advantage to state-owned firms in Russia and China.

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10648727700659999180 Schuyler Null

      Update: Outrage justifiably grows over UN's failure to prevent the systematic rape of almost 200 women only 20 km from a forward base in the Eastern DRC by Rwandan and Mai Mai rebels.

      The UN mission is not only ineffective at the moment but is actually set to withdraw within a year's time. Securing resources is part of the solution but when will the international community start focusing on seriously improving human security as well?

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15604275098987748466 steckarrr

      I have heard that the removal of MONUSCO troops will not be in Eastern DRC, but other regions where the situation is more stable. Maybe I am mistaken?

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10648727700659999180 Schuyler Null

      Hi steckarrr, under MONUSCO's current mandate, they are only to deploy until June 30, 2011 and focus mainly in Eastern DRC. (Although there are caveats that the Security Council may invoke, like lack of stability, etc.).

      2,000 troops were withdrawn earlier this summer from other parts of the country.

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10648727700659999180 Schuyler Null

      Update: DRC President Joseph Kabila bans mining in Eastern provinces, reports the AP. Of course illegal mining has been an issue for quite some time with the army also benefiting, so it remains to be seen how this will be enforced.

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10648727700659999180 Schuyler Null

      Last but critical update: Bloomberg reports Apple and Intel took efforts to block minerals orginating from the eastern Congo from entering their supply chains this month, and the SEC is expected to issue their regulations governing the implementation of the conflict minerals amendment of the Dodd-Frank act.

      A big deal, but Bloomberg also points out that DRC dealers are already looking to offset the move by shifting to Asian buyers, where demand is rapidly growing.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • Rainforest destruction. Gold mining place in Guyana China’s Growing Environmental Footprint in the Caribbean
    ZingaZingaZingazoomzoom: US cleans up. China runs wild on free rein- A lack of international compliance mechanisms to hold...
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous souhaitons que le partenaire nous apporte son soutien technique et financier.
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous sommes une organisation féminine dénommée: Actions Communautaires pour le Développement de...

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000