Group items tagged

Anglo American Plc appeared in the UN Group of Experts' list of corporations violating OECD guidelines in the Congo. De Beers, which is part of the Anglo American group, made it onto the same list. AngloGold Ashanti, also part of the group, has been accused of exacerbating the conflict in the Congo as well.[66] A War on Want report on Anglo American reports that "in 2005 De Beers returned to the DRC in an exploration agreement with the country's main diamond mining company Société Minière de Bakwanga (MIBA), itself implicated in a number of human rights abuses."[67] De Beers holds 19.56% of the shares in an umbrella group called SIBEKA, which, in turn, owns 20% of the shares in MIBA.[68] Amnesty International reports that "dozens of illegal miners are shot dead in MIBA's diamond concessions every year" and "according to MIBA officials, around 10 to 15 suspected illegal miners are arrested every day at the polygoneconcession". Amnesty described the detainment centers as "virtually uninhabitable".[69] MIBA is owned and controlled, primarily, by the Congolese government. The Congolese army is both a huge part of the conflict and also involved in the exploitation of minerals.

The corporations that are involved in fuelling war and violence in the Congo, such as the ones indicated in this report, have made huge profits off it and will not give up easily. The international trade networks involved in the mineral trade from the DRC are so complex that it becomes extremely difficult to track whether minerals have been sourced from the DRC, and whether they have funded rebel groups and fuelled the conflict. The DRC is so rich in resources that it will be very challenging to give companies incentives to stop exploiting them, and these resources are so beneficial to people in rich countries, such as Britain, that it will be difficult to get a strong movement of ordinary people to seek to rectify the crimes: for example, cassiterite is used to make electronic solders, which alone accounted for over 44% of all refined tin usage in 2007[108]; gold is extremely valuable and is at the core of most of the developed economies of the world; and coltan is fundamental to almost all of our electronics, from mobile phones to laptops to cameras to games consoles. But it is definitely possible. Global Witness believes that: A greater international interest in tackling the resource dimension of the conflict and increased sensitivity to criticism on the part of companies and traders may provide a long-waited opportunity for more effective action to break the links between mineral trade and armed conflict in North and South Kivu.[109]

The industry has another, entirely different, choke point. The processors. There’s a very small number of companies that have the ability to take coltan and produce tantalum from it. No more than a handful globally. Cabot in the US, Fluminense in Brazil, Starck in Germany, a couple in China, Ulba in Kazakhstan. Perhaps a couple more.

The way to effect real change in this situation is to follow the flow of money. It is as simple as that. While I agree with Tim Worstall that the processors of tantalum are the ones who really would make the decision to stop purchasing conflict minerals, they would no longer have incentive to buy if the electronics industry didn’t keep BUYING. That is why IMHO emphasis has been put on the electronics brands. GlobalWitness recently released a report which many of you may find of interest. Here is the link: http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/1019/en/do_no_harm_a_gu

Of course, in the short-term, some companies will choose to pull their business out of Congo altogether. This is not our objective, but it is a serious issue. Miners will lose jobs, and the main risk is that ex-combatants will rejoin militias. Here’s where we get back to the point that addressing conflict minerals trade has to be part of a much broader strategy, one that will span many years and focus on spurring broad economic recovery, promoting good governance and cracking down on corruption, and revitalizing peacebuilding efforts. In particular, companies that have long benefited from Congo’s cheap mineral trade should work with donors to create a fund dedicated to supporting alternative livelihoods for miners

The Security and Exchange Commission is just beginning to work out the details of how the conflict minerals law will be implemented, and industry groups are lobbying hard to see that the SEC regulations carry as little weight as possible, by narrowly defining, for instance, which companies have to report on their activities in eastern Congo.

Addressing the minerals trade is particularly important because until recently it was neglected, disregarded by diplomats and policymakers in negotiations and peace talks. Also, international advocacy on conflict minerals can be more effective than on other issues in the conflict, because of the international dimension of the trade.

Everybody involved in this debate wants the same thing: to end violence in the eastern Congo. I want to believe that Enough's leadership and staff began their campaign with the best of intentions. But by overstating the extent to which American consumers are actually using Congolese conflict minerals - and the extent to which it is actually possible to change the way minerals are traded there - they've given Congress, the Congolese government, and the electronics companies an easy way out. All three groups will come out looking good here, while Congolese government officials will continue to benefit from the mineral trade, electronics companies will source the tiny percentages of Congolese materials they've been using elsewhere, and Congress won't feel obligated to support meaningful security sector reform, help sort out the country's land tenure issues, or significantly fund the hundreds of Congolese civil society organizations that have been working for years to bring about meaningful change in the region.

Also, I think you should divorce the attack on Enough from the critique of the conflict minerals bill. It’s true that ENOUGH has engaged in some very misleading advocacy but that shouldn’t be used to detract from a bill that has quite a few merits. Enough might have spoken the loudest but they were not the only voice on this issue. Considerable reflection and solicitation of expertise went into this bill and it should be assessed based on its content, not on the advocacy tactics that Enough used to support it.

Any decent level of research shows that the USGS has consistently underestimated the supply of minerals from the DRC by a huge margin, for years and years.

The issue is not the validity of the data emanating from the USGS. Should anyone talk to the researchers at the USGS and inquire about the methodology used for arriving at their numbers, one would quickly recognize that the numbers are arbitrary at best, especially regarding African countries.

They have been able to present to the predominantly white American audience the misanthropic message of savage Africans raping and killing as the primary driver of the conflict. American consumers then become best placed to save and raise hope for the African brute through conscious consumerism. The savage African and white savior narrative, which Nick Kristof calls “bridge character” work without fail.

This narrative eschews the main external drivers of the conflict and the devastating role that US foreign policy (the same type of foreign policy that resulted in Nelson Mandela being on the US terrorist list as late as 2008) and Western corporate practices have played in not only the conflict but the maintenance of the structural barriers of dependency and impoverishment in the heart of Africa

backing of the invasions of Congo by the Clinton administration "renaissance leaders"

Nor is the 14 years of pilfering by foreign multinationals even broached while companies such as the below stand to reap billions in profits for the next generation while Congolese wallow in misery and poverty- Rangold - AngloGold Ashanti - Banro

Even other opponents of Enough and Global witness, in the industry are shifting the argument to the fact that there cannot be a crackdown on tantalum from the DRC as it makes up too high a percentage of world supply.

Hold to account companies and individuals through sanctions trafficking in minerals, whether with rebel groups or neighbouring countries, particularly Rwanda and Uganda. Canada has chimed in as well but has been deadly silent on the exploitative practices of its mining companies in the Congo. Canada must do more to hold its mining companies accountable as is called for in Bill C-300.