User:Mushamuka Davud

The conflict minerals controversy refers to an ongoing debate about the impact of a human rights campaign that aims to reduce conflict in eastern Congo by eliminating the ability of the region’s armed actors to make money off the mineral trade.

Armed conflict and serious human rights abuses have persisted in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for much of the past two decades. Much of the region’s economy depends on the artisanal extraction of minerals, particularly gold and the so-called three Ts: cassiterite (tin), wolframite (tungsten), and coltan (tantalum). These minerals are used in cars, construction, and consumer electronic devices, as well as in an array of industrial processes. Two Western NGOs, the British Global Witness and the American Enough Project, have claimed that there is a close, causal link between the conflicts and the region’s mineral trade. They sought legislation in Europe and the United States requiring companies using these minerals to conduct supply chain analyses to make sure that their purchases do not ultimately derive from armed actors in eastern Congo. In the United States, their campaign culminated in the passage of Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Passed in July 2010, the law requires publicly owned companies to disclose whether they use any of the so-called conflict minerals in their products and if so, what they have done to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of those minerals. In the succinct formulation of Barney Frank, one of the principal authors of the legislation, the goal of the act is “to cut off funding to people who kill people.”

Recently, the campaign itself has become the target of sustained criticism, not only from industry groups, but from an array of independent scholars, journalists and NGOs. These critics make the following criticisms of the campaign: 1) It misdiagnoses the nature of the conflicts in eastern Congo, and so does little or nothing to attenuate their severity. 2) It has hurt the very people it was meant to help, by depriving the million or so people who depend on artisanal mining of their livelihood. 3) It has helped the people it was meant to hurt by driving the mineral trade underground, into the hands of the warlords and military commanders who were supposed to have been shut out of the trade. Fifty Congolese civil society organizations wrote to the SEC seeking relief, they said, “from the unintended economic crisis that has befallen our people as a result of the recent passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” 4) It stymied existing efforts to formalize the trade and discouraged existing programs that aim to increase the traceability in minerals. 5) Finally, it was opposed by a large majority of knowledgeable local civil society groups, who warned Western advocates of the harm it would cause their communities.

Many industry groups also oppose the legislation, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable. While voicing sympathy for the plight of the Congolese, they argue that conforming with the law will be burdensome and expensive. (Estimates regarding the cost of compliance range widely. The SEC estimates the rules will cost companies a total of $3 billion to $4 billion upfront to comply, plus more than $200 million a year. An advocate-sponsored study suggested the costs would come in at $ less than $1 billion,  while an industry-sponsored study estimated that costs could run up to $14 billion. )

The advocacy groups that spearheaded the initiative make several points in its defense. They argue that the legislation does not, in fact, place a de facto embargo on minerals from the DRC. They claim the law encouraged the Congolese Army to pull out of several mines --a claim later rebutted by a Western NGO that did extensive field research in the area. They showcase the efforts of Motorola to build a supply chain in Katanga, a Congolese province neighboring the conflict-prone Kivu Provinces. Finally, they point out that some Congolese NGOs and Western industry groups favor the legislation and that it has been endorsed by many of the world’s most prominent human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Other notable defenders of the legislation include Margot Wallström, the UN special representative for sexual violence in conflict, and Peter Rosenblum, a Columbia law school professor.

There has been no sustained survey of the impact of the legislation on the well-being of the people of eastern Congo. However, the region’s conflicts, which appeared to be in a period of relative dormancy, have reignited since its passage.