Gadget Greed And Congo Tragedy

[Richard]

Dueling control of finite mineral resources - not a new story and it isn't just the Congo.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Stop your gadget greed from fueling tragedy in Congo
Sheryl Crow and John Prendergast, CSM, 30 apr 2009

Your cellphone purchases might be fueling the world's worst sexual violence.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a place most of us will never go, and the war there is affecting people most of us will never meet. But the link between our demand for electronic products and mass human suffering is incredibly direct.

It is stunning that we as consumers have been completely unaware of the complex chain of events tying widespread sexual violence in Congo to the minerals that help power our cellphones, laptops, mp3 players, video games, and digital cameras. Thankfully, there is an alternative: Companies and consumers alike must use our buying power to bring this deadly war fueled by "conflict minerals" to an end.

Congo's protracted wars have led to horrific widespread violence by an array of armed groups. The war going on now is the deadliest since World War II. In particular, sexual violence has become a tool of war and punishment for Congo's armed groups on an immense scale.

The Congo war has the highest rate of violence against women and girls in the world. Reports – which offer low estimates since untold numbers of women likely choose not to report crimes against them – indicate that hundreds of thousands have been brutally raped. The immense scale of violence against women sets Congo apart. Were occurrences of such heinous proportions happening in our own backyard, we would have a greater sense of urgency.

Sexual violence in Congo is often fueled by militias and armies warring over "conflict minerals," the ores that produce tin, tungsten, and tantalum as well as gold. Armed groups from Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda finance themselves through the illicit conflict mineral trade and fight over control of mines and taxation points inside Congo.

But the story does not end there. Well-documented by the United Nations, business interests move these conflict minerals from Central Africa to countries mainly in Asia, where they are processed into valuable metals and then used in a wide array of essential electronic products. Consumers in the US, Europe, and Asia inadvertently fuel the war through their purchases of electronics.

Because we are all unconsciously part of the problem in Congo, we can and must all consciously become part of the solution. American consumers can exert enormous leverage over the companies from which we purchase our electronics by pressuring them to ensure that their products are conflict-free and that Congo's natural resources benefit the Congolese people and not militias and perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

Such efforts have worked before. In the 1990s, "blood diamond" conflicts raged across Sierra Leone and Angola. Today, thanks in part to global pressure, those countries are turning things around and using diamonds for development.

Industry leaders such as Apple, Nokia, Hewlett-Packard, or Nintendo have an obligation to ensure that they are not contributing to human rights abuses at any point along the supply chain. This will require them to change their procurement practices and to demand that their suppliers provide proof of where their minerals are sourced from.

We also must develop the means to hold corporations accountable. To that end, we are asking companies to publicly pledge that their products will be verifiably conflict free over the next year.

According to CNN, some companies already have policies on minerals from DR Congo. Motorola, Apple, HP, Nokia, and Research in Motion Ltd. all say they bar suppliers from selling them Congolese ore containing tantalum. But most of these policies only refer to tantalum and neglect the other minerals of concern. Moreover, these are merely written assurances that do not provide proof of where the minerals actually come from. They are not verified by any independent source. That is why we need more definitive proof through tracing and auditing.

Thankfully, legislation has been introduced in Congress requiring companies to disclose the origins of their minerals. This would put the burden of proof on companies to prove that they are not sourcing their minerals in ways that finance armed groups in Congo.

We do not want companies simply to turn their backs on eastern Congo. Electronics companies that profit from this trade owe it to the millions of Congolese whose livelihoods depend on mining to help transform the mineral trade into an engine of empowerment, rather than fuel for atrocities.

Today we can use the technologies that have fueled Congo's atrocities to put an end to mass atrocities and to help build a hopeful future for suffering Congolese families. Millions of lives have been at stake. We must use our purchasing power responsibly and consciously and demand that President Obama, Congress, and our electronics companies do all they can to help end the violence.

We have a unique opportunity to use the very instruments of Congo's suffering to help end it. Can you hear Congo now?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090430/cm_csm/ycrow;_ylt=Asw2XGqsjvfDLl2RLEs89ZX9wxIF

[Peregrino]

B******T! :mad: I'm tired of being accused of complicity in atrocities perpetrated on "innocent victims" by "consumer greed". If everybody wants peace and relative prosperity in the Congo - implement a workable solution; give it back to Portugal. Yes - I know enough African history to understand and mean exactly what I said.

[ZonieDiver]

I'm tired of these multi-millionaire "celebrities" (Sheryl Crow in this case, with all her Grammies, but also Clooney, Pitt, Jolie, Winfrey, et al) bemoaning various and sundry "situations" around the world that "we" here in the USA are ultimately "responsible" for "creating"!

If these very wealthy, time-on-their-hands people are that concerned, why don't they pony up part of their millions, form a "private army," and go in there and solve the problems - such as the militias in the Congo?

Oh, no! It is better to criticize, politicize, proselytize, and antagonize - ME!

[Richard]

FWIW - I struggled a bit as to whether or not to post this as I figured the 'authors' were merely being used as a 'face' for some group seeking exposure for their cause.

I also weighed the overt political message of the piece vs the intrinsic value of reminding people of an obvious point for major trans-national conflict...the on-going struggle for the world's finite mineral resources and why it might affect us in ways we (as a nation) never think much about - until our political leadership makes a case for intervention on the evening news.

Notice how I only hi-lighted a few of the passages and strayed away from the overt political message of the authors with the exception of the one passage which explicitly identifies their 'cause.'

However, this conflict itself involves much more than the mineral issue of the article, is on-going, and has cost an estimated 5m+ lives.

I think AFRICOM is going to be in for a hell of a time here pretty soon and it is important to remind ourselves there's more to the world than SWA - including the potential for encountering nuclear weapons issues in Africa, too.

And consider we've now got a POTUS of unknown designs (other than his obvious plans to socialize America) with both close relatives and influential supporters/followers who may have (as yet TBD) long range plans for that part of the globe. :confused:

Just some thoughts for consideration.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[The Reaper]

Socialism for all seems to be the cause of the article's authors.

Guns, training, and organization can prevent atrocities too, but they will not consider that option.

TR

[NoRoadtrippin]

With respect, I have to disagree with all of you who have taken offense to this article. Yes, you know better than most in this world (and certainly better than I) that decisive military action can, and does, solve conflict. But your responses seem to indicate you feel it is the ONLY thing that does so.

What is wrong with shopping with your conscience? Are we as Americans not in fact connected to those around us? Maybe you are only one person, but don't we fight on "though I be the lone survivor?" One person can make a difference.

Here, many of us do our best to support local businesses and small scale manufacturers of our equipment both as a means to support good people and to seek quality items. This will never put Wal-Mart out of business, or BlackHawk, or anyone else, but we still do it because it is right.

Do we not, by the same token, encourage companies to continue supporting the people selling these conflict minerals if we choose to buy the end product? Can we choose to also support only companies who do not use these sources as a way of quietly defending what is right? This doesn't necessarily make us liberal hippies.

I understand Chinese demand and that of many other countries is a huge force on the global market, but again, defeatism of saying "Hey look, there's no point in blaming me or in me changing my behavior, because these people aren't gonna do it too," is not the way I was trained and not the way I was brought up. I am willing to risk that it is certainly not the way a Special Forces Soldier is trained.

We don't buy items from Cuba and bring them to America. The President seeks to change this and improve relations and the members of this board are upset at a slap in the face to American policy and standing in the world that has been established for 40 years. Yet the reason we don't buy them is boiled down to the same reasons we would choose not to except materials from the Congo. Yet now the responding members see it as "blaming" and "socialism."

Personally, I feel there is a disconnect here. I am interested in the responses this post could generate.

[Pete]

......
Personally, I feel there is a disconnect here. I am interested in the responses this post could generate.

Do you buy only Range Free Chicken?

[Peregrino]

Richard - My comments were not intended to shoot the messenger. :p I've been paying attention to Africa's social issues and America's weaknesses in strategic minerals for several years now. I expect we'll be fully engaged in Africa in our lifetime because of one or the other (or both) issue(s). I also expect our efforts there to be as ultimately futile as every other colonial/neo-colonial power that has gotten involved in Africa. I've lost the blind optimism/idealism of my youth. I no longer want to get involved in foriegn adventures unless there is a clear and overwhelming benefit to the US. If the natives want a better life, let them take charge of their own destinies and work to achieve it. IIRC, the last time we screwed around over there we wound up with Samual K. Doe.

[NoRoadtrippin]

Do you buy only Range Free Chicken?

Is that a jab?

No, I do not. Where I live organic, free-range chicken is about $10 a pound. My budget will not justify spending 4x as much as what the basic bird cost by the pound.

I do shop at a local grocery store. Attempt to buy as much as I can of American food products, and buy organic for many items. There are a number of reasons I do these things. I feel they are important both on my end as the consumer as well as at the opposite end concerning production and what my spending habits ultimately say about my priorities as a consumer.

[Pete]

..... If the natives want a better life, let them take charge of their own destinies and work to achieve it. IIRC, the last time we screwed around over there we wound up with Samual K. Doe.

People who take power become fat, the people they appoint become fat, the military leaders become fat. And the people? They just starve and stay skinny. They look at a fat person and they know he has power.

People who take power put family and tribal friends into trusted positions.

The big proplem with Africa was the European Countries just drew lines on a map. The lines created countries with a majority of one tribe and minorities of smaller tribes. A majority in one country can be a minority in another.

"We all be Black" don't cut it in Africa.

[Pete]

Is that a jab?

No, I do not. Where I live organic, free-range chicken is about $10 a pound. My budget will not justify spending 4x as much as what the basic bird cost by the pound..........

Just wanted to find out what your price vs convictions was.

A lot of people "care", but they only "care" in a narrow area.

We "care", just maybe not in the area you "care" in.

By the way, I don't eat free range chicken either.:D

Pete

[Peregrino]

NoRoadtrippin - http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=260842#post260842. It is not in the best interests of myself or my country for us to handicap ourselves with respect to the rest of the world when the issue is resource competition. It's time to introduce a little pragmatism to the equation. America can't afford either Liberal idealism or "the White Man's Burden". If the oppressed victims of the warlords want freedom enough to fight and die/kill for it, I'm more than happy to "extend my hand in support". If they want us to "save the day", they can keep right on wanting. The natives are never grateful for very long afterwards and white horses/shiny armor make for great targets. (NTM they're expensive to maintain.)

[NoRoadtrippin]

Mr. Peregrino,

I have read that post as well. And disagree with the principle of most of it on the same grounds. It would take some detail to go through it all though and so I chose not to respond in that thread when it was originally posted.

I agree that America should not place itself at a disadvantage when seeking natural resources. However, I don't think that necessarily corresponds with consumer demand for the newest digital camera or cell phone. I am not lobbying for the government or military to forgo necessary items, I am advocating the idea of responsible consumerism.

As Americans, we have decided it is an "unalienable right" to buy whatever we want, from whoever we want, whenever we want, at the price we want. I disagree with this. I believe in the idea that I have a responsibility to consider my purchases and the message they send. I have a responsibility to consider whether or not my unending demand for the latest and greatest contributes to the oppression of others. Is it a direct and quantifiable connection? Not always. But my overarching idea here is that I am not my number one priority. I serve America in the military because I believe in the idea that there is value in sacrifice. I pay a little more or pass on a purchase for that same reason. Even if it means I have decided it is someone other than an American is more important. They are still people..stupid and weak though they may be.

Ultimately, I am not convinced that many of the conservation arguments would put us at a "handicap." What if we did all buy electric cars? Or had solar farms and wind mills that replaced coal? Yeah, oil and coal may last longer than some liberals want us to believe, and the developing world may use it up even more quickly than we can if given the chance. But wouldn't our national security actually be strengthened by a lack of reliance on so much oil? I mean what if we could treat SWA like we often treat Africa now and we just stayed out of their piddly wars except for those tip of the spear actions now and again? Consolidation of resource needs within our own borders does not place us at a handicap. Global warming is not an element of my argument. Intelligent consideration of the things we rely on to make it through a day is what I am after. If everyone both liberal and conservative ends up happy in the end because we reach the same end through different goals then great, all the better. Let's all get along.

I understand this article is not about that topic so much as the linked thread is, but I think the two are at least related.

[frostfire]

mist!

...and I thought I've done enough by boycotting diamonds, and encouraging others to do the same:boohoo

hmm, I always buy my gadgets used...does that count :D?

[Sigaba]

My two cents are that in this specific case, Ms. Crow's and Mr. Prendergast's use of the word "we" merits a close reading.

IMHO, Ms. Crow is calling out her fans, her corporate partners (especially Apple Computer, Inc.), but most of all herself. She is pointing the finger at herself and acknowledging that she is part of the problem she wants to solve. She is saying We need to walk the walk we talk.

Traditional media are in very bad decline--especially recorded music. Ms. Crow has a lot to lose if the established music industry continues to collapse. She has a huge stake in the ongoing quest to find a sustainable business model for new media. I think that she's taking a professional and personal risk by raising the stakes and rocking the boat.

YMMV.

[nmap]

I agree that America should not place itself at a disadvantage when seeking natural resources.

This seems to imply that we should obtain the best materials at the lowest prices - the very opposite of the position advocated by Crow and Prendergast.


However, I don't think that necessarily corresponds with consumer demand for the newest digital camera or cell phone. I am not lobbying for the government or military to forgo necessary items, I am advocating the idea of responsible consumerism.

Note the potential side-effect of reduced corporate profits, hence reduced tax revenue. Conservation may represent a private virtue, but it does lower growth.


As Americans, we have decided it is an "unalienable right" to buy whatever we want, from whoever we want, whenever we want, at the price we want.


This sounds somewhat like a definition of the free market. From that perspective, perhaps we should add in a willing seller.

If we were to say that we should be able to purchase whatever we want from willing sellers, that would approach the free market ideal.


I disagree with this. I believe in the idea that I have a responsibility to consider my purchases and the message they send. I have a responsibility to consider whether or not my unending demand for the latest and greatest contributes to the oppression of others.


Just about everything sends a message, though. And it may well contribute to some sort of unpleasantness, somewhere.

Suppose we purchase a shirt. Was it made in a foreign sweat shop? Does it then contribute to some sort of oppression of the workers - who may well be pathetically grateful for the job?

For that matter, if we enjoy a chocolate, were the beans produced by slave labor? This was quite the issue a few years ago. Now one could purchase so-called fair trade chocolate at a much higher price; but I can assure you that there is no discernible difference in taste between the two products.


Is it a direct and quantifiable connection? Not always.


Therein lies the problem, you see. If emotion, also exhibited by the cry "But we gotta do sumpin!" rules, we can go down false paths - and those paths can, ultimately, prove counterproductive.


But my overarching idea here is that I am not my number one priority. I serve America in the military because I believe in the idea that there is value in sacrifice. I pay a little more or pass on a purchase for that same reason. Even if it means I have decided it is someone other than an American is more important. They are still people..stupid and weak though they may be.

Sacrifice, but to what end? Sacrifice for what purpose? More pointedly still, why? The answers to these questions, perhaps not something you would care to post, may change if you reflect upon them over time.

You also contend that someone other than an American may be more important. This may well cause you to face some internal conflicts in the future.

I would ask you to consider a possibility. Most of us are used to abundance. True scarcity is, quite nearly, unimaginable to many. Please reflect on Peregrino's comments in that light. I will go further - I am, in a true and literal sense, betting on scarcity. I expect those bets to be quite profitable.



Ultimately, I am not convinced that many of the conservation arguments would put us at a "handicap." What if we did all buy electric cars? Or had solar farms and wind mills that replaced coal? Yeah, oil and coal may last longer than some liberals want us to believe, and the developing world may use it up even more quickly than we can if given the chance.


Exactly. Per Jevon's paradox, as one group conserves, the price goes down to make usage more cost-effective for other groups. In essence, conservation cannot work.


But wouldn't our national security actually be strengthened by a lack of reliance on so much oil?


That sort of question, which impinges on important national policy decisions, is exactly the sort that requires quantification. It is a balance.

Reduced oil imports would cut our trade deficit. That could be helpful.

On the other hand, if we have increased costs, decreased productivity, or both, then our GDP might decline. Reduced economic activity could undermine national security.

In this light, we might consider Energy Return on Energy Invested. (EROEI) Note that EROEI for corn ethanol was low or negative, and so the initiative has done poorly. I am not aware of any rigorous studies that examine the issue for wind or solar. Do we dare invest heavily in an approach that may have a fatal flaw?


I mean what if we could treat SWA like we often treat Africa now and we just stayed out of their piddly wars except for those tip of the spear actions now and again? Consolidation of resource needs within our own borders does not place us at a handicap.

We do not have abundant supplies of all materials. Therefore, such a policy seems to imply that consumers do without, or that they pay higher prices. This will tend to impede the economy, reduce growth, and reduce tax revenues.

Which means...less employment, lower wages, and a generally more austere lifestyle for all Americans.

Individuals can choose to follow that path, certainly. The problem arises when others seek to dictate behavior. Let us consider those expensive free-range chickens; some might regard the existing factory-farm arrangement as inhumane, and hence conclude that we don't need to eat much meat. Therefore, all chicken (and other meats) would be quite expensive. Those with that perspective would be pleased with the outcome. Others might not be. The same paradigm applies to purchases of electronics.



Global warming is not an element of my argument. Intelligent consideration of the things we rely on to make it through a day is what I am after.


I don't believe I have the time or resources to get that done. If I eat a strawberry, have I contributed to the abuse of some laborer somewhere? If I purchase a shirt, does the company pursue harsh labor policies? If I do business with a company, shall I worry about some obscure subdivision doing bad things? That's too much homework. If you actually have the time and energy to do all that, then I guess I'm jealous!


If everyone both liberal and conservative ends up happy in the end because we reach the same end through different goals then great, all the better. Let's all get along.

We won't, you know.


I understand this article is not about that topic so much as the linked thread is, but I think the two are at least related.

Markets are funny things. Money goes to wherever it can get the best yield. It pains me to say this, but I perceive the U.S. making some choices that will drive capital, innovation, and activity elsewhere.

Rhetorical question: How do we support our national security infrastructure if we weaken ourselves economically?

[Peregrino]

nmap - you only missed two points I would have explored. One - California is an example of the implementation of "government by responsible social consciousness" that NoRoadtrippin appears to advocate. Despite being the sixth largest economy in the world, it is in precipitous decline. The ecological costs of their "green revolution" have been transferred to the surrounding region and restrictive legislation (legislated conscience) is quickly killing what remains of the economy. Reality sucks. Two - Consumer activity, especially in cutting edge "luxury electronics" fuels research and development with spinoff that affects every aspect of our lives. Demand drives markets. The military isn't a large enough customer to maintain the current level of innovation. Thought experiment - what is the ratio of Blackberrys to Land Warrior systems? Substitute virtually any consumer electronics for a military system; for example, GPS. Another question - why are most of the US small arms currently being produced by a foreign manufacturer (FN)? The questions are related. My personal experiences in the Third World lead me to the same conclusion TR voiced. If the natives have the will, there are few problems that they can't solve for themselves with guns and training. That is the only method that guarantees even short term solutions. Suggesting that Americans restrict the purchase of cutting edge consumer electronics in hopes of modifying the behavior of African thugs bespeaks an unrealistic worldview.

[lonepine]

nmap - you only missed two points I would have explored. One - California is an example of the implementation of "government by responsible social consciousness" that NoRoadtrippin appears to advocate. Despite being the sixth largest economy in the world, it is in precipitous decline. The ecological costs of their "green revolution" have been transferred to the surrounding region and restrictive legislation (legislated conscience) is quickly killing what remains of the economy. Reality sucks. Two - Consumer activity, especially in cutting edge "luxury electronics" fuels research and development with spinoff that affects every aspect of our lives. Demand drives markets. The military isn't a large enough customer to maintain the current level of innovation. Thought experiment - what is the ratio of Blackberrys to Land Warrior systems? Substitute virtually any consumer electronics for a military system; for example, GPS. Another question - why are most of the US small arms currently being produced by a foreign manufacturer (FN)? The questions are related. My personal experiences in the Third World lead me to the same conclusion TR voiced. If the natives have the will, there are few problems that they can't solve for themselves with guns and training. That is the only method that guarantees even short term solutions. Suggesting that Americans restrict the purchase of cutting edge consumer electronics in hopes of modifying the behavior of African thugs bespeaks an unrealistic worldview.

You're right, the article is espousing an unrealistic worldview in that it believes a boycott of certain goods will lead to change in centuries-old conflicts in Africa. The article even mentions the controversy surrounding "blood diamonds" and claims that public awareness ended diamond-related conflicts Africa - Western hubris at its best.

However, the 'blood diamond' example raises an interesting question: Yes, a boycott of morally-questionable goods is a drop in the bucket, but if you can afford it, why not? The diamond industry - an industry that thrives off of the most artificial of demands - did not die from Kanye West writing a song about the skeletons in its closet, so I doubt that cellphone companies (selling a much more practical product) would take much of a hit in a similar situation. Again, a drop in the bucket. I am fully confident that the cellphone companies, if faced with such a boycott, would be able to adapt using all the resources of the free market available to them. Who knows? Maybe some innovation would even result.

My point is that if some lives are saved by choosing not to buy a product, then by all means go for it. Does the faux moral outrage and holier-than-thou grandstanding get old quick? Of course. Does it lull people into a false sense of realism about how global politics works? Yes. But I still think overall this sort of thing is quite benign. The idea that somehow initiatives like this "dictate behavior" gives way too much credit to the organization skills of these activist groups and too little credit to the tremendous powers of impulse of your everyday American consumer.

[Pete]

...My point is that if some lives are saved by choosing not to buy a product, then by all means go for it. .....

How many lives could be saved a year if we all stopped buying products made from corn?

Farming is a dangerous business with accidents with farm equipment, road accidents with the semi's transporting the corn and elevator explosions to name just a few.

Does the benifit of using corn out weigh the deaths caused by it's production?

How or where do you draw the line of deaths vs benifits for any product?

Should there be a line? Who draws the line? If somebody draws a line to others have to follow it.

[lonepine]

How many lives could be saved a year if we all stopped buying products made from corn?

Farming is a dangerous business with accidents with farm equipment, road accidents with the semi's transporting the corn and elevator explosions to name just a few.

Does the benifit of using corn out weigh the deaths caused by it's production?

How or where do you draw the line of deaths vs benifits for any product?

Should there be a line? Who draws the line? If somebody draws a line to others have to follow it.

Far more lives would be ruined by a boycott of corn than saved, but that's beside the point. No one (to my knowledge) in the U.S. is being FORCED to buy corn, no wars are fought here over corn, no villages razed, etc.

Who draws the line? You do. It's a personal choice. Will I boycott cellphones? Well, I wasn't planning on buying a phone in the near future anyway, but I'm certainly not going to make this my personal cause. Will it affect my decisions somewhere down the road? Maybe, if I feel strongly enough about it.

That said, I see where you're going with this. It's a pretty irrational worldview. Everything and everyone has skeletons in the closet if you dig deep enough, and I'm not about to boycott everything. It's a personal, moral choice. Buy a diamond ring if you want to, if you feel like you've done the research and the pros outweigh the cons. I suppose the only line I would draw is against uninformed consumerism, people who buy and don't know, or don't want to know. That goes both ways, too. Plenty of people buy the 'fair trade/eco friendly' stuff when really many of those products are neither, feeding into the collective hysteria.

But \his article and the activist cause behind it is not forcing anyone to do anything. Sure, they may be pressuring certain groups or corporations, but I think we're all adult enough to be able to ignore it and move on if we wish. Like I said, it's pretty benign, and if it's made people pause and reconsider then that's all it needed to (and should) do.

[NoRoadtrippin]

Misters nmap, Peregrino, and lonepine, I very much appreciate your posts.

Especially yours nmap. Your knowledge on all things financial and economic is extremely educational for a young guy like myself. I will gather my thoughts and hopefully reinsert myself into this conversation shortly.

[Pete]

Oprah's actions are starving the poor.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ai8WCgSJrhmY&refer=home

Hmmmmm.

This really belongs in "South America" but it does relate to the thoughts in this thread.

[Richard]

Guess I'm starving a village in China - I check labels and won't buy anything made in China. But that has nothing to do with resources or such - I spent over two decades holding the line against those MFers and won't give them one cent of my $$ to use against us at some point in the future. :mad:

MOO, naturally.

Richard's $.02 :munchin