Gadget Greed And Congo Tragedy
 

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...2RLEs89ZX9wxIF

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.

!!
 

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!

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

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

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.

Range Free Chicken?
 

Do you buy only Range Free Chicken?

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.

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.

Skinny People
 

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.

Your Price
 

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

NoRoadtrippin - http://professionalsoldiers.com/foru...842#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.)

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.

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?

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.