Recently, in the New York Times, David Aronson critized the Dodd-Frank Act’s 1502 section on “conflict minerals“ particularly from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He blames the Congress to endanger or even destroy the livelihood of small-scale miners in the North Kivu region by an ongoing embargo of the minerals and to play into the hands of army integrated terror-militias which are exploiting the mines in a mafia-like way. Aronson’s article has caused at least as great a deal of controversy as the one on conflict minerals itself.
One of the best summarized responses to Aronson’s attack was penned by Jason Stearns in his Congo Siasa blog:
Thoughts about conflict minerals
- The Dodd-Frank legislation in no way mandates or supports a real or de facto embargo on minerals exports from eastern Congo. It is important not to confuse the law itself and its perception.
- Aronson‘s reproach that the legislation is out-of-date, arguing that most Congolese rebel groups have been integrated into the Congolese army, does not accurately reflect the reality on the ground as at least a dozen rebel groups remain active in the Kivus and many derive considerable profits from mining.
- Aronson discounts the positive impacts of Dodd-Frank – like the Congolese army’s withdrawal from some of the largest mining areas and the declared ambition of some large multinational corporations (Malaysia Smelting Corp and Rajesh Industries) to invest in large-scale industrial mining in the Kivus as well as in certification and traceability initiatives.
- According to Stearns there is no general opposition of the Congolese against the Dodd-Frank legislation: a group of over 50 Congolese NGOs together with a dozen international ones supports the bill and urged for its rapid and thorough implementation.
- Joint efforts are underway to see how the Dodd-Frank and the OECD guidelines can be implemented, the financing of the armed groups be undermined and the livelihoods of the local miners and their communities be improved by transparent investments.
fairplanet therefore reinforces their strong support for the ENOUGH-project’s campaign “Raise Hope for Congo“. They explain the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act’s conflict-minerals section (here) and why they need your help to increase demand for conflict-free electronics products:
As a consumer, you can influence electronics industry leaders as they weigh whether or not to invest in making their supply chains transparent and producing verifiably conflict-free products. Tell companies that if they take conflict out of their products, you’ll buy them.
Follow this link and send an email to eighteen of the biggest electronics companies!
List of references:
How Congress Devastated Congo by David Aronson (New York Times)
Thoughts about conflict minerals by Jason Stearns (Congo Siasa Blog)
Raise Hope for Congo – an ENOUGH campaign
Check the sidebar for further information >>>
by atsil
I will respond to Stearn’s response:
“1. The Dodd-Frank legislation in no way mandates or supports a real or de facto embargo on minerals exports from eastern Congo. It is important not to confuse the law itself and its perception.”
That is irrelevant. Whether Dodd-Frank calls for an embargo or not, the fact is, there is a de facto embargo in place, right now, in all 10 central African countries devastated by this act. We are a Congo-based company, not a mining company, dedicated to helping Congolese tribes export without a dime going to conflict groups. Dodd-Frank has been disastrous for them. We have 50 tons of coltan sitting in a warehouse and not a single buyer can be found worldwide – they have all evaporated. Dodd-Frank doesn’t call for an embargo – it just caused one. Hiding behind the wording of the bill and ignoring the effect on the ground is wrong in every way.
” 2. Aronson‘s reproach that the legislation is out-of-date, arguing that most Congolese rebel groups have been integrated into the Congolese army, does not accurately reflect the reality on the ground as at least a dozen rebel groups remain active in the Kivus and many derive considerable profits from mining.”
Absolutely true. But demonizing minerals instead of criminals will not solve this. The militias existed for a decade before they invaded the mining industry, and they will (already have) find other sources of revenue.
The issue with Dodd-Frank is that it is a nuclear option that demonizes minerals instead of criminals and destroys the lives of the innocents in order to hurt the criminals. It’s no different than burning down every house in town to stop a burglar from stealing, who will simply steal from somewhere else. Ludicrous.
Dodd-Frank has burned down the entire mining industry in the Congo in hopes that their scorched earth policy will catch a militia group in its path. They are willing to take down every innocent man, woman, and child who live off mining. Such massive collateral damage is not acceptable under any circumstance. The burglar is evil, not the necklace.
” 3. Aronson discounts the positive impacts of Dodd-Frank – like the Congolese army’s withdrawal from some of the largest mining areas and the declared ambition of some large multinational corporations (Malaysia Smelting Corp and Rajesh Industries) to invest in large-scale industrial mining in the Kivus as well as in certification and traceability initiatives.”
If ants are at the picnic and you put all the food away, the ants go away. When you bring the food back out, the ants return. The only possible way this would be a victory is if no one could ever export minerals again. As soon as the de facto embargo is lifted, the militia will be back. To suggest otherwise is naive.
More importantly, any positive impact of Dodd-Frank is FAR outweighed by the massive collateral damage it perpetrates. Are you aware that five of the six mineral regions have no connection to the conflict area, not even by road? Yet all of them have been shut down. The World Bank says 10 million people in the Congo get their living from mining. Probably only 100,000 of them are in the Kivus, the conflict area. And most of them aren’t involved with conflict groups. Again, this is a nuclear option. Saying Dodd-Frank has had positive impact is like saying we dropped a nuclear bomb and took out bin Laden, forget the fact that millions of others lives have been destroyed. Any solution with this kind of massive collateral damage is unacceptable under any circumstance.
“4. According to Stearns there is no general opposition of the Congolese against the Dodd-Frank legislation: a group of over 50 Congolese NGOs together with a dozen international ones supports the bill and urged for its rapid and thorough implementation.”
Really?? Anybody bother to ask the tribes? What about the letter to the SEC from the COCABI, COMIMPA and COMIDER, which represent 20,000 miners and 100,000 woman and children in the conflict area? They all say they’ve never even been contacted and strongly urge against listening to the advocacy groups.
And why is it that none of those who are FOR Dodd-Frank will survey the 10 million people affected by it? Please note that while they are all quoting NGOs, the government and giant corporations, we are quoting chiefs, tribes, and people on the ground who are starving because of Dodd-Frank. Doesn’t that say something very powerful to us? I can produce many chiefs and tribes who are only a small microcosm of those being affected. All they can produce is “organizations”. How callous to say no one is opposing this – only the people directly affected by it are – the NGOs and others seem to love it.
“5. Joint efforts are underway to see how the Dodd-Frank and the OECD guidelines can be implemented, the financing of the armed groups be undermined and the livelihoods of the local miners and their communities be improved by transparent investments.”
Nothing sounds more depressing than this statement – a bunch of NGOs, US government bureaucrats and giant corporations, with no relatives starving, are going to plod their way along to a possible solution some time in the next two years, ignoring the existing carnage for who knows how long.
We are working with chiefs and tribes whose lives have already been destroyed, not next month or next year. Proponents are all talking about giant corporations (who they normally hate) who have made “statements” they they “intend” to do something in the Congo. And what will they do? They’ll go in as giant corporations and mine their own coltan, take it and all the profits with them, and the NGOs will somehow claim that is a good idea? What does it do for the 1 million or more artisanal miners who won’t be able to sell their minerals?
It all sounds good sitting in comfy high-backed chairs in Washington, but I was there last week. People are starving.
Stop demonizing minerals and start demonizing criminals. The necklace is not the problem, the burglar is the problem. Remove mining from the equation and the militia will exact its pound of flesh from the locals by other means. This should be handled by targeting militias, not mining. Dodd-Frank takes the route of universal collateral damage, which, before the bill is enacted, has already destroyed the livelihoods of the innocents who depend on it.
Unconscionable