D R Congo: Conflict minerals: Cover for Western mining interests?

Title: D R Congo: Conflict minerals: Cover for
Western mining interests?
Author: Kambale Musavuli
Category: Resource Extraction
Date: 12/4/2009
Source: Pambazuka News 460
Source Website: www.pambazuka.org

African Charter! Article# 21: All peoples shall
freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources for their
exclusive interest, eliminating all forms of foreign economic
exploitation.

Summary & Comment: "The conflict mineral
approach or efforts emanating from the United States and Europe are no
exception to this symptomatic approach, which serves more to perpetuate
the root causes of Congo’s challenges than to resolve them." DN

Conflict minerals: Cover for Western mining interests?

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/60757

As global awareness grows around the Congo and the silence is
finally being broken on the current and historic exploitation of black
people in the heart of Africa, a myriad of Western-based
‘prescriptions’ are being proffered. Most of these prescriptions are
devoid of social, political, economic,! and historical context and are
marked by remarkable omissions. The co
nflict mineral approach or efforts emanating from the United States and
Europe are no exception to this symptomatic approach, which serves more
to perpetuate the root causes of Congo’s challenges than to resolve
them.

The conflict mineral approach has an obsessive focus on the FDLR (Democratic
Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda) and other rebel groups, while
scant attention is paid to Uganda (which has an International Court
of Justice ruling against it for looting and crimes against
humanity in the Congo) and Rwanda (whose role in the perpetuation of
the conflict and looting of Congo is well documented by UN reports and
international arrest warrants for its top officials).

Rwanda is the main transit point for illicit minerals coming from the
Congo irrespective of the rebel group (FDLR, CNDP or others)
transporting the minerals. According to Dow Jones, Rwanda's mining
sector output grew 20 per cent in 2008 from the year earlier, due to
in! creased export volumes of tungsten, cassiterite and coltan, the
country's three leading minerals with which Rwanda is not well endowed.
In fact, should Rwanda continue to pilfer Congo’s minerals, its annual
mineral export revenues are expected to reach US$200 million by 2010.
Former assistant secretary of state for African affairs Herman Cohen
says it best when he notes ‘having controlled the Kivu provinces for 12
years, Rwanda will not relinquish access to resources that constitute a
significant percentage of its gross national product.’

As long as the West continues to give the Kagame regime
carte blanche, the conflict and instability will endure

According to Global Witness’s 2009 report, Faced With A Gun What
Can you Do, Congolese government statistics and reports by the
Group of Experts and NGOs, Rwanda is one of the main conduits for
illicit minerals leaving the Congo. It is amazing that the conflict
mineral approach shout loud! ly about making sure that the trade in
minerals does not benefit armed groups, but the biggest armed
beneficiary of Congo’s minerals is the Rwandan regime headed by Paul
Kagame. Nonetheless, the conflict mineral approach is remarkably silent
about Rwanda’s complicity in the fuelling of the conflict in the Congo
and the fleecing of Congo’s riches.

Advocates of the conflict mineral approach would be far more credible
if they had ever called for any kind of pressure whatsoever on mining
companies that are directly involved in either fuelling the conflict or
exploiting the Congolese people. The United Nations, the Congolese
Parliament, the Carter Center, Southern Africa Resource Watch and
several other NGOs have documented corporations that have pilfered
Congo’s wealth and contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict.
Some of these companies include but are not limited to: Traxys, OM
Group, Blattner Elwyn Group, Freeport McMoran, Eagle Wings/Trinitech,
Lundin, Kemet, Banro, AngloGold Ashanti, Anvil Mining, and First
Quantu! m.

The conflict mineral approach, like the Blood Diamond campaign
from which it draws its inspiration, is silent on the question of
resource sovereignty, which has been a central question in the
geo-strategic battle for Congo’s mineral wealth. It was over this
question of resource sovereignty that the West assassinated Congo’s
first democratically elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba and
stifled the democratic aspirations of the Congolese people for over
three decades by installing and backing the dictator Joseph Mobutu.

In addition, the United States also backed the 1996 and 1998
invasions of Congo by Rwanda and Uganda instead of supporting the
non-violent, pro-democracy forces inside the Congo. Unfortunately – and
to the chagrin of the Congolese people – some of the strongest
advocates of the conflict mineral approach are former Clinton
administration officials, who supported the invasions of Congo by
Rwanda and Uganda. This may in part ex! plains the militaristic
underbelly of the conflict mineral approach, w
hich has as its so-called second step a comprehensive
counterinsurgency.

The focus on the east of Congo falls in line with the long-held
obsession by some advocates in Washington who incessantly push for the
balkanisation of the Congo. Their focus on ‘Eastern Congo’ is
inadequate and does not fully take into account the nature and scope of
the dynamics in the entire country. Political decisions in Kinshasa,
the capital in the West, have a direct impact on the events that unfold
in the East of Congo and are central to any durable solutions.

The central claim of the conflict mineral approach is to bring an end
to the conflict; however, the conflict can plausibly be brought to an
end much quicker through diplomatic and political means. The so-called
blood mineral route is not the quickest way to end the conflict. We
have already seen how quickly world pressure can work with the
sidelining of rebel leader Laurent Nkunda and the demobiliation and/or
rearranging ! of his CNDP rebel group in January 2009, as a result of
global pressure placed on the CNDP’s sponsor, Paul Kagame of Rwanda.
More pressure needs to be placed on leaders such as Kagame and Museveni
who have been at the root of the conflict since 1996.

The FDLR can readily be pressured as well, especially with most of
their political leadership residing in the West. This, however, should
be done within a political framework, which brings all the players to
the table as opposed to the current militaristic, dichotomous, good
guy/badguy approach where the West sees Kagame and Museveni as the
‘good guys’ and everyone else as bad. The picture is far more grey than
black and white.

A robust political approach by the global community would entail the
following prescriptions:

1. Join Sweden and the Netherlands in pressuring Rwanda
   to be a partner for peace and a stabilising presence in the region. The
   United States and Great Britain in partic! ular should apply more
   pressure on their allies Rwanda and Uganda to t
   he point of withholding aid if necessary.
2. 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.
3. Encourage world leaders to be more engaged diplomatically
   and place a higher priority on what is the deadliest conflict in the
   world since the Second World War.
4. Reject the militarisation of the Great Lakes region
   represented by AFRICOM, which has already resulted in the suffering of
   civilian population: The strengthening of authoritarian figures such as
   Uganda’s Museveni (in power since 1986) and Rwanda’s Kagame (won the
   2003 ‘elections’ with 95 percent of the vote); and the re! striction of
   political space in their countries.
5. Demand of the Obama administration to be engaged
   differently from its current military-laden approach and to
   take the lead in pursuing an aggressive diplomatic path, with an
   emphasis on pursuing a regional political framework that can lead to
   lasting peace and stability.

To learn more about the current crisis in the Congo, visit:
www.friendsofthecongo.org
and join the global movement in support of the people of the Congo.

*Kambale Musavuli is spokesperson and student coordinator for
Friends of the
Congo.

*Bodia Macharia is the president of Friends of the
Congo/Canada.
Contact: bodia@friendsofthecongo.org

*Please send comments to:
editor@pambaz!
uka.org or

comment online at:
www.pambazuka.org