guns money and minerals

Guns, Money and Minerals: an analysis of research on the impact of conflict minerals on communities.

If one thinks of the phrase 'conflict minerals', what often comes to mind is a dichotomised image of western luxury next to that of a war torn African setting. The very term 'conflict minerals' evokes danger, mystery; something that needs to be stopped; but also something that has a strange appeal.

Much has been written, particularly of late, about conflict minerals; spurred by the attention from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s passing in the United States and specifically Section 1052 of the legislation. Electronics companies such as Nokia, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and Apple are going through a similar process to that of the diamond industry in the late 1990s at the height of the Blood Diamonds controversy. Just like the campaigns against Blood Diamonds, consumers are being made increasingly aware of the hidden costs behind supply chains for mobile phones, laptops and games devices thanks to the efforts of many environmental and humanitarian advocacy groups. The field of economics has also played a considerable role in bringing to the fore the issue of conflict minerals through the broader study of resources and how they are linked to violence particularly in developing nations.

This paper examines the research that lies beneath much of the present understanding of conflict minerals. It will critically analyze how the research has shaped remedies to solve the issues associated with conflict minerals and what impact these studies and the resulting solutions are currently having on the communities that they seek to help. I will specifically focus on the development of the greed versus grievance theory of conflict and resources (as this is the most dominant) and how the power and appeal of the greed argument has become so profoundly embedded in the current discourse that it has masked the complex and intersecting processes associated with conflict minerals. The paper will then look at how we can begin to address these masked processes and concludes with recommendations for future research that will help provide a more rounded picture of the issue of conflict minerals and their impact on the communities in which these minerals are found.

A word on definitions and limitationsWhile the term ‘conflict minerals’ is a relatively recent area of study; mainly in the last fifteen years; the issue of conflict and resources is not. In order to gain a more focused historical picture of conflict minerals much of this paper reviews the work of scholars associated with conflict and resources. For this reason, this paper will use the terms conflict resources and conflict minerals interchangeably; as resources are minerals and vice versa.

It should also be declared that much of the study of this paper focuses on the nation of the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly known as Zaire and referred to in this paper as the DRC. This is due to the current focus of the DRC in conflict minerals literature. Given the significant implications of the Dodd-Frank Act and specifically Section 1502 that is dedicated to minerals from the DRC, much of the examples in this paper will come from this nation. This includes a case study of how the Act has impacted on the DRC. It should be noted, however that the observations of this review may be applied to other nations subjected to conflict minerals issues.

Given the title of this paper also includes the term ‘communities’ it is important to define to whom I am referring. Communities in the context of this paper are defined as the people who are situated in, or situate themselves in, areas where conflict minerals are found. In the case of the DRC, it is predominantly the artisanal miners and the communities in which they are located and by which they are supported. Their role and the impact that conflict minerals has on them has not been well documented in the current literature aside from a limited number accounts of human rights abuses that have made international media. Their silence in the research is understandable given that the places where conflict minerals are housed are often dangerous and inaccessible to researchers.

Page | 1 Jacqueline O’Brien APG5600 Student No. 23315687

The role of the community will be examined as best it can, given the lack of data, and their role in research will be a key part of the recommendations for future research in the conclusion.

Resources are not; they becomeErich Zimmermann

Economist, Erich Zimmermann opens his book on real world theory, World Resources and Industries with the words: resources are the bases of both security and opulence; they are the foundations of power and wealth. They affect man’s destiny in war and peace alike. Zimmermann first wrote these words in 1933 at a time when the world had seen the First World War, was in the grip of the Great Depression and was facing further unrest in his native Germany. Zimmermann’s book was a functional look at economics and was the first to view resources in the context of human nature and culture. He questioned the dominance of economics over politics and challenged the assumptions of free enterprise in truly being able to responsibly manage resources for future generations. Furthermore, Zimmermann believed that if resources were left solely in the hands of industry to manage, they would inevitably be plundered and the fruits of their exploitation would not be reinvested wisely into society given business was concerned with the need to pay immediate dividends. For this reason, Zimmermann argued that the cost-benefit of resource protection did not stack up economically for industry and therefore outside conservation measures and controls needed to be a critical element of the human relationship with resources. Zimmermann argued that it was incumbent upon scientists from both the social and natural sciences to examine the human-resource relationship in more than tangible, functional terms. Rather resources needed to be seen as ‘Man’s creation’ (Zimmermann,1950). We, humanity, construct them with culture, fashion and changes in our social situation and we need to understand and acknowledge them as such.

Zimmermann believed that resources and conflict were natural bedfellows. As our needs and desires increase so does our demand for the resources that will help satisfy them; and this leads to conflict, particularly over rights of access and extraction. Then, as our needs for them diminish or are superseded by other needs requiring other resources; the resources required to fulfill our former needs revert to what Zimmermann called ‘neutral stuff’. They become suspended in human history, only coming back into existence if we will them back with some technological breakthrough. Similarly as wars take place, nations increase their use of resources, demand for them spikes and then falls away as peace time ensues.

Zimmermann’s belief in the dynamic nature of resources provided a justification for a greater role of the social sciences in resource management. However, even though Zimmermann called for this involvement in the 1930s, the social aspect of resources and particularly of minerals is still an area that is under-study and presents an area of opportunity for today’s social scientists. The dynamic, socially constructed nature of minerals is problematic and this is especially true when it comes to the intersection of resources, industry and conflict.

Rigid definition; fluid nature Zimmermann’s plea for resources to be viewed in a more dynamic fashion has not so much fallen on deaf ears. Rather it has become too problematic an approach to use when it is applied to the real world situations of industry and supply chains (Keen, 2012). This has become particularly apparent with the current definition of conflict minerals that is being used by governments, industry and the raft of non-government organizations (NGOs) working in source and consumer nations today. This current definition is found in Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act that compels industry to declare if they use conflict minerals in their supply chain. The Act defines conflict minerals as:

Cassiterite, columbite-tantalite, gold, wolframite, or their derivatives, or any other minerals or their derivatives determined by the Secretary of State to be financing conflict in the Covered Countries (Dodd-Frank, 2010)


The Covered Countries referred to in the definition are South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Angola, Congo, Central African Republic, and Democratic Republic of Congo. Section 1502 of the Act has, however, specifically focused on the DRC. I will examine the impact and efficacy of Dodd-Frank later in this paper. However first, let’s examine the current definition of conflict minerals. The defining of four specific minerals is important because it provides a clear sign to industry and consumers as to exactly what minerals are classified as conflict minerals. Furthermore it provides an indication of exactly where and under what conditions these minerals are used. Cassiterite is used to produce tin and alloys and is often found in soldering elements and tin plated coverings; columbine-tantalite is often referred to by its slang term ‘coltan’ and is used to coat capacitors inside electronic equipment such as laptops; wolframite is used to create tungsten for electrodes and wiring; and gold is used in jewelry, electronics and aerospace equipment (Dodd-Frank, 2010). The minerals are often referred to as 3Ts and G by the industry. All are found in mobile phones and hence this has been one of the key devices used by advocacy groups to highlight the link between conflict, minerals and consumers.

While the use of the ‘determined by the Secretary of State’ term provides an opportunity for an expansion and contraction of the use of different types of minerals in the definition; the definition is rigid, based on tangible uses of the resources (as determined by a dominant nation) and provides no acknowledgement of the dynamic nature of these or any future mineral resources. It also does not pay heed to the circumstances under which minerals may become conflict minerals. We may ask why this sort of acknowledgement should matter. There are two key reasons (Attah-Asamoah, 2013); the first is that understanding the physical properties of minerals can be a determining factor in their ability to become conflict minerals. For instance, a high value to weight ratio can indicate that they are easily transported, ‘lootable’ and more marketable (such as diamonds). Similarly, the geography of where they are located and the means by which they are extracted can also be an influencing factor in their use as a conflict mineral; i.e. if they are easy to extract without heavy equipment and infrastructure then they are more easily accessible by armed groups. The second reason is based on the social, political and economic context in which these minerals exist. For instance the market conditions may drive demand and influence the price of a certain mineral, technological advances may lead to the creation (in Zimmermann’s terms) of a new mineral or the political structures and situations of a certain mineral region may increase the risk of rent-seeking behavior and wealth plundering, leading to such minerals being classified as conflict minerals. Essentially, conflict minerals are much more than how we define them in functional terms at a particular point in time.

So does it matter that the current definition is rigid? This is a legitimate question to ask when we consider that industry and the commodity markets in which they operate require a degree of certainty. The answer is that this rigid definition does not create certainty for industry. In fact, it can create more confusion given cassiterite, columbite tantalite, wolframite and gold are mined in a number of regions under peaceful circumstances. Given minerals from many different source nations can become mixed at the point of processing, it is often very difficult to tell where minerals have come from and under what conditions they have been mined. This can make it extremely difficult in the absence of a widespread and mutually acceptable mineral origin tracking system. Furthermore, the specification of the covered countries can unduly penalize small scale miners (often referred to as artisanal miners) in these source nations. This can damage livelihoods of artisanal miners in regions in which sources of income are already difficult to find (Seay, 2012). Finally, and arguably most significantly, the definition and the ensuing legislation conflate these minerals with being the sole source of conflict within these regions, particularly within the DRC, and this has the potential to significantly impact on the efficacy of peace-building efforts as well as the livelihoods of communities within source nations. I will explore how this conflation has already led to hampering of peace-building efforts and penalizing of artisanal miners later in this paper.


The emergence of new wars The role of minerals in conflict is not a new subject. As Zimmermann pointed out in 1933, ever since there has been man, there has been a struggle over resources (Zimmermann,1950). However the role of resources in driving conflict took on a more prominent position in development, international relations and global economic theory during the 1990s. While the world marveled at the cloning of Dolly the Sheep, teenagers were enraptured by Britney Spears and governments across the globe welcomed the fall of the Berlin Wall; Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Chechen War, the Kosovo War, the Bosnian War, the Yugoslav War and the Croation War broke out; civil wars erupted in Tajikstan, Somalia and Ethiopia; and in Rwanda, 20 per cent of the population was wiped out in just 100 days during the Hutu-led attempted genocide of the Tutsis. Set amidst this backdrop of civil wars and regional conflicts, a new theory on war emerged championed by British Academic, Mary Kaldor. Post-modern wars, as they are often referred to in Kaldor’s book New and Old Wars, essentially take on a much more regionalized approach to violence (identified as low-intensity warfare) yet they have transnational connections that are linked into the global community in some way. They differ from old wars, or wars between nation states, in that there is a breakdown in traditional military structures, or a degeneration of the military to the use of genocide (Shaw in Kaldor,2008); they are driven by various social, political and economic factors and can result in the breakdown of a central economic structure creating a ‘decentralised war economy’ highly dependent on imports and, if the situation is favorable for it, resource plunder by armed groups (both government military and militia). Identity politics, Kaldor asserts, plays a significant role in new wars and this refers to the claim to power based on a specific label or element such as race, or religion (Kaldor,2008). Essentially, Kaldor and the proponents of new war theory assert that conflicts are much more multifarious and complex than old wars and they blur the line between military, organized crime and human rights violations. They do not adhere to specific rules of combat, such as the Geneva Convention, and they are often typified by light arms and weaponry rather than the heavy artillery and organized infantry of old wars (Kaldor,2008).

New war theory is just as relevant today in an era that has seen a second Iraq War, September 11, the ‘War on Terror’ and further de-stabilizing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. As new war theory emerged in the 1990s there appeared a greater focus on the role of resources in conflict and warfare. This is a time when oil and petrol prices are rising as the oil fields of Kuwait burn and the supply chain of diamonds are being scrutinized following reports that the world’s largest diamond cartel, De Beers, is trading in diamonds from militia controlled mines in Sierra Leone. During this period three key positions emerge based on the assumption that conflict is driven by scarcity (Bavinick, Pellegrini,Mostert,2014). The first is a neo-Malthusian approach that links social breakdown with a lack of resources; an almost doomsday type idea which is particularly appealing given the notions of peak-oil and water scarcity are becoming more prominent in international development and military defence theory. The second is a neo-classical economic assertion that institutions and innovations will be the savior of resource conservation and will thus prevent conflict. The third is more distributionalist in nature and holds that it is the uneven distribution of wealth and resources that will eventually lead to conflict and that poverty itself will result in the exploitation and depletion of resources. These three theories are typical of what is predominantly known as the ‘scarcity theory’ of conflict and resources.

Greed versus grievanceConversely, the abundance theory of resources begins to emerge within the same decade. Arguably the most influential scholar in this school of thought is World Bank economist, Paul Collier, who coined the term the ‘resource curse’ to describe the cycle of violence that many resource-rich nations in the developing regions of the world face. Collier and fellow macro-economist, Anke Hoeffler produced a qualitative, longitudinal study of wars between 1960 and1999 and matched them to a data set of the nations involved in each war. Essentially they tested two hypotheses: That grievances such as political oppression, inequality and religious divisions drive conflict and, alternatively, that it is the access to sources of finance for civil war (or rebellion) that drives conflict (Collier,Hoeffler,2002). Using a data set that included the geographic features of each nation, ethnic make-up, income inequality, their gross domestic product (GDP) and the amount of natural resources that made up their GDP, Collier and Hoefller concluded that countries with a high (approximately one quarter of GDP) dependence on resources are more prone to Page | 4 Jacqueline O’Brien APG5600 Student No. 23315687

conflict. Furthermore, that conflict is more likely in nations where there is an ethnic dominance (between 40-90 percent of the population), that have recently experienced violence, where enrollment of young men in secondary school is low and in nations that have unevenly distributed populations and mountainous regions. From their study Collier and Hoeffler deduced that it is greed (economic factors) that drives conflict rather than grievances (socio-economic and political factors). Their research also concluded that certain factors can constrain rebellion, including the presence of a strong government military, high levels of educational opportunities for young men and a diverse ethnic and religious society. These factors make recruitment to rebel organizations less appealing and thus conditions for rebellion are unfavorable making conflict less likely.

Collier and Hoeffler’s research was, and still is, of great significance. While they do not dismiss grievance factors as playing a role in conflict; they believe that it is the presence of sources of income for rebel forces that is the over-riding factor in civil wars. Collier in particular has been especially prolific in producing a range of publications on the greed versus grievance theory of resources and his works have inspired policy-makers, the development finance sector and the international development industry.

Economists should not be allowed to play games with statistics, much less with guns William Easterly on Paul Collier

Given his success as a best-selling author, Paul Collier’s arguments have tended to polarize academic debate on conflict and resources into either the greed camp, often associated with economics; or the grievance camp, more closely aligned with the social and political sciences. His research methods and the general conclusions he has drawn from them have also attracted strong criticism from the likes of William Easterly who branded his best-selling book, The Bottom Billion, a ‘statistical muddle’ that ‘is at best hubris, and at worst irresponsibility’ (Easterly,2007). Easterly is not known for mincing his words and has earned the moniker ‘The Aid Grump’ because of his highly critical stance on foreign aid and development finance (particularly the World Bank). However, Collier’s most vocal critic comes from within the greed camp.

In 2012, David Keen wrote an in-depth critique of Collier’s work on the greed theory, referring to his approach as ‘analysis by exclusion’ (Keen,2012). Keen asserts that Collier’s theories on conflict and resources have had widespread appeal because of their oversimplification (an issue that I will shortly explore in relation to the DRC). Keen points to the work of Frances Stewart (often associated with the grievance argument) as being of particular importance because it highlights that inequalities, politics and the State are drivers of conflict and to discount them, as he believes Collier does, is to mask a more rounded understanding of what drives conflict. For Keen, Collier risks the over-simplification of complex issues to do with conflict and plays to the dominant neo-imperial zeitgeist (Keen,2012) that military intervention by the West is the answer to conflict resolution. Keen’s criticism of Collier draws together a more coherent theory on conflict that is based on the marrying of the greed and grievance theories. It is worth exploring how Keen pulls these two camps together as I believe it sets out a more rounded way of exploring the issue of conflict minerals, particularly as they relate to the communities in which they are situated. However, before delving into Keen’s insights, it is important to acknowledge that while critical of Collier, Keen does credit him with a number of important achievements. In particular Keen credits Collier and Hoeffler’s research as being especially relevant in the development of the Kimberley Process as well as a number of United Nations’ led policy papers on conflicts within Africa. He also acknowledges Collier’s advocacy for foreign aid and increased peace-keeping presence for nations recovering from civil war.

Greed and grievance theory: an exercise in facing the inconvenientThere are two key issues that Keen raises in his criticism of Collier that provide a strong basis for marrying the theories of greed and grievance. These are: that the nature and types of inequalities that exist within societies can be critical indicators of the likelihood of conflict; and that the motives Page | 5 Jacqueline O’Brien APG5600 Student No. 23315687

and role of the State are just as important to scrutinise as rebel forces when looking at conflict and resources. I will now look at how both of these factors are contributing to a more robust picture of the understanding between conflict and resources.

Not all inequalities are equal The link between resources and conflict has been established throughout human history; however this is not a linear relationship. It is as complex and dynamic as the nature of resources themselves. Keen is critical of the one-way relationship that Collier offers through the resource curse argument; i.e. that resources (particularly an abundance thereof) cause conflict; and, through his findings with Hoeffler, that conflict is generated by financial greed. For Keen the contextualizing of the human-resource relationship is extremely important in order to understand under what conditions conflict can become a reality. Much of the simplicity that appears in Collier’s argument Keen attributes to the lack of attention paid to what are called ‘horizontal inequalities’; these are inequalities that exist between groups within a certain community or social setting (Beinhocker, 2006). Rather Collier focuses on vertical inequalities; or those inequalities that may exist between individuals or households (Keen,2012) within a certain society. By ignoring the impact and power of horizontal inequalities, Keen asserts that Collier has excluded an entire data set that correlates conflict with horizontal inequalities (Keen,2012). Keen points to the work of Ostby, who analysed the impact of horizontal inequalities as drivers of conflict in eight countries across three regions between 1986 and 2003 (Keen,2012) (Ostby in Stewart,2008). Ostby drew a number of conclusions from his research, but most importantly he found that the presence of high horizontal inequalities increased the likelihood of conflict, particularly when it was coupled with a corresponding increase in political exclusion, denial of citizenship and rejection of cultural recognition. Ostby found that the presence of natural resources could drive separatist conflict as well as generate horizontal inequalities between and within local communities.

It is important to note that Collier and Hoeffler’s work does explore the issue of horizontal inequalities and while they conclude that grievances such as ethnic and religious issues can play a part in conflict, their presence is not a dominant conflict-driving force. Furthermore, they believed that socio-economic factors played a very minor, perfunctory role in conflict generation. As Collier’s popularity has grown, so too has his criticism of the theory that grievances play a role in conflict. It is this point with which Keen takes particular issue as it indicates the futility of the greed versus grievance debate and particularly of the practice of attempting to debunk one side over the other. For Keen, the nature of conflict and the presence of resources are inter-related, multifarious and cannot be explained away in purely statistical terms. To do so risks missing opportunities for peace-building (particularly through the use of natural resources) and developing policies that are founded on an incomplete understanding of the nature of conflict and resources. I will return to this point when we take a closer look at the Dodd-Frank Act and its impact on the DRC.

Freedom fighter or duplicitous trouble maker?One of Keen’s greatest criticisms of Collier’s work is his focus on the role of rebels at the cost of exploring the motives and role of the State in generating conflict. Collier does tend to depict rebels as duplicitous in their motives, espousing the need for social justice publicly while in reality only being motivated by financial gain. In The Bottom Billion he states “…you simply can’t trust the rebel discourse of concern for social justice. What else do you expect them to say?” (Collier,2007). By dismissing the voices of rebellion as being duplicitous, Keen argues that you risk delegitimising the act of protest itself as well as the act of political violence and the factors that lie behind such conflict. This can and does have significant implications when looking at conflict resolution solutions, because to discount one side’s motives over the other is likely to impact on the course of action taken to resolve the conflict.

Keen also takes issue with the ‘rebel-centric’ nature of Collier’s work in relation to civil wars , an approach he describes as ‘dangerous’ given Collier ignores the role of the State in generating conflict and violence. Collier’s research tends to focus specifically on the rebel and provides cursory attention to the role of the State as a generator of conflict. The omission of the State as a candidate for causing conflict has been publicly questioned of late by the NGO, Global Witness.


Global Witness was instrumental, as was Collier, in the development of the Kimberley Process, an international certification scheme set up to combat the flow of Blood Diamonds into the global supply chain. At the end of 2011, Global Witness announced their withdrawal from the Kimberley Process citing the ongoing use of diamonds to fuel violence and oppression from tyrannical State regimes in Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Cote d’Ivoire (Global Witness,2012). Specifically Global Witness criticised the fact that the scheme and definition of conflict diamonds only applied to rebel groups. Global Witness has written several reports into the use of conflict minerals by Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF party to fund a parallel government in contravention of their power-sharing arrangements with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Essentially the Kimberley Process does not acknowledge the role that Governments can play in conflict and this, Global Witness argues, undermines any cooperative efforts to truly tackle the Blood Diamonds issue. While the Blood Diamonds issue is not raised by Keen in his criticism of Collier, it demonstrates the point Keen is trying to make; it is important to also understand and scrutinise the motives of the State in generating conflict. This is especially true with it comes to exploring the nature of resources and conflict given the State has such a significant role to play in the management and control of such resources and they are directly involved in certification processes that seek to remedy the conflict issue.

The final issue that Keen takes with Collier’s overt focus on the rebel is that essentially Collier forgives by omission the role of the State in generating abuses. In Wars, guns and votes, Collier states; ‘Whether rebellion is easy or difficult basically comes down to whether rebels have access to guns and money, and whether the state is effective in opposing them.’ (Keen,2012). Keen views this as akin to a call for counter-insurgency which, when coupled with an inability to acknowledge grievance issues and the role and motives of the State, can result in abusive approaches to such counter-insurgencies. It also reduces the resolution of such conflict to a matter of who has more might – the state or the rebel – without questioning how consensus can be reached to avoid violence and build peace. Keen points to Collier’s interpretation of Sudan’s Darfur Crisis in which he concludes: “Either the rebel leadership radically misjudged the consequences of its actions or it was not genuinely motivated by the welfare of the people of Darfur.” (Keen,2012). The Darfur crisis was, as Keen states, a very complex and bloody situation that is difficult to explain away by only focusing on the motives of the rebel movements of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). There have been many recorded atrocities carried out by government-backed militia, the Janjaweed. However, while their actions were characterised by Collier as 'awful' and 'murderous' (Keen,2012), their motives were not examined. By failing to explore motives of the State and the possible grievances that lie behind them, Keen argues that Collier risks an oversimplified analysis of conflict and this can, in many cases, mask the true nature of the conflict itself.

For Keen, and many other critics of Collier and the greed argument, it is no longer acceptable to analyse conflict without examining the issue of greed alongside the issue of grievances. Just as there is a dynamic nature to the relationship of resources and conflict, so too there is a dynamic nature between greed and grievance. They are intertwined, inter-dependent and understanding the nuances of their relationship is, in Keen's opinion, a somewhat messy exercise but one that will, in the long run, provide a much better understanding of the nature of conflict and resources (Keen,2012).

Scrutiny and responsibilityThe greed versus grievance argument has generated widespread academic debate and while this debate has often been heated (particularly in the case of Keen’s criticism of Collier) it has also provided more rigor and deeper thought behind the study of conflict and resources. However, there has also been a negative impact to the argument and this can be attributed to how polarizing it has become. Collier has openly attacked those who study the grievances associated with conflict branding them as ‘politically motivated’ and ‘naïve’ (Collier,2007). This characterization is unhelpful as it does little to further the understanding behind conflict and sets theorist against theorist. Collier’s work has become very powerful in developing policies that are currently being implemented across Africa and other regions in the global south and so it is important that his work is not only studied but also, where appropriate and respectful, opened to scrutiny and able to be


challenged. Neither the study of economics, nor the study of political science is easy. They are complex areas of academia because, at their heart, they are about people. The research that these fields generate has real world consequences. The study of conflict and resources, and more specifically the study of conflict minerals, is fraught with danger because researchers can play a role in making a complex, ugly and violent situation either better or worse. Caution and responsibility needs to be exercised when applying doctrines and dominant discourses because they result in well-meaning but potentially misguided consequences. Nowhere has this become clearer than in the DRC with the current application of the Dodd-Frank Act.

When good intentions go bad: Dodd-Frank and the DRCOn 21 July 2010 President Barack Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. Contained within its 2,300 pages is Section 1502; a clause that compels companies listed on the US stock exchange to publicly declare if they source conflict minerals from the DRC and its neighbors. While Section 1502 has not officially come into force, its presence has been felt across both the technology industry (one of the most prominent consumers of conflict minerals) and within the DRC.

Section 1502 seeks to “inhibit the ability of armed groups … to fund their activities by exploiting the trade in conflict minerals. Reducing the use of such conflict minerals is intended to help reduce funding for armed groups contributing to the conflict and thereby put pressure on such groups to end the conflict”(Dodd-Frank, 2010). The clause is generating a body of literature from within the development and political science fields, critically analyzing its impact and efficacy in achieving its aim of stopping conflict. The conclusion from the Centre for Global Development’s Laura Seay is that since the Dodd-Frank Act (or Obama’s law as it is commonly called in the DRC) was signed, the DRC’s mineral trade and the nearly 2 million artisanal miners that it supports have been in free fall. According to Seay, the law, coupled with a temporary ban imposed on minerals from the north of the country by DRC President Joseph Kabila, has served as a de facto embargo on minerals and its impacts have been counter-productive to Section 1502’s aims. According to Seay, the clause has had three major negative impacts on the DRC that have directly impacted on the communities which it sought to help.

Firstly, Seay points out that Section 1502 is based on a false premise that mining in the DRC is the sole source of violence within the country. While it is widely accepted that minerals are a contributing factor to violence in the troubled North Kivu region, they are often mined under peaceful conditions elsewhere in the country. Furthermore, not all people involved in mining are involved in violence and vice versa. In fact an estimated 90 percent of the minerals from the DRC are thought to come from the artisanal mining sector (E&MJ, GBR,2013). The de facto ban caused by Dodd-Frank has decimated the artisanal mining sector and left people with little other livelihood options “… save subsistence agriculture or joining a militia.” (Seay,2013).

Secondly, Seay highlights that since Dodd-Frank was signed there has been increasing militarization of mines within the North Kivu province. While the movement of government troops into the region and the temporary presidential ban on minerals from the region was ostensibly on the grounds that it would push out armed militia from mining areas, the move has resulted in the take-over of nine previously un-armed mines by the military, including Bisie, the largest and arguably most important mine in the DRC. It is important to note here that the Congolese military have been accused of perpetrating violence, unrest and rent-seeking behavior across the northern region (Eichstaedt,2011). Furthermore, many politicians own or have significant financial stakes in mining interests across the region. For Seay, the opaqueness of the motives behind the movement of troops into the North Kivu region is cause for alarm given the vested interests of the government and the track record of human rights abuses perpetrated by the military.

Thirdly, the decimation of the mineral sector within the North of the country has also had an impact on the flow of basic supplies into the region including food and medical supplies. The region is difficult to reach other than by plane and, without the minerals flowing from the region, flights to Walikale have been greatly scaled back, in turn decreasing the essential cargoes they bring into the region (Seay,2013).


It is surprising to note that while Seay is critical of the Dodd-Frank Act, she does not advocate for its scrapping. Rather, Seay calls for a more nuanced understanding of the conflict situation in the DRC. She calls for a decoupling of minerals from the issue of conflict and for both to be treated with distinct, yet complementary actions that acknowledge the complexity of the political situation within the DRC. Essentially Seay calls for both an understanding of the greed and grievances elements associated with the current situation in the DRC in order to develop better, more effective solutions aimed at “improving the quality of life and security situation of the Congolese People” (Seay,2013).

Conclusion and directions for further researchThe relationship between conflict and resources is as old as the history of humanity and just as complex. While minerals have changed the way we live our lives and been shaped by our own ambition and imagination, they have also been a powerful force in generating conflict within our communities. The many nuances of the relationship between humans, conflict and resources need to be studied using the varied lenses of economics, political science and international development. While there is much research to build on from these sectors, more needs to be done to bring the disciplines together. Furthermore, theorists, politicians and development practitioners need to acknowledge that, while it is appealing to provide a simple course of action to remedy the negative impacts of conflicts and resources, simplification can be dangerous when it is applied to real world situations, as we have seen most recently in the DRC.

While we have much research to build on, it is imperative that the voices of the communities impacted by conflict minerals are brought to the fore. Research dedicated to, carried out with and for the communities impacted by conflict minerals is urgently required if we are truly committed to putting in place global solutions to end the associated violence. Furthermore, the nature of the interactions between conflict minerals and their communities needs to be better understood in order to determine how such minerals could be used in a positive manner for sustainable livelihoods and even peace-building efforts.

References

Atta-Asamoah, A 2013, ‘Besides greed and grievances: Natural resource characteristics and conflicts in Africa’, Institute for Security Studies, No. 243, viewed 1 May 2014 http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper243.pdf

Bavinick, B, Pellegrini, L & Mostert, E (eds.) 2014, Conflicts over natural resources in the Global South: Conceptual approaches, CRC Press, EH Leiden, Netherlands

Beinhocker, ED 2006, The origin of wealth : evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard.

Collier,P, Hoeffler, A 2002, ‘Greed and grievance in civil war’, Oxford Economic Papers, 2004, Vol.56(4), pp.563-59

Collier, P 2007, The bottom billion: why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it, Oxford University Press, New York.

Collier, P 2009. Wars, guns, and votes : democracy in dangerous places, Harper Collins, New York

Collier, P 2006, ‘Economic causes of civil conflict and their implications for policy’, Department of Economics, Oxford University, viewed 25 May http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econpco/research/pdfs/EconomicCausesofCivilConflict-ImplicationsforPolicy.pdfPage | 9 Jacqueline O’Brien APG5600 Student No. 23315687

Easterly, W 2007, ‘An ivory tower analysis of real world poverty’, The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9597, Pages 1475-1476 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61620-1

Eichstaedt, P 2011, Consuming the Congo: War and conflict minerals in the world’s most deadliest place, Lawrence Hill Books, Chicago.

Financing a parallel government? The involvement of the secret police and military in Zimbabwe’s diamond, cotton and property sectors, Working paper June 2012, Global Witness, viewed 19 May 2014 http://www.globalwitness.org/sites/default/files/library/Financing_a_parallel_government_Zimbabwe.pdf

Kaldor, M (ed.) 2008, New and old wars: organized violence in a global era, 2nd ed, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Keen, D 2012, ‘Greed and grievance in civil war’, International Affairs, 2012, Vol.88(4), pp.757-777

Le Billon, Ph 2007 ‘Geographies of war: Perspectives on ‘resource wars’, Geography Compass, 2007, Vol.1(2), pp.163-182

Mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, A report for Engineering Mining Journal by Global Business Reports, viewed 25 May http://www.gbreports.com/admin/reports/DRC_Mining_2013.pdf

Omeje, K (ed.) 2008, Extractive economies and conflicts in the Global South, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Hampshire.

Ostby, G 2008, ‘Inequalities, the political environment and civil conflict: evidence from 55 developing countries’, in Stewart, (ed.) Horizontal inequalities and conflict, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire

Renner, M 162/ 2002, The anatomy of resource wars, Worldwatch Institute, Danvers, MA.

Seay, LE 2012, ‘What’s wrong with Dodd-Frank 1502? Conflict minerals, civilian livelihoods, and the unintended consequences of Western advocacy’, Centre for Global Development, Working Paper 284, viewed 10 May 2014 http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425843_file_Seay_Dodd_Frank_FINAL.pdf

Zarsky, L (ed.) 2002, Human rights and the environment: Conflicts and norms in a globalising world, Earthscan Publications, London.

Zimmermann, EW 1950, World resources and industries, 2nd ed, Harper & Brothers, New York.


guns money and minerals

Documents