The Wars in the Congo and Amazon
Here are two excerpts of a report in the Huffington Post:
“The deadliest war since Adolf Hitler marched across Europe is starting again — and you are almost certainly carrying a blood-soaked chunk of the slaughter in your pocket. When we glance at the holocaust in the Congo, with 5.4 million dead, the clichés of Africa reporting tumble out: this is a “tribal conflict” in “the Heart of Darkness.” It isn’t. The United Nations investigation found it was a war led by “armies of business” to seize the metals that make our twenty-first century society zing and bling. The war in Congo is a war about you.”
“These resources were not being stolen to be used in Africa. They were being seized so they could be sold on to us. The more we bought, the more the invaders stole — and slaughtered. The rise of mobile phones caused a surge in deaths, because the coltan they contain is found primarily in Congo.”
Full text here.
According to various press reports, the private arm of the World Bank has decided to support a company with a multi-million Dollar loan for extending its cattle ranches in parts of the Amazon in which illegal deforestation has occurred in the past. Is this the function of the World Bank ? Why not give the money to poor African farmers for improving their farming practices?
In the Congo and the Amazon, environmental destruction on a grand scale! This concerns us all: experts have estimated that damage to the environment will have far greater economic consequences than the present financial crisis.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:17 pm
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan
Coltan is the colloquial African name for columbite-tantalite, a metallic ore from which is extracted the elements niobium and tantalum.
Tantalum from coltan is used in consumer electronics products such as cell phones, DVD players, and computers.
but then
The main production of tantalum occurs in Australia,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo produces a little less than 1% of the world’s tantalum
Blaming ourselves (for the conflict) for our high usage of consumer electronics would be like countries in the middle east blaming themselves for the high agricultural usage of water in Australia because of their love of wheat based bread.
The link between Coltan and the conflict is a smokescreen for the relevant African Governments having the sort of chaos that discourages ethical businesses and encourages “armies of unethical businesses” free reign. The real blame should rest with us for not taking over their governments, colonialist style, and building their countries institutions in the way we did for Iraq, so that the populace would have hope for the future.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 am
“The real blame should rest with us for not taking over their governments, colonialist style, and building their countries institutions in the way we did for Iraq, so that the populace would have hope for the future.”
This is a fairly dangerous argument: 1) it would lead to an eleven more massive bloodshed, and 2) it would have even more disastrous consequences for the environment.
A more reasonable approach would be to cut off arms supplies to the countries involved, and to punish the international companies responsible for financing the militias involved in aggressions and smuggling. It is fairly obvious that the Tutsi militias presently active in the eastern Congo are militarily far superior to the Congolese army. Who finances them? Where do they get the weapons from?
You took your information from Wikipedia. here is some more from the same source:
““Export of coltan from eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo to European and American markets has been attributed by experts to helping finance the present-day conflict in the Congo, with one aid agency asserting that “much of the finance sustaining the civil wars in Africa, especially in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is directly connected to Coltan profits†“
“ 2003 UN Security Council report charged that a great deal of the ore is mined illegally and smuggled over the country’s eastern borders by militias from neighbouring Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda.â€
“A United Nations committee investigating the plunder of gems and minerals in the Congo listed in its final report approximately 125 companies and individuals involved in business activities breaching international norms. Companies accused of irresponsible corporate behavior are for example Cabot Corporation, Eagle Wings Resources International,George Forrest Group and OM Group.â€
Cynics might see these activities by western companies (not only to obtain coltan, but other minerals, e.g., diamonds as well) just as another aspect of free market economy: get is as cheaply as possibly, no matter by which methods.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 am
This is a fairly dangerous argument: 1) it would lead to an eleven more massive bloodshed, and 2) it would have even more disastrous consequences for the environment.
That is not the point. None of your other suggestions are realistic without some serious military intervention anyway.
A more reasonable approach would be to cut off arms supplies to the countries involved Most arms are already supplied through illegal channels. The problem is policing - ie. needs an occupation army in the area to actually achieve this.
to punish the international companies responsible for financing the militias involved in aggressions and smuggling Again institutions are completely lacking in fairly distinguishing legitimate business interests with illegal and immoral ones. It also involves multiple competing western countries’ interests therefore lack of motive to police their own. We go back to the fact that the only effective way to do it is to take over the institutions of the African countries involved.
It is fairly obvious that the Tutsi militias presently active in the eastern Congo are militarily far superior to the Congolese army. Who finances them? Where do they get the weapons from? Obviously from neighbouring countries government forces. How does one make any real progress in stopping them without threatening those countries with lethal force? The private companies financing the militias independently are given legal cover from these countries.
The assertion that the spiralling problems in the Congo can be halted without western military intervention are wishful thinking. With or without intervention an indeterminable number of innocent lives will be lost. It is unreasonable to suggest we can know which international policy direction will lead to the best end result. It is reasonable to suggest that western countries will be “lazy” and take only passive steps until the situation escalates to threaten western countries.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Neither of you have mentioned China (unless I glazed over and missed it) and this is a player which has a large stake in expanding its influence in Africa to obtain vital resources, does not give a rat’s arse about human rights, and which any serious diplomatic or military effort on the part of the West will run into sooner rather than later, see for instance the current situation in the Sudan.
I concur with Marco that the only way the West can halt the problems in the Congo is by military intervention, which would be messy and horrible, and less likely to happen with each passing day. All those who protested against the Iraq intervention need to share some of the blame for the fading of this possibility.
When the sides have fought to a standstill, I would like to see an internationally brokered partition of the Congo. The time is long over due for an African Versailles treaty that will replace the artificial national boundaries with ones that more accurately reflect the cultural frontiers on the ground. This also will be a messy and horrible process, but once it begins in one part of the continent I think it will gather momentum and it will be of long term benefit.
I came across something interesting the other day in Science about pre-Columbian setlement in the western Amazon- it seems that before European diseases, there was quite intensive settlement and aquacultural works on an Angkor Wat scale in what we have thought of as ‘virgin’ rainforest. I am concerned for the Atlantic rainforest in Brazil, for Madagascar, and for many other threatened environments, but I do not think we need to worry overmuch for the Amazon basin- it is huge, it will outlast our civilisation.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“All those who protested against the Iraq intervention need to share some of the blame for the fading of this possibility.”
I would argue that the Iraq war has made it far less likely that Western powers would send peace keeping forces to Africa, it is certainly not the fault of the protesters.
“I do not think we need to worry overmuch for the Amazon basin- it is huge, it will outlast our civilisation.”
If I understand you correctly you say that if the Amazon has withstood the human activities at an “Angkor Wat scale”, it should withstand the present human activities. I explored Angkor Tom (of which Angkor Wat is part) in the early sixties for about 10 days on foot and bicycle and know his enormous scale (by standards of the 12th 13th centuries). But to compare Angkor Wat with the scale of Amazon destruction today seems to me a lot of nonsense. Modern human technology should not find it too difficult to do away with it.
But I agree with you that the unnatural African borders (a disastrous consequence of colonial empires, of which the Belgian Congo probably was the worst example) are partly responsible for at least some of the conflicts. One more reason why I am very sceptical about the benefits of colonialism.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
‘Modern human technology should not find it too difficult to do away with it.’
True. But what I am saying is that there are many more important and urgent environmental problems that merit our attention. We must ceaselessly quantify, quantify, quantify, and prioritise, prioritise, prioritise.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I would argue that the Iraq war has made it far less likely that Western powers would send peace keeping forces to Africa, it is certainly not the fault of the protesters.
This doesn’t really answer my serious question:
“How does one make any real progress in stopping [militias] without threatening those countries with lethal force?”
Is there a precedent that you are aware of that I am not?
Western powers will not send peace-keeping forces until there is something in it for them. The Iraq war is a convenient cop-out and scapegoat for the other powers to reduce their feeling of responsibility for any raging conflicts in the world.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Just five minutes ago I watched the SBS news in which Madeline Albright, the former US Secretary of State, declared that she believes that history will show that the Iraq war was the most serious mistake in US history, worse than the Vietnam war.
““How does one make any real progress in stopping [militias] without threatening those countries with lethal force?”
This does not make sense to me. What do you mean by “those” countries? Militias, by definition, are not armies of countries but illegal military forces. If you mean the Tutsi militias and their apparent backers in Rwanda, the right approach, I believe, would be to cut off arms supplies to Rwanda. What would “lethal” force achieve?