Death in the Congo – Can You Hear Me Now?

[frigidmagi]

Armchair General

[quote]Somebody once asked John Dillinger why he robbed banks. Dillinger explained carefully, as if talking to a small child or a mentally challenged adult, “Because that’s where the money is.â€

[Stofsk]

It sure is.

[The Minx]

The situation is horrible, but I am skeptical of the article's conclusion. Blaming trade and the industrialized world for the conflict is disingenuous, as there are numerous resource rich areas in the world which trade quite openly who don't have nearly the amount of problems Africa suffers. Still, the world should pay more attention to what is going on and do what they can to help.

[Stofsk]

Why so sceptical? The article mentions how 'blood diamonds' have gotten publicity, yet nobody bats an eyelid at these kind of conflicts. Is it because coltan, cadmium and bauxite aren't sexy enough?

I think there is a sense that the west has a kind of collective denial over any sort of involvement in Africa. There's a sense that the continent is plagued with troubles - troubles which can be traced back to colonial exploitation - but the solutions aren't palatable, nor would they be cheap, so the rest of the world turns a blind eye.

[General Havoc]

I'm sorry, I agree with Minx in this case. Many regions of the world have enormous mineral wealth, comparable to that of the Eastern Congo. Blaming everything wrong with this conflict on "Western Colonialism" is a sham argument at the most generous. Besides, any article that off-handedly dismisses the ethnic component in that war without so much as an explanation is plainly talking out their ass.

[frigidmagi]

Y'all are over looking several things.

1: This fits into a pattern we have seen with other resources.

2: The other regions of the world (for example... China) that have these resources are under strong, militarily secure central governments. The Congo is anything but.

3: This isn't about Western involvement. It's about the fact that there's something that can make them wealthy and there's no one around to stop them from killing each other over it. No Great Power cares enough about the region to send in troops to keep a peace (prove me wrong!). The native governments aren't strong enough to keep a peace. You can blame colonization for that, but you would have to show how a lack of colonization would have changed the story.

[Stofsk]

I only brought up colonialism as the reason why nobody is willing to get involved today. Nobody is willing to intervene to put a stop to the bloodshed. I wasn't citing colonialism as being the source of the problem, but rather the impediment to any intervention solution. Even the UN hasn't come out with a strongly-worded tut-tut-tut. It was a throw-away line, not a central argument.

Nobody wants to do anything. They would rather look the other way. The question is 'why' does the rest of the world look the other way?

[frigidmagi]

Well... Do you want to spend the billions of dollars, perhaps decade of years and over a million young men and women needed to fix it?

Because it'll take more then a peacekeeping force. To fix this, you'll have to build the roads, ports, hospitals, and schools, staff them and train the locals to replace you when you leave. You'll need soldiers, marines, police and firemen, doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers and surveyors... Just to start with.

Fixing this requires rebuilding the countries in question from the ground up and staying long enough to be sure the local replacements can handle it.

Oh, while you're doing that, rival nations sure you just mean to monopolize the resources will be plotting to force you out and taking advantage of your occupation to advance their influence elsewhere. The local elites thinking you mean to replace (and let's be honest... you do) will be fighting you every step of the way with every tool they got. Your domestic opponents will be denouncing you as a neo-colonial tyrant to everyone who will listen and the media will swarm looking for any tragedy or mistake they can wave around and make copy out of.

You will be blamed for every mistake or bad result. You will never get credit for any good that happens.

That's why no one does anything. The price is to high.

[Derek Thunder]

I'm sorry, I agree with Minx in this case. Many regions of the world have enormous mineral wealth, comparable to that of the Eastern Congo. Blaming everything wrong with this conflict on "Western Colonialism" is a sham argument at the most generous. Besides, any article that off-handedly dismisses the ethnic component in that war without so much as an explanation is plainly talking out their ass.

I don't think the article is blaming everything on the west, but a lot of it can be laid at the feet of private interests willing to purchase resources without asking any questions. One can't sustain a prolonged war on bake sales, after all, so it's in the best interest of factions to fight for raw materials. It also indirectly benefits the west in that factional violence serves as a destabilizing force for governments - governments that might tax or nationalize resource extraction under more stable circumstances. Everyone 'wins' in this relationship except for the people actually living in the country. Mind you, it's not an equal relationship, as the factions cannot dictate price without being undercut by competitors. If there were to be a general embargo on resources from the Congo, it would either starve the militias for cash or force nations to more openly endorse factions and thus be dealt with in the realm of international opinion.

It's a system of exploitation where the West tolerates the violence occurring in exchange for access to cheap resources necessary for modern life. We perpetuate this status quo when we continue to buy.

This of course sets aside the legacy of colonialism in Africa where western powers largely did not bother to set up civil institutions, thus giving them a grave disadvantage compared to nations like India.

Nobody wants to do anything. They would rather look the other way. The question is 'why' does the rest of the world look the other way?

It's profitable.

Okay, to be less glib, as tied in to what I said above, there's no material benefit to intervene, and the status quo is perfectly acceptable. There's also a political relevance issue in the US, the internal affairs of Africa do not rank high in the priorities of voters and as Frigid said, a commitment to "fix" the Congo would be incredibly expensive.

Edit: From The Independent:

...Once the Congo was drenched in death, the UN commissioned a panel of international statesmen to travel the country and uncover the reasons behind the war. They found that the Rwandan government's story hid a much darker truth. The Rwandans had a clear intention, right from the beginning: to seize Congo's massive mineral wealth, to grab the coltan mine I am standing in now and thousands like it, and to sell it on to us, the waiting world, as we quickly flicked the channel away from the news of this war with our coltan-filled remote control. The other countries came in not because they believed in repelling aggression, but because they wanted a piece of the Congolese cake. The country was ravaged by "armies of business", commanded by men who "carefully planned the redrawing of the regional map to redistribute wealth," the UN declared.

The UN experts knew this because the Rwandan troops did not head for the areas where the génocidaires were hiding out. They headed straight for the mines like this one in Kalehe, and they swiftly enslaved the populations to dig for them. They did not clear out the génocidaires - they teamed up with them to rape Congo. Jean-Pierre Ondekane, the chief of the Rwandan forces in Goma, urged his units to maintain good relations "with our Interhamwe [génocidaires] brothers." They set up a Congo Desk that whisked billions out of the country and into Rwandan bank accounts - and they fought to stay and pillage some more. The UN found that a Who's Who of British, American and Belgian companies were involved in the illegal exploitation of Congolese resources. The ones they recommended for further investigation included Anglo-American PLC, Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and De Beers. The British Government - while boasting of its humanitarian goals in Africa - barely followed up the report, publicly acquitting a few corporations like Anglo-American whose subisidary AngloGold Ashanti has been shown by Human Rights Watch to have developed links with a murderous armed group in the region, and leaving others like De Beers in an "unresolved" category.

Oh, and the reason why this invasion was so profitable? Global demand for coltan was soaring throughout the war because of the massive popularity of coltan-filled Sony PlayStations. While Sony itself does not use Congolese coltan, its sudden need for vast amounts of the metal drove up the price - which intensified the war. As Oona King, one of the few British politicians to notice Congo, explains as we travel together for a few days: "Kids in Congo were being sent down mines to die so that kids in Europe and America could kill imaginary aliens in their living rooms."

Link.

[The Minx]

I don't think the article is blaming everything on the west, but a lot of it can be laid at the feet of private interests willing to purchase resources without asking any questions. One can't sustain a prolonged war on bake sales, after all, so it's in the best interest of factions to fight for raw materials. It also indirectly benefits the west in that factional violence serves as a destabilizing force for governments - governments that might tax or nationalize resource extraction under more stable circumstances. Everyone 'wins' in this relationship except for the people actually living in the country. Mind you, it's not an equal relationship, as the factions cannot dictate price without being undercut by competitors. If there were to be a general embargo on resources from the Congo, it would either starve the militias for cash or force nations to more openly endorse factions and thus be dealt with in the realm of international opinion.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The ongoing conflicts do not benefit the West or private interests. The effects of the war might as well be taxes for all that it increases difficulty in getting to the goods, only more so than the lawful kind, since wars undermine the supply and make the resource more expensive. Moreover, it makes the supply unreliable, which is bad for business. That there were companies involved in buying the stuff over there does not mean that they wouldn't rather do business in an environment with rule of law.

This of course sets aside the legacy of colonialism in Africa where western powers largely did not bother to set up civil institutions, thus giving them a grave disadvantage compared to nations like India.

There were civil institutions, they just didn't make it to modern times. Again, if this is the fault of the west, the same problems would be seen elsewhere since Africa was hardly the only continent conquered by the European powers. It's been half a century already, and in the mean time the Pacific Rim has gone from strength to strength.

Okay, to be less glib, as tied in to what I said above, there's no material benefit to intervene, and the status quo is perfectly acceptable. There's also a political relevance issue in the US, the internal affairs of Africa do not rank high in the priorities of voters and as Frigid said, a commitment to "fix" the Congo would be incredibly expensive.

To fix the Congo would also involve a nation-building invasion which didn't go very smoothly the last time around. :(


From the article:

Oh, and the reason why this invasion was so profitable? Global demand for coltan was soaring throughout the war because of the massive popularity of coltan-filled Sony PlayStations. While Sony itself does not use Congolese coltan, its sudden need for vast amounts of the metal drove up the price - which intensified the war. As Oona King, one of the few British politicians to notice Congo, explains as we travel together for a few days: "Kids in Congo were being sent down mines to die so that kids in Europe and America could kill imaginary aliens in their living rooms."

OK, sorry, but this part is just offensively disingenuous. So now those companies who aren't even using Congo as a source for these materials are also to blame? And people who don't do business with companies who trade there are guilty too? What would the Independent have us do exactly, not use technology any more?

[Mayabird]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The ongoing conflicts do not benefit the West or private interests.

Au contraire. You think the De Beers cartel doesn't like stocking their diamond stockpiles for super-cheap? They can buy gems for practically nothing from people who traded them for cheap weapons so they could enslave more people (and slave labor is cheap if you don't care about keeping them alive). They make huge profits by buying up everything cheap and controlling the market so they can sell very high. It's evil but works very well for them.

Same for pretty much every other company that does business there. They have no reason to demand better conditions or even lack of enslavement of the labor force because they know nothing will happen to them. We could boycott plenty of companies that have something to do with it without your silly "give up all technology" strawmen.

Unless you're going to say that we can't live without useless sparkly overpriced rocks marketed as a marriage gimmick.

[The Minx]

The De Beers cartel can control the market (by selling at a higher price than they buy) because they are a cartel, not because of the war in the Congo. And I'm still not seeing how conflict in a resource-producing area leads to the resources there becoming cheaper for said traders.

[Derek Thunder]

The De Beers cartel can control the market (by selling at a higher price than they buy) because they are a cartel, not because of the war in the Congo. And I'm still not seeing how conflict in a resource-producing area leads to the resources there becoming cheaper for said traders.

Militias are desperate to purchase arms and training, have tenuous control over resources, cannot bargain as a nationalized resource concern can, cannot place tariffs or duties. There are also other factions selling the same goods in the same area that are willing to undercut for steady business.

[The Minx]

Militias are desperate to purchase arms and training, have tenuous control over resources, cannot bargain as a nationalized resource concern can, cannot place tariffs or duties.

They can place tariffs and duties, even if they don't have legal jurisdiction to do so. It's called "protection money". For that reason, they're perfectly capable of bargaining, it's not as though they have any kind of accountability.

There are also other factions selling the same goods in the same area that are willing to undercut for steady business.

If they're killing each other rather than competing peacefully, there's going to be less viable competition, not more.

[Derek Thunder]

They can place tariffs and duties, even if they don't have legal jurisdiction to do so. It's called "protection money". For that reason, they're perfectly capable of bargaining, it's not as though they have any kind of accountability

With multiple factions controlling slices of the Congolese pie, the incentive is for a race to the bottom in prices.

Think of it this way - If the multinationals say no, it doesn't hurt them all that much. They simply buy from other countries at market prices. If the warlords say no, they find themselves without money for new weapons, and at the mercy of their neighbors.

[Mayabird]

The De Beers cartel can control the market (by selling at a higher price than they buy) because they are a cartel, not because of the war in the Congo. And I'm still not seeing how conflict in a resource-producing area leads to the resources there becoming cheaper for said traders.

They got to be a cartel in the first place by fanning the flames and maintaining it keeps their control. Stability would mean outsiders not controlled by De Beers possibly coming in and buying diamonds themselves since they wouldn't have to go through circuitous routes involving weapons dealers first.

[The Minx]

With multiple factions controlling slices of the Congolese pie, the incentive is for a race to the bottom in prices.

Think of it this way - If the multinationals say no, it doesn't hurt them all that much. They simply buy from other countries at market prices. If the warlords say no, they find themselves without money for new weapons, and at the mercy of their neighbors.

Yea, standard market forces. Of course there will be competition between the warlords to get deals. But the point is that it happens when there's peace in a region too, only then you don't have production disrupted by people being killed all the time.

The De Beers cartel can control the market (by selling at a higher price than they buy) because they are a cartel, not because of the war in the Congo. And I'm still not seeing how conflict in a resource-producing area leads to the resources there becoming cheaper for said traders.

They got to be a cartel in the first place by fanning the flames and maintaining it keeps their control. Stability would mean outsiders not controlled by De Beers possibly coming in and buying diamonds themselves since they wouldn't have to go through circuitous routes involving weapons dealers first.

Um, how does De Beers "control" anything in the Congo? The best they can do is buy stuff from the warlords, and it's not as though they can prevent others moving in and doing the same.


------
EDIT: "it's not as though they can't prevent" should have been "it's not as though they can prevent", of course

[Hadrianvs]

This of course sets aside the legacy of colonialism in Africa where western powers largely did not bother to set up civil institutions, thus giving them a grave disadvantage compared to nations like India.

With the notable exception of the Cape Colony, serious European presence in Africa lasted well under a century. There wasn't any time to set up civil institutions. On top of that, the Indians were civilized to begin with. The civil institutions established by the British were upgrades to the already existing framework, rather than something woven out of whole cloth.

That said, some efforts to set up civil institutions were actually successful despite the narrow time frame. The problem was that these institutions were built on the assumption that the colonies would be kept in perpetuity. As such, they were integrally dependent on both the European settlers and administrative ties with the capital in Europe. After independence, the settlers were removed of their positions of power, and the administrative ties with Europe cut off. Essentially, the very act of attaining independence utterly destroyed whatever civil institutions existed.