From Blood Diamond to Blood Coltan: Should International Corporations Pay the Price for the Rape of the Dr Congo
| Citation | Vol. 12 No. 2 |
| Publication year | 2009 |
Introduction
In 2002, while the international community was congratulating itself for establishing the Kimberley Process, aimed at clamping down on the illegal trade of conflict diamond, the plundering of the Democratic Republic of Congo's other natural resources was a still a daily reality. With one of the "richest deposits of copper, cobalt, gold, industrial diamonds and other minerals" a staggering wildlife and one of the "world's mightiest river systems," the DRC was blessed with unbelievable natural resources.(fn1) Unfortunately this would also be part of its death sentence. The Congolese people have witnessed in despair how, years after years, their natural resources were outrageously used for the benefit of rebel groups, neighboring nations or multi-million dollar international corporations. Even though the story of the "rape of Congo"(fn2) finds its roots in abuses committed under King Leopold II,(fn3) carried forward under the Belgian rule and finally completed under the kleptocratic dictatorship of Mobutu,(fn4) the scope of this paper is far more modest. The time frame taken into consideration for the purposes of this analysis will be limited to the period going from the beginning of the nineties until the present time. The mass-scale looting and illegal trade of stolen minerals have fueled two armed conflicts and have originated multiple human rights violations,(fn5) but the main actors of the controversy still remain impune. Bearing in mind the scale and multiple implications of the issue at hand, it would certainly be unrealistic to try to adopt a holistic approach in the study of the problem. This analysis will thus mainly focus on the role played by international corporations, and in particular U.S. businesses, which not only made the most out of the political chaos in which the country has long been immersed, but were also silent accomplices in serious human rights violations committed in the exploitation of precious minerals. This paper will therefore be articulated in five main parts: a) what exactly is "coltan" and why is it such a sought-after mineral; b) who are the main actors involved in the controversy; c) analysis of the procedures used for tracing the origin of other minerals, discussion over the applicability of those mechanisms to the coltan industry and the impact of such mechanisms on the local population; d) analysis of legal alternatives available, from a national and international standpoint, in order to make corporations accountable for their complicity in human rights violation, and analysis of the impact of other types of measures such as social pressure; and e) final considerations.
I. Background
Coltan: definition and main characteristics
At this stage, two basic questions need to be addressed: what exactly is "coltan", and what makes it such a sought-after mineral? Coltan is a term used almost exclusively in Central Africa to refer to "columbo-tantalite."(fn6) It is a combination of two rare ores, columbium (also known as niobium) and tantalum.(fn7) Both minerals are generally found together, even though tantalum is considered to be less abundant than niobium but offers more attractive features to the production of high-tech industry electronic devices.(fn8) Even though in terms of production, the RDC only accounts for a marginal percentage of the world production, being Australia the largest producer of tantalum, it seems very important to highlight that an estimated 80% of the world's known reserves of tantalum are found in Africa.(fn9) Moreover, 80% of such reserves are located in the eastern part of the RDC.(fn10) Tantalum's unique properties which include high reliability, low failure rates and capacity to withstand great changes of temperatures, makes it a crucial element in the production of tantalum capacitors which provide electrical storage.(fn11) The industrial application of this ore ranges from pacemakers, GPS or missiles guidance systems to cellular phones, laptops or video cameras, thus affecting a broad variety of fields.(fn12) The importance of this mineral is such that tantalite was classified as "strategic mineral" by the Pentagon.(fn13)
II. The actors of the controversy
The key role of neighboring countries and rebels groups
In 2000, a U.N. Panel of experts under the mandate of the former Secretary General Koffi Annan thoroughly analyzed the illegal exploitation of DR Congo's mineral resources and its links with the two armed conflicts which caused over four million casualties and two million displaced.(fn14) The economical and political unrest which have being affecting the eastern part of the RDC finds its origins in the 1994-1995 Rwandan refugee crisis.(fn15) Following the 1994 Rwandan genocide and fearing reprisals from Tutsi rebel forces, a substantial number of Hutus (including members of the Interahamwe)(fn16) crossed the border and sought refuge in the RDC.(fn17) This situation seriously disrupted the already fragile political and social balance of the region and was repeatedly used by Rwandan forces to justify the presence of its military forces on Congolese territory.(fn18) In 1996, the situation worsened and a group of rebels led by Laurent-Desire Kabila, the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (AFDL), launched an offensive to overthrow the decadent dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko.(fn19) This movement received the support of Angolan, Rwandan and Ugandan forces.(fn20) Several commentators have further denounced a number of foreign companies that started negotiating new mining deals with the rebels only a few weeks into the conflict.(fn21) This corporate participation, in the 1996 armed conflict, allowed Rwandan and Ugandan forces to gain a better understanding of the location and economical potential of the mineral resources found in eastern DRC, as the 2001 U.N. Panel of Experts' report emphasized.(fn22)
Despite the success of their joint offensive, aimed at conquering the country, the relationship between Kabila and its allies rapidly deteriorated and prompted the eruption of a second armed conflict in August 1998.(fn23) This time, the conflict pitched Rwandan and Ugandan forces on one side against the Congolese forces, backed by Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe, on the other.(fn24) In its analysis of the motivations behind Uganda and Rwanda's invasion of the DRC, the 2001 U.N. report clearly indicated that:
By comparing Uganda and Rwanda's budget allocation for their respective armed forces and these countries' actual expenditures, the 2001 U.N. Panel of Experts established a clear link between the exploitation of the Congolese mineral resources and the continuation of the conflict.(fn26) In the case at hand, the coltan industry proves to be an excellent example of such interdependence. Due to a sudden increase in demand, and a correlative supply shortage, the price of coltan spiked in late 1999 and early 2000.(fn27) This caused a "coltan rush" that, in turn, led to the violent expulsion of many farmers and their families, from their land, at the hands of rebel groups and ruthless businessmen.(fn28) These forced displacements particularly affected those properties where coltan could be found in abundance and in certain cases, slave labor was used in the exploitation of these coltan-rich areas.(fn29)
Illegal exploitation of DRC mineral resources
One of the more disputed and controversial concepts among the parties were arguably the criteria used by the U.N. Panel of Experts in order to determine the illegality of the exploitation of the aforesaid mineral resources. Uganda's and Rwanda's main argument is based on their contention that, during the hostilities, the legitimate Congolese government did not have any sovereignty over the zones under their influence.(fn30) Thus, their understanding is that the contracts signed between the rebel forces and international corporations are perfectly valid and enforceable.(fn31) Moreover, they invoke the 1999 Lusaka ceasefire agreement as fundamental legal support for their position.(fn32) This point of view was echoed by the report on the situation affecting the Great Lakes region, published by an "ad hoc" Belgian parliamentary commission of inquiry, which investigated the contribution of Belgian companies in fuelling the armed conflict that ravaged the DCR between 1998 and 2003.(fn33)
In contrast to these arguments, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) seems to have adopted a different view in its final judgment of the Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda case.(fn34) The ICJ rationale is based on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) provisions regulating the rights and obligations of parties involved in a situation of occupation.(fn35) Pursuant to article 47 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, pillage carried out by occupying forces is expressly prohibited.(fn36) Moreover, the Hague regulations clearly set forth that an occupying State is merely an...
To continue reading
Request your trial