Resources_Reflection Memo

Our class discussion on resources and conflicts in Africa focused on the mainstream narrative of viewing minerals as the cause of the civil wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Sierra Leone. I found the reflections of my fellow colleagues on the motivations driving militias to fighting very interesting. Is it greed or grievance? War appears to be a lucrative business, but what we believe are the economic causes behind the conflicts are, in reality, justifications hiding different motivations, and giving opportunities to the actors involved to become more powerful and raise their socio-economic status. The insurgents might be motivated by a desire to better their situation if they believe that joining the rebellion will be rewarding, or might be driven by a resentment, with either historical or personal foundations, strong enough to motivate an individual to violent engagement. I found it hard to grasp the difference between greed and grievance, because the two are strongly interdependent in many contexts and, hence, impossible to distinguish. The term greed itself refers to how much of something the person owns, but the very fact that the person does not have enough of it and wants more could be the frustration motivating him or her to join the insurgent group. It is grievance, not greed.

          Greed is often patronised and considered the only cause of conflicts, as with minerals in Africa, because the most apparent and obvious consequence of wars is economic decline. Therefore, economy becomes the easiest and fastest ground to work on to obtain short-term fixes. An example is the legislation of Dodd Frank: an economic solution for a political problem. Greed is much more likely to be the motivation of external actors trying to be involved in the conflict to benefit from the country’s state of confusion. As one of my classmate said, during a war the price of commodities shrinks and this appeals to greedy Western corporations. While greed is selfish, grievance is often a shared sentiment. I believe that an individualistic feeling alone cannot be the cause of a war, but grievance instead has a bigger power as the frustration of a small group can mobilize a significant part of the population.

Conflicts are multi-faceted realities and, as such, the result of interactions of grievances and economic opportunities. Therefore, I do not think that it is fruitful to speak of an “either greed or grievance” theory, but rather that the actions of the insurgents and their apparent motivations must be explained and understood on the basis of the different socio-political contexts. For example, if an insurgent group has already been involved in an armed conflict, it has both the grievance and the greed, respectively the sufferings of the previous conflict and the weapons endowment, to engage in violence again. Likewise, if a group loses its power, it will be motivated to rebel due to both grievance and greed, respectively frustration over the loss of power and the desire to regain the correlated benefits. Therefore, the narrative that sees greed as the pure cause of conflicts in Africa is not only unsatisfactory, but also misleading.

          Another interesting point brought up in class was the question of why are minerals the only explanation in the mainstream narrative of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Nobody would argue against minerals being one dimension fuelling the armed violence in the country, but why has it become the central story when talking about the conflict? Why are Western media and campaigns, such as the Enough strategy, so focused on this aspect while neglecting others? Reliability and transparency of mineral companies is only part of the problem, which includes weak institutions and bad governance among others. If these are not fixed first, economic solutions alone would not achieve much in terms of bringing the conflict to an end. However, focusing on banning illegal mining activities that are directly linked to our everyday objects, such as mobile phones, is a much more relatable narrative for Western consumers. The idea that by purchasing a phone you are financing the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo does have quite a strong impact in comparison with grievances of individuals in the remote rural villages of the country. However, to me it still does not appear to me a solid justification of why placing exclusively minerals at the centre of the narrative.

          By focusing on minerals, the Western world is missing the point trying to make itself feel better, but this deceives what could be really done to end the conflict. No mention has been done to strengthening the government or increasing the employment rate. Probably many corporations would even oppose the Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank legislation being rolled back, because it gives them a sense of superiority by testifying in favour of their conflict-free products. Was there a desire to make a difference in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, business incentives quickly substituted it. It seems to be economic colonialism hidden behind justifications of ethical production. Thinking that by simply buying a phone you are contributing to the killing of innocent people is more than an oversimplified idea, it delays real help. But if corporations know that economic solutions will not go further than making them accountable for illegal activities, why do Western activists continue to promote this misleading narrative? It would be interesting to discuss more about this.