In our most recent class, we discussed the connections between resources and violence,
focusing mainly on the Democratic Republic of Congo and touching lightly on Sierra Leone.
From Monday’s discussion, two of the topics raised were particularly fascinating to me, and
through my reflection I hope to engage these ideas and to ask further questions. Firstly, I want to
discuss both the flawed concept and defining of the conflict in the DRC as a mineral or resource
war, and then investigate whether changing simple wording would also change its actuality.
Furthermore, I’d like to put this in context with the role of micro actors in the continuation of
violence, and then further this by discussing how the international community may appropriately
respond.
Despite the prevailing narrative of mineral-fueled violence, from the literature and class
discussion, it is clear minerals are not the sole motive or financial means of war in the DRC. As
pointed out in the reading, if this were the case, which it is not, then the theaters of war would be
where minerals are most lucrative. Furthermore, the idea that minerals or certain resources have
inherent value, is flawed. I agree with the argument that the value put on resources is socially
constructed, because who initially has the resources seems to have little effect on anything of a
social or economic nature until there is a demand for it. A clear example of this is shown by the
DRC’s plentiful natural supply of tantalum, which went hardly noticed until its price on the
international market skyrocketed. While the DRC had the same large supply all along, tantalum
did not make it a richer place, nor did it cause fighting among its people. On the same note, I
also agree that distinguishing certain resources from one another proves unhelpful in the
discussion about the DRC’s conflict. All wars are fought with resources despite their specifics,
and thus, are resource wars. So, would a renaming of the conflict, in turn, center its focus more
appropriately? No, as re defining the conflict may be just as problematic as leaving it as it is. The
danger in confining it to any specific title would once again streamline the narrative, possibly
downplaying or simply ignoring it’s vital components. Furthermore, believing any war is
singular to one motive, and simply one word, is in its nature extremely reductive.
An example of a downplayed, yet vital component in the DRC’s conflict, is the role of its
micro actors in the continuation of violence. As pointed out in class, natural resources do not
motivate violence, societies do. One of the initial topics of discussion was how many ways, other
than through minerals, that wealth is accumulated. This includes roadblocks, taxations on
virtually everything, looting and pillaging, along with much more. What makes this so pertinent
in the continuation of violence is that it is participated in by average citizens as well as soldiers,
insurgency groups, disenfranchised peoples, and so on. Because it is inclusive of nearly every
level in the societal structure, to some extent everyone is using aspects of it as their means of
survival. As pointed out by one student, if the state cannot protect you, you are essentially forced
to align yourself one way or another for your own self-preservation. This is not greed, but
survival in a cycle with no alternatives. So, the question can be posed: in terms of the role of the
international community, how can they properly respond? As international actors are largely on
the demand side of goods, would cutting back demand or altering regulations break the cycle of
violence within Congolese society? This, as clearly shown by the failure of the Dodd-Frank Act
put forth by the United States, can easily backfire. Though, sections 1502-1504 were created in
an effort to foster transparency by curbing the flow of revenue fueling Congolese violence, little
regarding the actual security situation improved. In part, this is because it was focused on the
minerals and resources side of the conflict, which as discussed earlier is not exclusive to other
actors in the DRC. In this respect, thoroughly investigating a variety of actors in a conflict can
only be beneficial to understanding it wholistically, both in regards to business, but especially
when creating legislation.
focusing mainly on the Democratic Republic of Congo and touching lightly on Sierra Leone.
From Monday’s discussion, two of the topics raised were particularly fascinating to me, and
through my reflection I hope to engage these ideas and to ask further questions. Firstly, I want to
discuss both the flawed concept and defining of the conflict in the DRC as a mineral or resource
war, and then investigate whether changing simple wording would also change its actuality.
Furthermore, I’d like to put this in context with the role of micro actors in the continuation of
violence, and then further this by discussing how the international community may appropriately
respond.
Despite the prevailing narrative of mineral-fueled violence, from the literature and class
discussion, it is clear minerals are not the sole motive or financial means of war in the DRC. As
pointed out in the reading, if this were the case, which it is not, then the theaters of war would be
where minerals are most lucrative. Furthermore, the idea that minerals or certain resources have
inherent value, is flawed. I agree with the argument that the value put on resources is socially
constructed, because who initially has the resources seems to have little effect on anything of a
social or economic nature until there is a demand for it. A clear example of this is shown by the
DRC’s plentiful natural supply of tantalum, which went hardly noticed until its price on the
international market skyrocketed. While the DRC had the same large supply all along, tantalum
did not make it a richer place, nor did it cause fighting among its people. On the same note, I
also agree that distinguishing certain resources from one another proves unhelpful in the
discussion about the DRC’s conflict. All wars are fought with resources despite their specifics,
and thus, are resource wars. So, would a renaming of the conflict, in turn, center its focus more
appropriately? No, as re defining the conflict may be just as problematic as leaving it as it is. The
danger in confining it to any specific title would once again streamline the narrative, possibly
downplaying or simply ignoring it’s vital components. Furthermore, believing any war is
singular to one motive, and simply one word, is in its nature extremely reductive.
An example of a downplayed, yet vital component in the DRC’s conflict, is the role of its
micro actors in the continuation of violence. As pointed out in class, natural resources do not
motivate violence, societies do. One of the initial topics of discussion was how many ways, other
than through minerals, that wealth is accumulated. This includes roadblocks, taxations on
virtually everything, looting and pillaging, along with much more. What makes this so pertinent
in the continuation of violence is that it is participated in by average citizens as well as soldiers,
insurgency groups, disenfranchised peoples, and so on. Because it is inclusive of nearly every
level in the societal structure, to some extent everyone is using aspects of it as their means of
survival. As pointed out by one student, if the state cannot protect you, you are essentially forced
to align yourself one way or another for your own self-preservation. This is not greed, but
survival in a cycle with no alternatives. So, the question can be posed: in terms of the role of the
international community, how can they properly respond? As international actors are largely on
the demand side of goods, would cutting back demand or altering regulations break the cycle of
violence within Congolese society? This, as clearly shown by the failure of the Dodd-Frank Act
put forth by the United States, can easily backfire. Though, sections 1502-1504 were created in
an effort to foster transparency by curbing the flow of revenue fueling Congolese violence, little
regarding the actual security situation improved. In part, this is because it was focused on the
minerals and resources side of the conflict, which as discussed earlier is not exclusive to other
actors in the DRC. In this respect, thoroughly investigating a variety of actors in a conflict can
only be beneficial to understanding it wholistically, both in regards to business, but especially
when creating legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment