Resources_Reflection Memo

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.

Resources_Reading Memo

Concerning the topic of mineral resources and violence I would like to comment on two points. First will be the analysis of causes of armed conflicts in DRC from the article by Ann Laudati and the second one will be the economic performance of African states as the explanation of increase in the amount of armed conflicts in Africa which was discussed in the article of Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler.

The article written by Ann Laudati Beyond minerals: broadening “economies of violence” in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo challenges the preponderant belief that mineral resources and their control are the main causes of armed conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Laudati claims that the bigger issue can be the land control than the resources control and economic activities of armed groups as well (e.g. hemp, charcoal, timber, taxes etc.). One of the arguments is the fact that even DRC´s regions without mineral resources are today experiencing armed conflicts. What really surprises me is that the author doesn´t mention the case of Katanga which is definitely one of the mineral-richest regions of DRC with a lot of insecurity and separatist groups, for example the Kata Katanga. To me it seems that exactly the case of Katanga actually shows that minerals are still very important, even though it might not be the only reason. But I think that the fact that the government profits a lot from the minerals located in that area and doesn’t redistribute fairly these incomes back to the region is one the main reasons for separatist tendencies and hence the violence. And of course the government has to oppose these tendencies because it doesn´t want to lose these resources. But of course I agree with the author that this can´t be the only reason for insecurity or even armed conflicts.

Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler in their article On the Incidence of Civil War in Africa examine the increasing number of armed conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa. They explain this reality with economic reasons – mainly the particular poor economic performance of these states. I definitely agree with clear linkage of the amount of conflicts to the economic performance because a large part of the conflicts has economic causes. However I feel that it can actually be a more complex problem and the there might be more reasons for this African particularity and it can be interesting to discover these other probable problems. There might be probably the influence of ethnic factors or of the colonization and decolonization eras or maybe others as well. The authors however mention problems concerning the social structure as one the alternative causes as Kaplan suggested.

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.

Resources_Reflection Memo

Natural resources have been , and still are one of the most important elements in order to understand the nature of violence in Africa. Since the arrival of colonialism, uncountable conflicts related with them , have shook the continent. Not all of this conflicts were directly provoked by the persuading of his recourses, but definitively the nature of this ambition, the very essence of the ``curse of natural resources´´ have underlay in greater or lesser way most of the political and economic processes that have took place in the continent, since the building of first colonial states to the defining of emancipated nations.Africans have largely paid for the well known ``curse ´´, and still does. Since the wars for south africans diamonds, passing by the Rubber exploitation in Belgian Congo, to nowadays exploitation of coltan, his peoples have seen how this huge riches have been ambitioned by many different actors . Even after decolonization they still wait for this moment where African resources will finally work for the improvement of his people's living conditions, and not anymore for the financing of war, or for the enrichment of corrupted elites, and foreigner opportunist. Finally the point of this introduction is to present the two class debates where the text is going to be focused. Who wins, with the huge violence that natural resources have tied off over Africa until today?, and also which international dimension does it have?

Africa is nowadays the most rich continent in natural resources in the world. It is estimated that they own about tenth of the planet’s oil reserves, a third of its mineral resources, and right now contains also two-thirds of diamonds world production.^[1] Beside that Africa is the poorest continent on earth, with a population that survives with an average of 1. 90 dollars at day, being also^[2] one of the most violent regions in our planet. Considering that situation the question that we should face is, where are going the incomes of this huge richness?, and why they can not be translated into better living conditions for his habitants? In order to answer the first we can say that the incomes derived from natural resources exploitation, goes mainly to violent armed groups, state's bureaucracy and corrupt political leaders, and finally foreign companies. So that, who are the losers of this distribution? The peoples of Africa, farmers, workers,etc and in summary the 99% that sees how this incomes never goes to health systems, education, or in summary anything that could work for the improvement of his living conditions. In that sense the analysis and deconstruction of this economic structure that subdue to violence is imprescindible if we ever want to work for the construction of a new reality in Africa where his peoples became finally the owners of his own riches.

Armed groups are precisely one of the most important actors in the understanding of this context, not just by the fact that they keep the profits from resources by themselves, but also that they use them for the financing of war, which also consumes states resources avoiding the possibility of use them in public politics, or economic development. Some significative examples of this situations can be the armed groups in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, or the civil war in Sierra Leone. This cases are related with many other elements inherents to African context as is state weakness, and the impossibility to maintain an effective control over the territory, but also lead us to another interesting dimension of the problem, the international. It is obvious that this groups find the way to export the resources they get into the international market, even besides there are international regulations on the issue, and several attempts on the international community to avoid the financing of this conflicts. In that way we must ask ourselves why this attempts are failing and what can be done from the international community to build a stronger strategy against this dark markets, including also weapons traffic, that is at the end sustaining the existing of this groups.

On respect of corruption and the enrichment of state's bureaucracy we can say that this fact is strongly related with another kind of violence that we can not forget, the one that is linked to underdevelopment and poverty. The development of social politics and health and education investment got extremely damaged when just a very little percentage of resources incomes goes to this pursuit. Angola can work as an example of this situation when after a long and destructive civil war the rebuilding boom have been under several accusations of irregularities. Accusations that gets reinforced by the fact that the president familiar circle have achieved a huge fortune derived from oil benefits.^[3] Looking at the international dimension it is remarkable that many western companies have also been under accusation of tax evasions(for example TSX-listed MagIndustries in Brazzaville, Congo), and disproportionated profits for the exploitation of the resources.^[4] A research made in 2017 by several justice and development african organizations revealed that this year african countries received in business and aid 161.6 billion dollars while 202.9 billion dollars leave the continent in company's profits, illegal activities, and climate change fight.^[5] This data may not be directly related to the usual debates concerning natural resources and violence but yet it is interesting to mention it as a kind of unnoticed economic violence that also have deep effects in african people's lives.

Finally when talking about violence in Africa we should not see it as an isolated reality fixed only to specific conflicts or context of civil war. The nature of violence in Africa is part of a huge substructure where are rooted very different kind of actors. The analysis of natural resources and the conflicts associated to them is undoubdably a key for the understanding of violence in the continent, but yet the analysis would be more complete if we introduce in the study elements like class structure, labour exploitation, or the gender and racial dichotomies that sometimes underlie the conflicts for natural resources. If we apply a micro perspective on the nature of conflicts related to natural resources we can see the violence they show is not only reflected in open conflicts, or in the total numbers of death. It is also violence the fact that in 2012 UNICEF denounced that 20.000 childs were working in coltan mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo earning less than one euro per day and working 12 hours under intimidation and extortion conditions. Gender analysis is also very interesting in the analysis of this other dimension of violence, as woman's who works in mineral exploitations suffer systematically sexual aggressions, and sexual violence. It is for example the case of Rustenburg mines in South Africa, where a medical charity research denounced that half of the women's working in there had suffered sexual violence, and one in four had been raped during his lifetime. ^[6] There is also a very important environmental dimension of violence, linked to this minerals exploitation that we can not forget. For example this same year , ``afrewatch´´an african human rights organization denounced that in Lualaba a province of south Congo <sup>[7]</sup> several rivers and lakes had been contaminated by toxic acid from a mineral exploitation, with disastrous consequences for local agriculture. It is necessary to consider also that most of this data is obtained from``legal´´ mines, under governmental control, but in those ruled by armed groups, there is no possibility to make this kind of research so his workers situation remains in the most absolute anonymity. Finally Racial dichotomies are also interesting to being mentioned as in countries like South-africa white people represent only 10% of the population,while they own more than 80% of land and economy, including the only african companies that exploit mineral resources in the continent.^[8]

As a conclusion it is interesting to point some reflexions on respect to the strategies that can be applied to pursuit the end of this long history of suffering linked to natural resources that so deeply rooted is into the history of African continent. It is imprescindible to demand a real compromise by western powers in order to fight the natural resources trade that finance armed groups. And that implies also pursue and judge the western great companies that still today act with impunity and shows links not just with this dark market of minerals but with the plunder and exploitation of african resources. It is time for western powers to put an end to any vestige of neocolonialism that could remain in his relation with Africa, and give to his people this possibility that for so long have been denied, the chance to transform his huge resources into a real improvement of their living conditions.

---

^[1] The echonomist: https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/08/commodities-africa.

^[2] World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty?locations=XQ-ZF-ZA.

^[3] African Arguments: Africanarguments.org/2017/08/14/angola-elections-ruling-family-dos-santos-worth-billions-what-happens-when-dad-steps-down.

^[4] CBC: www.cbc.ca/news/business/magindustries-probed-by-rcmp-over-bribery-allegations-in-congo-1.3091035.          

^[5] Honest               accounts 2017, how the world profit from Africa's health.                www.globaljustice.org.uk/search?search_api_views_fulltext=honest+account+2017+Africa.

^[6] BBC: www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37097941.

^[7] Afrewatch:        www.afrewatch.org/?q=article/mutanda-mining-should-assume-responsibility-polluting-luakusha-river-and-kando-lake-and.

^[8] Silicon Africa: siliconafrica.com/africans-live-on-a-continent-onwed-by-europeans.

Resources_Reflection Memo

In today’s class we discussed resources and their role in violent conflicts in Africa. We talked about many aspects, for example if the widely used mineral resources narrative is imposed internally or externally. I think that the narrative is mostly external because one thing that narrative should do is to offer an easy solution. As was said in the class the mineral resources narrative is something that impact us as western consumers. I believe that this narrative is so popular because we have the feeling that we can offer solution even though, as was already proved, not very useful one, which include many unintended consequences. This narrative also offers something that we as common people can do (stop buying products made of conflict diamonds and other minerals) so we can feel good about ourselves, we emotionally attach to the narrative and it becomes very successful.

     Another thing that we discussed is who benefits from the resources and what are the motivations. The resources were mentioned in the discussion as one of the motivations. The role of minerals is still very confusing for me because it sometimes seems that they are not important at all and even though they are used to sponsor the conflict there would be no difference if they would not be there, and sometimes it seems that the minerals are one of the main prices in the conflict. But as was said during the class I have to realize that we cannot even talk about the motivations of a whole group because every member has different reasons for joining, so while for someone minerals are important for someone else it is grievances rather than money from minerals. So how can we find a solution? Scholars keep discussing the role of minerals but if there are many groups and even each member within the group has different motivation how can we find effective solution? Should it include diamonds and other minerals, or should we focus solely on political causes of conflicts? The whole discussion about motivations also makes me wonder how much the role of minerals differ in each country? Were the mineral resources for example more influential in the conflict in Sierra Leone than in Democratic republic of Congo? Do they prolong the conflicts? Are there some groups that, as whole, fight solely over the minerals? I know that the war is not purely about resources, as was already said resources are important but the war is not only about them. But there are still many actors, so can we say about some group that their only goal are mineral resources? Can it for example be said about the government? It was said in class that president of Democratic Republic of Congo benefits from the mining a lot and he was able to accumulate wealth. Is it similar in other countries with resources? Are the governments also the primary beneficiaries? Or are the beneficiaries mostly the foreign companies? I remember that it was mentioned more than once in class that mostly the foreign companies benefit from the conflict and mineral resources. I do not completely understand that because I would say that conflict would make it more difficult for companies to get to these resources and with the legislation in place they have to often take the illegal route. But it seems obvious that they benefit from it in some ways and I was surprised to hear during the discussion how much is that and how much western companies actually profit from this conflict. I had some basic idea already after reading of the articles but after the discussion I was forced to think about it even more.

     We also talked about the role of militias, which was described as the voice of oppressed people, with the example from Nigeria. So, I have the impression that in Africa, at least with relations to minerals, rebels are the “good guys” while government is the “bad guy”. Of course, we cannot simplify it that much but the president in the Democratic Republic Congo benefits from the minerals while people does not. What about rebels? Is there any group that is, as in the example from Nigeria, the voice of oppressed people or do they used the resources only for themselves? We talked about the motivations, as I have already mentioned above, but we did not talk about what happens with the money from minerals. Are the rebels (I mean the individual rebels not the group as a whole) allowed to keep some of these money or the individual militia men get resources only from other activities like looting etc.? Do some of these rebel groups provide goods for some areas so they can gain support, or do they use civilians only to extract resources and not to give something to them in exchange for support? Does government use mineral resources to get support? I remember that diamonds played role in patrimonial relations in Sierra Leone but is it similar in other African countries that are rich in resources? It is becoming more and more obvious that we cannot treat Africa as one piece and that every state is very much different. The resources seem to play different role in different countries as well.

  The last major topic we discussed today was the theoretical level of greed and grievance theory. It is interesting to think about it. It was made clear that we cannot always clearly define what is greed and what is grievance and we all see it very differently. For me, most of the conflicts are over grievance. It is very difficult to imagine conflict that is purely based on greed. I am sure that there were some but for me the greed is always connected to grievance. We want something because we do not have it and we need it or we feel injustice that someone else have it and we do not. As my colleague said the greed is when we have enough and want more but for me when someone want something and decide to use violence to get it there is always some deeper reason that connects the greed to grievance.

     It was very interesting discussion and it raises many new question because this topic, as almost every other, is very complex. The role that mineral resources play, if there are group driven only by greed and by interest in controlling resources, hot the government and foreign companies benefit from it, what solution should we find and how to change the narrative to suit local people and not external actors (even though we heard today that these are used also internally) and many others.