How Congress Devastated Congo
9th August 2011
IT’S a long way from the marble halls of Congress to the ailing mining towns of eastern Congo, but the residents of Nyabibwe and Nzibira know exactly what’s to blame for their economic woes.
The “Loi Obama” or Obama Law — as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform act of 2010 has become known in the region — includes an obscure provision that requires public companies to indicate what measures they are taking to ensure that minerals in their supply chain don’t benefit warlords in conflict-ravaged Congo. The provision came about in no small part because of the work of high-profile advocacy groups like the Enough Project and Global Witness, which have been working for an end to what they call “conflict minerals.”
Unfortunately, the Dodd-Frank law has had unintended and devastating consequences, as I saw firsthand on a trip to eastern Congo this summer. The law has brought about a de facto embargo on the minerals mined in the region, including tin, tungsten and the tantalum that is essential for making cellphones.
The smelting companies that used to buy from eastern Congo have stopped. No one wants to be tarred with financing African warlords — especially the glamorous high-tech firms like Apple and Intel that are often the ultimate buyers of these minerals. It’s easier to sidestep Congo than to sort out the complexities of Congolese politics — especially when minerals are readily available from other, safer countries.
For locals, however, the law has been a catastrophe. In South Kivu Province, I heard from scores of artisanal miners and small-scale purchasers, who used to make a few dollars a day digging ore out of mountainsides with hand tools. Paltry as it may seem, this income was a lifeline for people in a region that was devastated by 32 years of misrule under the kleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko (when the country was known as Zaire) and that is now just beginning to emerge from over a decade of brutal war and internal strife.
No surprises here.
Every time politicians pee in a process because they think that doing so will make it taste better, it winds up tasting … about what you would expect.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as my granny used to say.
August 9th, 2011 at 15:14
So the answer is to just go ahead and buy the stuff and don’t worry about financing warlords? Is that your arguement?
August 10th, 2011 at 11:39
The warlords didn’t go away when we stopped buying materials. (We have embargoed Cuba for nearly half a century and Castro is still in charge.) Yes, sometimes you have to consider the overall situation. The warlords are making money, but the populace can still eat if I buy tungsten.
If you want to get rid of the warlords, then you have to take specific action to do so.
On the same subject, while I might care (even deeply) about the people in those shit hole countries, I care many times more about the safety, security, and economic welfare of the people in my own country. I want a President who feels the same way, and I want a Congress that behaves like America is important. We have neither.
August 10th, 2011 at 12:15
So financing warlords is OK with conservatives. Check.
(Refresh my memory, but wasn’t it you who said that if we can’t shoot the mice, we should at least not feed them?)
And I fail to see how the unintended consequences half a world away of a provision inserted into a bill to regulate–purportedly, anyway–Wall Street trading indicates that the President and Congress don’t care about the country. Care to elaborate the connection? That is if there is any connection other than your knee-jerk determination to end every statement with Obama delenda est!