Interesting article from Reuters on DR Congo’s illegal mines, with this opening line:
If you were a Congolese ex-fighter looking for a new way to earn a living, would you be more likely to take up
classes in batik textiles and farming to survive, or start mining for precious minerals which might make you rich? Given the fact that the average ex-combatant hasn’t had a chance to go to school, and is well used to dicing with death, it’s just not realistic to think that Congo’s illegal mining sector is going to fade away with a few well-meaning aid agency projects to provide alternative livelihoods.Photo of miner preparing to sift mud looking for gold nuggets.
About 80% of mining in Congo is illegal. The resources range from the commonly valuable, such as diamonds and gold, to coltan and cassiterite used in hi-tech electronics. The buyers are Indian and Lebanese mineral buyers, and China. International export from the DRC is difficult, so the resources are often transported via Rwanda or Uganda. And it’s become more profitable than ever for all the major parties involved, as the Asian regional boom has fuelled rocketing prices for coltan and cassiterite over the past few years. Of course, this hasn’t helped miners, who have seen their pay decrease in this very dangerous job as more and more people are getting into the business and driving down wages. Having said that, the daily wage of a few dollars a day is pretty good in the context of Congo, where the annual per capita income is around $120 a year.
The article indirectly gets to the heart of a topic I’ve long wanted to discuss in greater detail: corporations and exploitation in the undeveloped world, although not in the way the topic is typically framed.
Most who talk about corporations in this context are usually outraged at some perceived injustice. Yet Jared Diamond rebuked this notion in his book Collapse, and in subsequent interviews and talks afterwards (I’ve previously posted about his comments on the subject here). For whatever perceived failings, multinational corporations are subject to far more scrutiny than any other entity in the global economy, are the parties most vulnerable to boycotts and sour public sentiment. As a result, such corporations are the quickest to act to remedy wrongs. Or as Diamond noted on his travels, in Papua New Guinea, the oilfields were managed more scrupulously than the national parks.
In today’s age of corporate social responsibility, Congo’s dangerous mines would be a perfect area for international corporations to get involved. The mines in Congo are managed by cowboys after a quick buck with no concern for the safety of miners. Any level of international corporate involvement would be positive: safety, training, efficiency, environmental health, community development, and just about any other aspect you can think of. With growing profit potential, we can only hope.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Chief Wiggim
May 10, 2007
11:24 pm
Seriously, a belated congratulations and best wishes for the future.
Thomas
May 11, 2007
1:28 am
As for corporate hope, while a number of corporations do a great deal of good in the third world, Union Carbide and their ilk still have a lot of reparation to make.
snow
May 11, 2007
1:43 am
At least that's better than local outfits that make no pretense of being socially responsible.
Any corporation that isn't focussed on profits as the bottom line won't be in business for long, especially with the mountain of regulations and taxes that most companies face.
Curzon
May 11, 2007
2:11 am
Thomas: that's the standard view, and why I posted this alternative outlook. The truth is, you'll never see any improvement in Congo's conditions under the current management and market conditions. Bring in some outside investment that will demand accountability, safety, and be subject to international scrutiny, and there is potential for change.
Paul A. Pumphrey
May 11, 2007
9:40 am
Not since World War II have governments' policies and corporate greed cause so many innocent lives to be lost. Yet corporate media for the most part has acted as if the war is not happening or it is a minor battle between a couple of African States. If one is the follow the corporate media the war in the neighboring Sudan is much greater in lost of life and robbing of wealth than the DR Congo has very been. The highest claims for lost of life in the in the Sudan including the Darfur region is 400,000, yet in the DR Congo the number is over 4,000,000. Yes, that is ten times that of the Sudan.
Life is precious and the unnecessary lost of life should be challenged when every it happens. One should wonder why the silence of the different national and international churches on the genocidal war in the DR Congo? Why after being victims of genocide the Jewish community has been so silent on the genocidal war in the DR Congo? Why have the Pro Life movement been so silent about this genocidal war? But most important question is why are most of the members of these institutions, organizations and movements been so silent about this genocidal war in the DR Congo?
Curzon
May 11, 2007
1:56 pm
Certainly the larger the economy, the larger the consumption of resources, hence US/EU mass consumption. But that has been around for decades. It is the boom in places such as India and China, with untapped consumer markets of literally billions, that will drive up commodity prices and affect the marketability of exports from the Congo and elsewhere in Africa -- and what is directly impacting the mines in the DRC.
And as for timeline, the Congo Wars were from 1960-65 and 1996-2003, not 40 years. The thirty-year interlude of the Mobutu administration was abysmally corrupt, but relatively peaceful. As that adminsitration was backed by the US for Cold War competition purposes, you could place responsibility in the US for that. But the second Congo Civil War has wholly different causes. If you wish to otherwise show any other level of cause-and-effect relationship, you'll have to bring up specifics. And instead of commenting here, read by only a few hundred of people, you'd probably do better to contribute to the "wiki entry.":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
While I agree with you about the lack of media coverage between Congo and Sudan, the major difference is that the casualities in th Congo (more accurately estimated at 2,000,000 over the past 10 years) has been a civil war with major civilian casualties. The casualties in Sudan over the past 4 years are certainly lower at 250-400,000, but that is a government supported (or at least condoned) genocide, an act legally requiring action by the international community, as opposed to a war, civil or otherwise, the right to which is incumbent in the sovereignty of all nations (except Japan).
The primary driver of media coverage and content is not corporate agenda but what interests people -- the religious aspect of Sudan has millions of Americans very interested.
Final point: there is at present no real multinational corporate presence in the DRC -- and surprise, it's one of the most backward, violent, impoverished countries in the world. That's no coincidence. Bring in corporations, and you will raise standards across the board.
Dan tdaxp
May 11, 2007
2:19 pm
World War II is an turning point for Africa, because it was after that war that decolonialists began their awful ascent to power in Europe. African genocides are the fault of those who opposed the Empires.
Michael
May 11, 2007
7:13 pm
One other comment, on "Bring in corporations, and you will raise standards across the board.". Sometimes, the standards need to be raised before the corporations will want to be brought in.
Curzon
May 12, 2007
1:53 am
No, corporations aren't looking to do good -- they're made for profit, for reasons Snow notes -- but because modern consumer society is rich and comfortable enough to demand certain minimum standards of morality in management from corporations, corporations have become one of the best ways to export increased standards of living to the undeveloped world.
That's a nice bumper sticker slogan, but it's not that simple. In Congo, where standards are abysmal and there is no hope for positive change... except, as the article notes, outside investors.
Michael
May 14, 2007
8:34 pm
That's what I mean by power. Sometimes it comes in the form of money, or government regulations, or sophisticated organisation, but sometimes it comes in the form of the ability to go to Bangladesh for spring break, or a means of communicating with many other people at once, or a societal disapproval of certain behaviors. And like all powers, it can be used for good or for ill.
To be fair, though, I haven't read COLLAPSE yet (it's in my ever-growing stack of books I possess, but haven't read yet) so we may be talking at cross-purposes here.
"That's a nice bumper sticker slogan, but it's not that simple. In Congo, where standards are abysmal and there is no hope for positive change"¦ except, as the article notes, outside investors."
Actually didn't intend for it to be a bumper sticker slogan. I was thinking of assorted observations by Dr Barnett and his commentors about the role of Rule of Law in attracting outside investment. If some countries are attractive enough that investors are willing come in and build the institutions they need, then great! But what of those places that aren't as well endowed? In those cases, foreign companies aren't the saviors establishing the Law so much as a benefit of someone else establishing it first. I wasn't trying to dispute your thesis so much as point out its limitations.