In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), described by the UN in 2005 as the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis,” the sale of natural minerals helps to fund a violent conflict that has plagued the country since 1996.

The conflict between rebel and government forces has resulted in the torture, mass rape, and forced displacement of civilians, and about 5.4 million civilian deaths since 1996, making the conflict in the DRC the deadliest since World War II. The rebel forces (Forces Democratique de Liberation du Rwanda (FDLR)), the Congolese Army (FARDC), and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) are all threats to civilians in the DRC, as atrocities are committed by each group. According to STAND, a Student Anti-Genocide Coalition, although the violence in the DRC has not been labeled “genocide,” “it is characterized by intentional targeting of non-combatant civilians on an almost unparalleled scale.” The presence of UN peacekeepers in the region has not brought an end to the devastation.

According to the Enough Project’s Raise Hope for Congo Campaign,

“Greed for Congo’s natural resources has been a principal driver of atrocities and conflict throughout Congo’s tortured history. In eastern Congo today, these mineral resources are financing multiple armed groups…Armed groups earn hundreds of millions of dollars per year by trading four main minerals: the ores that produce tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold. This money enables the militias to purchase large numbers of weapons and continue their campaign of brutal violence against civilians, with some of the worst abuses occurring in mining areas.”

A majority of these conflict minerals are used in electronic devices, and the fact that the supply chain within the production of those electronic devices lacks transparency means that “consumers have no way to ensure that their purchases are not financing armed groups that regularly commit atrocities, including mass rape.”

Attempts have been made to raise awareness about the conflict mineral issue, especially by the Raise Hope for Congo Campaign, and also to urge officials to “commit to measures that pressure electronics companies to take responsibility for the minerals in their supply chains.”

A viable solution to the problem of conflict minerals has proved elusive.

The Dodd-Frank Act, adopted by the United States Congress in 2010, contains a provision requiring companies that use tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold, to “conduct and disclose due diligence on their supply chains in order to identify whether the those minerals originated in the Democratic Republic of Congo” with the goal of ensuring that all products made by companies using minerals are conflict-free; however, the provision does not contain clear regulations, rules which the Securities and Exchange Commission should have issued last year.

There is much controversy surrounding this first step toward assuring supply chain transparency. Arguments have been made that the legislation does not provide for institutional reform necessary to counter the negative effects on the Congolese economy the legislation would have, nor does it address the political, social, and economic roots of the conflict. Rather, because the legislation does not yet provide a regulatory framework for companies to follow, “many companies have chosen to play it safe and simply get their minerals elsewhere”; therefore, many “legitimate mining ventures that provided livelihoods for people have screeched to a halt” or have gone underground, impoverishing many families.

However, according to the Enough Project, “The bill has also accelerated reforms in the region that were previously unimaginable.” The UN Group of Experts report stated that the bill “has proved an important catalyst for traceability and certification initiatives and due diligence implementation in the minerals sector regionally and internationally.”

The UN report explains that although the bill has negatively affected the Congolese economy, it has prompted the beginning of reform by “reducing the level of conflict financing provided by these minerals” in regions that have begun to comply to the due diligence guidelines. In order to ensure that further changes inspired by the Dodd-Frank bill are positive, the SEC needs to publish its regulations, which would prompt companies to purchase minerals while complying with supply chain due diligence guidelines. According to the report,

“This can happen if the key concept of mitigation is incorporated into the SEC rules allowing for purchases of supply chains where military criminal network involvement is identified provided that they can demonstrate time-bound progress in marginalizing military involvement.”

The Dodd-Frank Act has sparked international attempts to “make trade in conflict minerals in the Great Lakes zone transparent and prevent it from financing the warmongers behind the troubles in eastern DRC,” as stated by the International Crisis Group. Strategies for combatting the conflict mineral problem include aiming “to re-establish legitimate control over the mines” and “to regulate trade to prevent conflict minerals from reaching the international market.”

As long as the international community continues to care about the mass violence caused by the conflict in the Congo, violence clearly perpetuated by the sale of conflict minerals, new discussions as to possible solutions that address both the root and result of the conflict can only yield new ideas.

Rather than condemning the adoption of Dodd-Frank for the negative economic results it has caused in the Congo thus far, energy should be spent working with the legislation to ensure that the reform it promises is achievable, and is achieved, soon, before the deaths of another 5.4 million civilians are financed, even if only partially, by the sale of conflict minerals.

It is essential to begin the process of enforcing due diligence in supply chain transparency, so that the Congo can begin to heal.

 

Reach Senior Opinion Editor Cara Palmer here or follow her on Twitter.