Mineral Trade Did Not Cause Conflict in the Congo

5 comments

1. At *RealClearWorld*, [Dominic Parker](https://www.hoover.org/profiles/dominic-parker) argues that the sale of minerals used as inputs for smartphones and other modern tech has not been the primary driver of recent violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Parker shows how misguided western advocacy against “conflict minerals” has had the counterproductive effect of severely diminishing international trade with the DRC, specifically its conflict-ridden and impoverished east, reducing regional employment and access to healthcare — with predictably negative results. Parker argues that regulations regarding mineral sourcing passed under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act “gave non-state militias incentives to look elsewhere for revenue,” including “looting civilians more frequently and by fighting with competing militias for scarce revenue sources.” The piece makes the case that actions encouraging “boycotts or company withdrawals from mineral trade do more harm than good.”

2. That’s a pretty hilarious take

3. Well that’s obvious. This isn’t the 1800s, war isn’t fought for resources when it’s far more cost effective to trade. However western advocates would rather ignore the ugly truth of tribalism driving this conflict.

4. This article seems to be very good at ignoring the elephant in the room, ie Kagama, Rwanda and it’s army being the main drive behind the war. And sure, there is some political reasons in the mix, but minerals are absolutely part of Kagame’s actions.

5. I don’t know if minerals are the *primary* driver of the war in eastern Congo, but they have certainly played a significant role.

Comments are closed.