Recently I featured The Enough Project and the work they are doing to raise awareness of the war in Congo. Enough says that sexual violence in Eastern Congo is often intensified by wars over access to “conflict minerals,” - metals which end up being used in our cell phones and other electronic devices. The good thing about Enough is that they are putting Congo on the radar, highlighting a horrible conflict which is potentially worse than Darfur but simply doesn’t gain the level of attention it deserves from the media and international community. Most people do not know about Congo’s “invisible” war. They should.
However, is Enough oversimplifying the issues? The way they phrase it, your cell phones are driving a war in the Congo. Thus, by reducing your use of electronic goods containing these metals, you can help end the demand for “conflict metals” and thus cut off some of the armed forces’ income. You can help end the war! An easy action to take and to encourage others to take - right?
But wait - maybe it’s not that simple. Recently I read an excellent article by Texas in Africa (amazing blog, by the way) which claims otherwise: there’s a lot more to this conflict, and framing it as a resource war is actually simply sensationalizing the issue to make it more attractive to the general public. Texas in Africa sums it up:
“Violence over access to resources is one dimension of the fighting there, but the roots of the conflict are much more about land tenure and citizenship questions than they are about who gets access to minerals like tin, caseterite, coltan, and gold. The fight over the minerals is an effect of these underlying crises; not the primary, or even tertiary cause of most of the fighting.”
So even if these campaigns successfully helped end or reduce the mineral trade, there is no guarantee that the war would end. Because it is fueled by other underlying factors, not just the fight over mineral resources. Fighting will likely continue, because there would still be widespread poverty and the complete lack of rule of law. The government in Congo is simply not capable of providing security for its citizens, and the failure of governance continues to be a problem. There is immense corruption. Rape and violence has become a way of life for some of these militia groups - all this is not going to end so easily.
Moreover, the campaign to end the mineral trade could actually have negative effects on the population in Congo. For example, suddenly closing the mines could end up laying off many families who are dependent on the income from working in the mining industry. Are there alternate programs available to provide employment for these workers? If not, this could actually be a harmful move despite the attempt to help.
The sad truth is this: people are more willing to do something about an issue if they feel like they are connected to the conflict in some way. This is similar to the push for divestment from Sudan - when the public feels responsible for or connected to a faraway war, they feel much more compelled to act. And if you try to present a complex situation as it is, the fact is the general public is just not going to listen. People won’t get involved unless they think they understand the issue and understand what they can do about it. And it has to be somewhat simple to understand. If you describe all the factors leading to the war in Congo, it’s just not “sexy” advocacy anymore. Talking about land rights and citizenship and corruption may not be as sexy as talking about your cell phones fueling a war, and so advocacy campaigns don’t discuss these issues. At the end of the day, oversimplification of the reality is all too common in human rights advocacy campaigns and through misinformation, can perhaps cause more harm than good.
