Corporations, Consumers, and the Congo

Since its arbitrary borders were drawn by Belgian rulers during colonization, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been plagued by war, poverty, violence, and exploitation. Since the mid 1990s, the violence has evolved into a ruthless struggle over the mineral-rich land found in the eastern part of the country. The DRC stores 80% of the world’s colton alone, along with a surplus of other minerals, including diamonds, cassiterite (tin), wolfamite (tungsten), and gold. These minerals are used widely in electronics such as laptops, cell phones, and a variety of other technologies. Because the minerals are in high demand, militia groups are flocking to the mining sites to fight for control over the wealth. This paper will address the bloody cycle of conflict minerals that is unknowingly perpetuated by consumers who purchase the electronics. In addition, I will examine the role media play in the war, as they are often controlled by corporations that own companies that profit from using conflict minerals.

The Second Congo War, deemed the deadliest conflict since WWII, began in 1998 and ended, in theory, in 2003 with the signing of peace accords, though the area continues to be torn apart. A startling 5.4 million lives were lost in the span of ten years (between 1998 and 2007), and the number increases each day. Of the 5.4 million deaths, almost half were children, and at least 90% were non-combat related, often caused by preventable diseases such as malaria, diarrhea, and malnutrition, all of which were frequently worsened by the unsanitary living conditions of displaced populations. The DRC is about the size of Western Europe, with its capital located in the far West. This leaves the eastern part of the country nearly lawless, as a treacherous mountain range separates the two sides, leaving the East accessible only by foot or air. The official Congolese government, then, is nearly powerless in the eastern area. As a result, numerous militia groups have sprung up in a bloody battle for control over the mineral-rich land. “Years of lawlessness,” a UN report states, “and a Government incapable of protecting its citizens have allowed the armed groups to loot and plunder the country’s resources with impunity…They have built up a self-financing war economy centered on mineral exploitation.”

The mineral reserves in eastern Congo are worth an estimated US$124 trillion, and everyone wants in on the business. Militia takeover became widespread in the mid-1990s with the technology boom, leading to an ongoing internal war that is funded almost entirely by the mining industry. The new boom in this industry “represented a fundamental shift in rebel groups’ unprecedented access to world markets on which they can pander their illegal wares.” Laptops and other revolutionary goods were in high demand and Western consumerism pushed the price of colton through the roof - from $30 a pound in 1999 to $380 a pound in 2000, just one year later. The mines are worked almost exclusively by coerced civilians and children in terrible conditions where mudslides and tunnel collapses are frequent and deadly.

The intervention of globalization has only made matters worse. Rather than create an environment where human suffering leads to empathy, globalization has lead to global capitalism where material goods (especially those at a low cost) trump the importance violation of human rights and dignity. Conflict minerals are used in almost every electronic we consume, from phones to computers to jet engines. Some of the most well-known companies that use conflict minerals from the DRC are Apple, IBM, LG, Samsung, HTC, Nikon, Canon, and Nintendo, with the four latter being the most inactive about investigating their supply chains or joining industry-wide efforts to reduce the use of conflict minerals. Because most miners are forced laborers, or coerced by taxation or threats, labor costs are virtually nonexistent, allowing the controlling militia groups to reap the profit and Western companies to obtain the minerals at very low costs. Consumers are then able to purchase electronics at a cheaper price. From extraction of the minerals to placing the shiny new product on a shelf, exploitation of people and the land abounds at every stage. Without this, iPhones would be thousands of dollars and consumers would lose out on social status, unable to afford the newest gadget. We as consumers have a stake in the atrocities that take place in the DRC. We benefit greatly from the bloodshed that wipes out the same number of Congolese people as the population of Colorado every month.

However, we are not entirely at fault for the conflict in the Congo; we are intentionally kept ignorant about the crisis in the DRC by the media and the corporations that control it. Why isn’t the crisis in the DRC the headline on every news station and newspaper? The reason is really quite sensible when illustrated in the context of a capitalist society. In 2011, 90% of the media we consumed was controlled by only six corporations. News-Corps, Disney, GE, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS own almost all the media we are pummeled with on a daily basis. Of the six, GE may have one of the greatest investments in what is happening in the Congo.

Apart from the media outlets it owns, General Electric also produces cameras, lightbulbs, phones, mobile accessories, microwaves, military and marine engines, aviation systems, and other products. Given what is known about conflict minerals, it is safe to assume that at least some of the minerals used in GE’s products come from conflict zones in the DRC. If GE owns a huge portion of the media we consume and at the same time, a large part of the products we consume, why would they run a story about conflict minerals in the Congo and risk losing customers? They have an investment in assuring that we don’t find out about what’s happening in the Congo. The profits of these corporations are based largely in the premise that we (the consumers) stay oblivious to the massacre.

Newspapers gathered mostly in 2009 by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson show in strikingly obvious ways the political agenda behind genocide and its links to media. The word “genocide” was mentioned only seventeen times in the newspapers collected, creating a ratio of one mention of genocide for every 317,647 deaths in the Congo. In case this isn’t shocking enough, let us consider the conflict in Darfur which has has taken 20 times less lives than the one in the DRC, but Darfur needed only 256 deaths for each use of the word “genocide” in the newspapers. This assertion isn’t meant to dispute the tragedy of Darfur or rank a Congolese life as more important than the non-Arab population targeted by the Janjaweed in Darfur. However, the media did just this, though the other way around. In recent history, media attention is given to three main categories of conflict: ethnic cleansing, Muslim-perpetrated, and non-US-affiliated. The conflict in Congo has zero out of three of those criteria, so therefore media attention is minimal. Darfur activism, however, thrives because it is “largely rooted in establishment-friendly ideas such as a Western ‘purity of arms,’ disregarding prospects for a negotiated settlement in favor of the language of force, and the use of force in this case by self-designating benevolent Westerners to save dark-skinned victims from their Arab and Muslim tormentors.” In other words, genocides are only reported on if they serve America’s purposes of either perpetuating stereotypes of Islam or playing off the “white savior” complex we all know so well.

Despite efforts by various NGOs and government regulations, the supply chain from the Congo to factories run by US corporations, though weakened, is still alive. Fortunately, the number of militia groups have dropped, though communities in Kivu, Ituri, and northern Katanga continue to be ravaged by militias. United Nations peacekeeping missions have come up short, and the presence of blue hats have done little to mend the situation. Companies cannot be satisfied with the simple reduction of conflict minerals, and we can’t be satisfied with media that is controlled by six corporations that dictate what information we receive. We must rise up and demand that companies commit fully to eliminating the use of minerals that come from areas of conflict, or the pain of the victims will continue to be in our electronics and on our hands.

References:

"1,000 a day dying in Congo, agency says". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 10 December 2004.

Beck, Alexander R. "The Price of Technology: Colton, Conflict, and the Democratic Republic of Congo." An Undergraduate Journal of History 16 (2013): 45-53. Print.

"Conflict Minerals Company Rankings." Raise Hope for Congo. N.p., 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.

Eichstaedt, Peter H. Consuming the Congo: War and Conflict Minerals in the World's Deadliest Place. Chicago, IL: Lawrence Hill, 2011. Print.

"Encyclopedia of the Nations." Congo, Democratic Republic of The. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.

Funk, Kevin, and Steven Fake. "8." Scramble for Africa: Darfur-intervention and the USA. Montreal: Black Rose, 2009. N. pag. Print.

Herman, Edward S., and David Peterson. The Politics of Genocide. New York: Monthly Review, 2010. Print.

Klare, Michael T. The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources. New York: Metropolitan, 2012. Print.

Lezhnev, Sasha, and Alexandra Hellmuth. "Taking Conflict out of Consumer Gadgets." The Enough Project. N.p., 16 Aug. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.

Lutz, Ashley. "These 6 Corporations Control 90% of the Media in America." Business Insider. N.p., 14 June 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

Polgreen, Lydia. "Congo's Riches, Looted by Renegade Troops." New York Times. N.p., 15 Nov. 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.

"Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo." UN News Center. United Nations, 2 June 2000. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.