Daniel Halliday
Jul 30 · Last update 5 mo. ago.
What can be done about conflict resources?
Conflict minerals, diamonds and petroleum have been utilised to fund or support war criminals and terrorists in Africa and the Middle East. What can be done about it?
Stats of Viewpoints
Economic controls hurt legitimate & illegitimate business alike, the root cause needs to be resolved
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Get the resource out of the supply chain, the power lies in the hands of the consumer
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Should they put a ban or limit on the conflicted resources.
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
Economic controls hurt legitimate & illegitimate business alike, the root cause needs to be resolved

The laws put in place in the US and the EU to address conflict resources do not work. Full transparency is hard to gain or maintain, while the rest of the world seemingly has no problem trading in conflict resources or refining them, making the whole process even harder to accurately trace. The root of the conflict needs to be addressed, rather than trying to avoid one means of support of said conflict.

A blanket reduction of trade with countries such as the DRC also harms legitimate mining practices, further hurting the livelihood of legal mining companies, their employees and legitimate exporters. Simply reducing the amount of resources utilised that come from the Congo will also hurt the DRC’s economy, and further complicate the poverty, violence and lack of human rights in the country. Policies such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer `Protection Act fall short of addressing the problem of the conflict in a similar way that sanctions can exacerbate instabilities in a sanctioned country.

It is impossible to not use a resource because of a conflict associated with it, as the complex nature of international trade makes isolating resources almost impossible. Quite often the presence of individuals willing to disregard the background of their trading partners, and their possible willingness to engage in corruption, make realistically tracking a supply chain impossible. Moreover abstaining from trading a conflict resource doesn't deal with the existence of the resource itself, which in reality will inevitably find a buyer.

Therefore a diplomatic or military solution to resolve the conflict around which the resource was mined would be a much better solution. This would ultimately result in the removal of the resource in question from corrupt hands completely. Preventing the trade completely will just have the effect of further increasing poverty in resource mining areas, it by no means solves the problem that forms the foundations of the conflict. Taking the conflict out of conflict resources is the only realistic solution to this problem and could go some way to rebuilding of a countries such as the DRC.

cei.org/blog/dodd-frank-conflict-minerals-rules-cause-smuggling-starvation-and-harm-us-businesses

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Feb 11
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
A blanket reduction of trade with countries such as the DRC also harms legitimate mining practices, further hurting the livelihood of legal mining companies, their employees and legitimate exporters. Simply reducing the amount of resources utilised that come from the Congo will also hurt the DRC’s economy, and further complicate the poverty, violence and lack of human rights in the country. Policies such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer `Protection Act fall short of addressing the problem of the conflict in a similar way that sanctions can exacerbate instabilities in a sanctioned country.
Get the resource out of the supply chain, the power lies in the hands of the consumer

Conflict resources started out as a concept to describe the trade of diamonds to finance rebellions in Angola and Sierra Leone throughout the 1990’s. The term was then extended to the similar use of Timber in Liberia, Cambodia and the Central African Republic, and then for various minerals traded to prolong conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Although questionable trade in diamonds, timber, and oil still continue, it is arguably the trade of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold that have continued to directly fund conflict in the DRC.

In 2010 US Senator Sam Brownback added Section 1502 to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This law required electronics companies to verify and disclose their sources of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold used in their products. With the idea in mind that the consumer can boycott products that indirectly fund conflicts in the world and therefore cause companies to seek out better sources and tackle the issue by manipulating the supply chain. Kemet, Intel, HP and Motorola are all companies who are currently tracking where their resources come from.

Similarly humanitarian groups such as the Enough Project, the Conflict-Free Tin Initiative and the Public-Private Alliance for Responsible Minerals Trade are trying to provide solutions for companies working in the supply chains dealing in conflict resources. With enough companies and humanitarian organisations trying to promote verified conflict free supply chains, resource transparency could eventually be achieved. This could lead to consumers having the ability to make informed decisions when buying electronics, and being able to choose to not indirectly support conflicts in countries such as the DRC. If the power to stop conflict resource mining lies in the hands of consumers, giving them the information to make the right decision is the only piece of the puzzle missing.

investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-investing/tantalum-investing/how-to-stop-conflict-minerals solutions-network.org/site-cfti/process resolv.org/site-ppa

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Feb 11
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-investing/tantalum-investing/how-to-stop-conflict-minerals/ http://solutions-network.org/site-cfti/process/ http://www.resolv.org/site-ppa/
Should they put a ban or limit on the conflicted resources.

I think they should put a limit and if anyone exceeds the limit the other countries can boycott their items.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Feb 11
DH edited this paragraph
It is impossible to control the situation of the trade of blood diamonds, conflict minerals and timber, while not further subjecting the miners to worse cases of poverty and instability. A limit could help if put in place to discourage the trade in these materials rather than blocking them outright. Additionally more should be done by the governments of other countries to boycott and discourage the imports of resources from regions affected by conflict.
Translate