Resources_Reflection Memo

During this seminar, we discussed the topic of mineral resources and their connection with conflicts and violence in African states. We agreed that the topic of mineral resources in this context is multidimensional and the solution to this problem is therefore not easy to find.

We tried to clarify the issue of the land which caused a little bit of confusion, as it may be seemingly the same because the minerals are found in it. However, the land is more than just a soil. It has certain meaning for people who live there, it forms their identity. People are bonded to their land, and for example even a rising wave of nationalism in Europe does not disprove this. We agreed that the phenomenon of globalization is not having that much effect to African peoples to make them think of themselves as global citizens and therefore less bounded to their land. Exactly on the other hand, we should consider this aspect of land much more in our attempts to resolve mineral conflicts in Africa, because so far it has been rather overlooked.

Moreover, we tried to identify the reason why African people fight in such mineral conflict. We can easily understand the motivation of higher military personnel, commanders, generals. They want to secure a stable job in the aftermath of the conflict, the reintegration in armed forces or getting a higher official rank in armed forces, honours. Based on the reading by Laudati, I would add to this point that some beneficial positions were not only in the army but also in new government or state enterprises. And what is the paradox in Congo, as the author put it, it is sad that if some armed group is killing people and resisting, it has greater chance to gain a beneficial position in the state apparatus rather than ending in a jail. And for me, this is one of the basic problems in Congolese society which need to be focused on and treated in order to resolve the complexity of the conflict.

But what about foot soldiers and ordinary people who join violence? What are their reasons? During the class, we argued that they are probably trying to get control over their own lives and destiny or they see the conflict as a chance to make their life better in some way, to make some profit out of it. We need to keep in mind that even though we could possibly understand their arguments for joining the conflict, these are not in any case a justification for being violent. I would also like to elaborate a little more on this point of civilians joining the conflict. As Laudati mentions this in his work, we may find it alarming that the small-scale violence which is present in everyday life of Congolese civilians is overlooked by the international community. I cannot really understand how is this possible. Even though looting and robberies have become common in Congo, they should be addressed with effective measures to deal with them. Such situation cannot stay untreated under no condition. How can we find a cure to African conflict if we are overlooking various small parts of it? We need to address the very roots and grasp the problem in its complexity if we want to find an effective solution to it.

Similar is the problem in mineral conflict resolution as we could have observed in the article by Seay about section 1502. Even though we did not bring this topic on during our debate in class, I want to mention it because it is a good example of what is wrong with our treatment of the African mineral conflict. As we know, this law was introduced as a measure to control Congolese mineral export. This was intended to cope with the violence in Congo. However, the ongoing crisis was understood mostly in terms of the mineral resources and their trade, which led US officials to misinterpret the roots of the conflict and address not the wrong cause, but only one cause out of many. Logically, such approach could not have been successful. Moreover, the section 1502 had serious side-effects: great number of Congolese miners who have lost their jobs, leaving themselves and their families without a reliable source of income. I believe that we cannot blame this law for its failures but it certainly serves us a good example of what should we be aware in the processes of resolution of African mineral conflicts.

One student presented his point of view that in fact, minerals are the primary source of this conflict and even that the West makes the situation even worse as Western companies keep buying conflict minerals, for example for a production of electronics. He proposed that Africa should turn away from the West and towards China, in terms of trade. But collectively, the group opposed such idea because trading only with one partner makes you trapped. It is rather better for African countries to make trade with both and have a greater spectrum of possibilities.

But most importantly, it is really wrong to perceive the Congolese conflict only from the mineral-focused point of view, as we could have seen on several examples. It is undeniably a broad issue. We really cannot claim that there is only one cause of the Congolese conflict. Instead, we should seek as many factors as possible in order to understand it the best we can, to deepen our discourse over this problem and then maybe really solve it. Such model should be applied generally to any conflict. In the case of DRC, yes, we can admit that mineral resources have an important role in it but we cannot keep trying to find simply one solution to one problem. The overall context of the conflict is very important and cannot be neglected. It is in fact dangerous to use some kind of generalizing labels in the process of naming the sources of conflicts.