Exploiting the Congolese: Natural Resources Being Stolen, and Some Believe Strengthening ‘Conflict Diamonds’ Bill Could Limit Loss

Last fall the UN reported that Ugandan, Zimbabwean and Rwandan military forces—engaged in the tragic regional war in the Congo (DRC)—have looted that country’s natural resources, particularly diamonds, gold and coltan.

The UN Panel of Experts (on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth) also named dozens of mining and financial multinational corporations who they say have taken advantage of the war to plunder Congolese resources. They charged 85 multinationals from Africa, Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union with violating guidelines on corporate conduct in conflict zones of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development).

The panel urged the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on those “involved in criminal and illicit exploitation that are identified in this report.” Sanctions could include prohibiting travel for individuals, freezing personal assets, and barring targeted companies from access to financial institutions.

The panel also declared that recent troop withdrawals from the Congo, though encouraging, “are unlikely to alter the determination of Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Uganda individuals to exercise economic control over portions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

The UN panel further suggested that the looting previously conducted by the armies themselves had now been replaced with organized systems of embezzlement and extortion. It named five U.S. corporations in violation of the OECD guidelines. (The Web site provides further information.)

Around the same time the UN panel made their recommendations, Amnesty International released its report “Democratic Republic of the Congo: Making a Killing,” which claims human rights violations in the diamond fields of Mbuji-Mayi in government-controlled Congo. The Congolese government has refused to acknowledge large-scale abuses, and there has been little international pressure upon them to do so.

(Access the full report here. Amnesty USA has developed packets of “Action Materials” on the issue. Click on “Valentine’s Day” on their home page.)

Meanwhile, evidence emerged at the end of the year that al Qaeda had operated in Liberia and Burkina Faso, and had secured some $20 million in illicit diamonds through the Sierra Leonean rebel movement, RUF. (The Washington Post, Dec. 29, 2002, page A1).

The point of all this, for those of us concerned for justice and peace in Africa, is that the exploitation of Africa’s resources during times of conflict is both tragic for the people of Africa and dangerous for us all. It had been tempting to think that progress toward peace in Angola and Sierra Leone meant that the issue of conflict diamonds—about which we have written before —is no longer pressing. But the situation in the Congo demonstrates that it is. And the revelations from Sierra Leone… well, they offer a serious warning. And behind it all, there remains the fundamental belief that the natural resources of a country should benefit the people of that country, and that cannot happen if those resources are looted and used to fuel war.

Diamonds have been central to the issue for some years, and faith-based advocates have joined others in campaigning to eliminate the trade in conflict diamonds. This effort, known as the Kimberley Process, involves issuing certificates that diamonds are “clean,” i.e., that they did not come onto the market illicitly, profits from which have fueled conflicts, especially in Angola, the Congo (DRC) and Sierra Leone.

After several years of negotiations, the United States was to have joined 47 other countries in implementing a diamond certification system on January 1, 2003. That was postponed until February, and it is still unclear—at the time of this writing—if the U.S. has made the deadline. It’s a start, certainly.

But there remain serious shortcomings in the Kimberley Process. It does not include polished diamonds and jewelry, which means that a rough diamond placed into a ring or some other jewelry device can evade the process, as can polished diamonds.

In addition, the diamond industry itself has so far failed to devise a convincing system, called “chain of warranties,” which essentially maintains the certification chain from the diamond’s place of origin through cutting, polishing and so on, until it is sold. But mostly we worry that the Kimberley Process contains no meaningful provision for regular independent monitoring.

Some governments saw monitoring as a threat to sovereignty; industry saw a threat to data confidentiality. Since the Kimberley Process is a voluntary system to begin with, the absence of effective monitoring leaves us with little confidence that the diamond in our jewelry stores is, in fact, not a “blood diamond.”

Note this striking data: Official records show that the total of rough diamonds imported during the 1994-99 period into Belgium—a key diamond importer—from five West African countries (Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Guinea, and the Gambia), exceeded the declared exports from those countries into Belgium, by an average of $663 million per year! There are only two conclusions: the diamonds were smuggled, or were produced elsewhere and falsely imported. (Partnership Africa Canada, The Kimberley Process by Ian Smillie, 2002.)

The point is that we cannot be asked to trust in a voluntary system that has ineffective monitoring.

The inadequate Clean Diamond Trade Act (HR 2722) failed to pass the 107th Congress. The United States will need to enact legislation in the new Congress to implement the Kimberley Process. Our key message is to urge strong, effective conflict diamonds legislation that includes:

• Provisions for independent monitoring,
• Provisions to cover polished stones and jewelry,
• Provisions to ensure the collection of accurate, credible statistics of the diamond trade.

Strong effective legislation on conflict diamonds is essential for the United States to be a responsible international partner. By itself it will not fully address issues of exploitation during times of conflict. We need to engage more fully in other ways, whether in coltan or timber. But conflict diamonds remains a concrete meaningful initiative which sadly has not reached fruition.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Civil wars currently rage in numerous African nations, including Angola, the Congo/Zaire, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Sierra Leone, and Sudan, and have escalated to a point of destabilizing entire regions and uprooting entire populations, with children and adults being taken into slavery.

These conditions in Africa receive inadequate attention in the media, as well as inadequate attention and response by our elected officials and members of [our denomination].

These wars and resulting human rights abuses rage on a continent where the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has given the lifeblood of mission workers and invested resources over generations, even as our members’ commitment to love and care for sisters and brothers on the continent of Africa has diminished.

The 211th General Assembly (1999) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) focuses heightened attention, advocacy, and compassionate response appropriate to the gravity and magnitude of the situation in Africa. These efforts will include resources of intercessory prayer, study and education, publicity, public policy advocacy, pastoral care, and generous dedicated giving. (from Church & Society, July/August 1999)

In an interdependent world, no nation can be fully independent of other nations, and no nation should be overly dependent on other nations. This means that the international trading system must incorporate the basic norms of social justice and environmental sustainability rather than depend solely on the norms and outcomes of free trade. (p. 131)

The General Assembly “calls upon the U.S. government to develop sustainability criteria to appraise the likeliest impact on developing countries of existing and proposed United States trade policies. These criteria should reflect the principle that trade, to be supported, must genuinely promote poverty reduction, democracy, and ecological sustainability. (p. 136) Excerpts from “Hope for a Global Future: Toward Just and Sustainable Human Development,” Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (1996)

By Leon Spencer, Washington Office on Africa