Week 8 Summer Blog (Econ)
Here are few reminders as we find ourselves with 3 weeks left in the summer:
Students should have responded to at least 5 blogs by the end of the summer (2 Econ, 2 Gov and 1 choice)
All summer work is due on the first day of class!!! NO EXCEPTIONS
AP Econ and Gov moves at a faster pace and you should expect homework nightly. If you would like to see the first weeks lesson plans for econ please see Mrs. Pondy’s class website at https://sites.google.com/site/mrspondy/
Feel to get ahead on the first week’s reading (since I am sure you are done with your summer work).
WEEK 8 BLOG POST (ECON) Is there a place for ethics in a capitalistic economy?
This week’s topic is by no means a new issue but rather one that can often be forgotten as we get caught up in our consumerism: Conflict Resources. Many of you may remember the film “Blood Diamonds” from sophomore year World History. The resource in question this week is not diamonds but it is mined in much the same situation as the subject of “Blood Diamonds”, but minerals mined in these geographic areas and used in electronics such as cell phones. Within the past year the US Congress has passed legislation to require companies that use gold, tin, tungsten, tantalum in electronic products to disclose the source of the minerals. The law further requires companies to make this information available on the websites.
Start with the Huffington Post link to make yourself familiar with the conflict mineral resources and the situation in Congo. Then check out the link explaining the regulation passed by Congress (pay attention to the timing and legislative package that this law was included in). Finally spend some time analyzing the last two links that discuss possible solutions and the impact of those solutions.
Your Task:
Decide if you think a ban or strict regulation is a solution that can eventually put an end to the Conflict in Congo. If it is not a solution is it an important step in that direction? You may believe that this is an issue that has no answer or that it is simply an unfortunate, unintended consequence of a free market economy. If so state your case and challenge your classmates to see your point of view.
This can often be a touchy subject so remember that there are no wrong answers and everyone deserves to be respected and given a voice!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-gosling/congos-conflict-minerals-_b_854023.html - Conflict in Congo
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/07/27/conflict-free-electronics-bundled-financial-reform-law - explanation of Congressional regulation
https://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/07/12/motorola-seeks-conflict-free-electronics-supply-chain-drc - Motorola’s alternative solutions
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2011/0718/Congo-conflict-minerals-bill-hurts-the-miners-it-hopes-to-help - Does a ban hurt or help
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
107 comments:
I honestly don't believe that our government should ban the sale of these minerals. The Congo government is raping and killing its own citizens. It's not the electronic companies committing these atrocious crimes, it's there own government!nIf all the electronic companies choose to follow the path of Motorola, then good for them. They can provide their customers with a sense of comfort somehow. But those individual companies should be able to make that decision by themselves, not be told buy the government. The article on the CSMonitor made an excellent summation of what a ban would and would not do: "cutting off demand for Congolese minerals on international markets does absolutely nothing to stop violence against civilians and only makes life for many civilians worse by leaving them with no viable means of financially supporting themselves or their families." That statement makes complete sense to me.
Couldn't a better solution for this problem be to deal with the government? We interfere with the governments in all these other countries (Iraq, Libya, etc...). So, if this war is such a problem, why doesn't our government take action here? It seems like a WAY more logical solution to handle the governmental problems.
If our government doesn't choose to act in that way, I see that there really is no solution. The conflict will end eventually if the Congo government keeps killing their citizens, won't it? (Yes, I know everyone is going to call me heartless, but it's not even our problem!)
The situation in the Congo is difficult and disconcerting, but a ban is not a correct solution. The actions by the armed forces are unforgivable, but eliminating the demand for these minerals would only hurt the Congo as a whole.
The solution is to form a coalition of nations boycotting against the malignant practices in the Congo (at a government level). These nations could open trade with companies and mines that meet a level of standards made by the coalition, while the others are blocked off from selling their product.
10 points to Gryffindor!
I mean Mitch.
10 points to Mitch!
The last article helps provide 'the other side' of the argument, stating that if we do cut off or regulate the amount of minerals bought in the international market "does absolutely nothing" to stop what is happening, as Dustin pointed out.
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2011/0718/Congo-conflict-minerals-bill-hurts-the-miners-it-hopes-to-help
The bill allows consumers to investigate their products they buy by letting them see where the manufacturing companies obtain their minerals. The companies are also required to show what measures (if any) are being made to trace the origin of the metals they buy. In a way, it allows potential customers the chance to look at how the problem is being addressed on our side. In the end, however, it is the consumer's choice of what they buy and from who. Rory Anderson makes a great point by stating most Americans dont want to deal with the thought that they are supporting the actions that are taking place in central Africa. By having information available to the people, it helps them decide which prodects they should buy.
Source: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/07/27/conflict-free-electronics-bundled-financial-reform-law
In my honest opinion though, I believe this crisis is way underrated and should get more attention. As for a solution? I am not sure if there is any. What is happening in Congo is no light subject, but the article from csmonitor puts into perspective what would happen if trade came to a halt.
Re Dustin.
I kind of agree with your last statement. Our government likes stepping in and taking control of other countries' problems, which gets kind of old after the Nth time, and Congo is another country that is having issues with government that they should fix on their own.
But on a moral standpoint, we're talking about people's lives, over 5 million so far, and women that are raped, some multiple times. There's got to be something we can do... I have no answer to the problem, maybe there isnt any real one?
aw! I didn't refresh until after I posted, Mitch's sounds like a good idea!
Although I completely agree that the best way to deal with the situation is to deal with the actual perpetrator -the government- I do not think we are in the best political or economic shape to do so. We cannot commit ourselves to this conflict full force, so to stick our noses in and politically and anger the government without sufficient resources to back it up is unwise. As Machiavelli pointed out, a wise government must either crush an opponent completely or not provoke them at all; to poke the sleeping bear without a shotgun is simply a bad idea. Against my usual free market inclinations, I must admit that I believe the items should be banned. I understand the difference between government and company and I wish no impediment of free trade, but since I do not feel we are in a position to effectively end this atrocity (how did that work out for us in the Middle East?) my conscience cannot support a calloused apathy toward the situation either. We have to do /something/. As Americans the world looks to us as a kind of moral indicator; when natural disasters happen, the world looks to America; when there is a moral high ground to be taken, they look to America; when human rights are violated, they look to America. What kind of message are we sending the world if we go nonchalantly about our upper-middleclass business and act as though nothing is happening? I very uncharacteristically must say that the ban should be implemented. Logically perhaps it is not the most valid solution, but conscience must play some role in politics; when we lose our collective political conscience we run the risk of leading the world into a relic of the Dark Ages. A flawed reaction is superior to no reaction at all. We cannot simply sit by and watch it happen, and if a ban is the only way to protest (I'm not saying that it is necessarily) well then let us ban the items for which innocents are being killed or exploited. We owe them that much.
Hi Bloggers!!! This is Mrs. Pondy. It has been insightful to watch your postings this summer. I am in the process of recording the current number of post and responses for each of you. I need a bit of help with a few bloggers in order to give them proper credit. Can you help?
Who is kmow32? I am guessing it is Kyle Mowry
We have 3 Taylors in our class so unless you have used a last initial I have no way to know which Taylor to give credit to. If this pertains to you please email me at kathy.pondy@dvusd.org and let me know what weeks you have posted to and a brief summary of your content.
Other than that I think this has been a successful blogging experience and I look forward to shaping your economics way of thinking in the fall.
If you would like to know the offical count I have for you at this point in terms of post and responses feel free to email me.
Although these crimes aren't being committed by the US government and phone companies, measures can still be taken to give the Congolese some kind of reassurance that they can be safe there.
There has to be some room for ethics in a capitalist economy, because people trust those that they do business with to have morals, and to do what's right.
The ban on these materials would not help at all, it would harm the economy here. These phone companies rely on these materials to manufacture phones, and consumers rely on those companies to manufacture the phones.
I agree with Dustin about the summation in the CSMonitor article saying that cutting off the demand would make life for the civilians in the Congo worse, seeing as there is no outlet for the troops to stay busy with. Not getting the materials equals more time for terrorizing the civilians.
Mitch's idea is brilliant.
The Second Congo War, a silent war that’s has claimed the lives of over 5 million people, all because of political unrest within the Congo as well as many other reasons. One of the major reasons is the “conflict” minerals that had brought so much suffering to the people of the Congo. Armed bands and Government troops attack villages that have mines of Earth minerals to fund their cruel ambitions. Earth Minerals are those metals that are used with cell phones and laptops within the U.S. The same electrical devices that we as U.S. citizens use every day. Doesn’t that go against the humanitarian ideals that this country hold dear.
I think the De Facto banning that has become the result of the Dodd-Frank Act isn’t the way to go in fighting the violence in the Congo. If we cut off the cash flow into the Congo, one, we lose out on precious materials our country needs and Two, the lives of the Congolese will become much harder due to the desperation their tormenter will be experiencing driving their cruelty to new heights. I believe that the solution is that our government as the superpower of the world should step up and intervene in a problem area that we ourselves are helping to grow. The solution of solving the Congo problem without banning the export of Earth Minerals is for the U.S. to throw its weight around, use leverage to change the situation a little at a time. If we tell the Congo government to fix the behavior of their troops and to prosecute those armed groups that terrorize the villages, will go a long way to improving matters over there. We can go so far as to also impose a government regulation on the movement of Earth Minerals. In the end the U.S. can improve the situation without even lifting a finger.
Hi Mrs. Pondy!
Yes, this is Kyle Mowry!
RE: Dustin, Mitch, Kyle, Ashley
While I see how you guys all think that cutting demands would hurt the workers' wages - because it blatantly says that in the article from csmonitor - I also want to point out that the writer makes no attempt to back her argument. She even says that the "16% includes the non-conflict mines." So how do we know that most of that 16% isn't from the non-conflict mines which surely pay better. Yes, we all know the basics of supply and demand but is it that simple? First off, these workers are probably working for next to nothing. Next, there is a huge demand for these materials with our present reliance on technology so Congo warlords are still going to sell to the companies. The companies will be frowned upon by the rich (us) but, if my understanding of scarcity power is correct, they will also buy their materials dirt cheap and sell less-expensive products. With all this ignorance floating around, poor and uninformed people will still buy the products. So it's not changing the 5 (exaggerating, did not research) cents a day that miners are being paid in Congo. Another thing to keep in mind is that this is probably a situation where a few reap the benefits made possible by the labor of the majority.
Also I'm wondering how deadly competition for mining minerals leads to rape. A scenario where this would do anything is if they're having the women work through scare tactics? A second one would be if the warlords' armies have no ethics and just take advantage of the moment, which obviously shows that the local government has next to no power.
We should definitely look into sending educated, experienced people over to help them "set up shop", but we shouldn't reject the idea that supporting companies that take measures as useless.
Also, we are probably all biased towards technology and the companies that provide it to us haha. But it truly is a luxury that humans have lived without up till recently.
And there isn't a place for ethics in a cold, cut-throat capitalistic economy but there is a place for it in our hearts haha cheesiness.
RE: Jacky
I really do agree that the CSMonitor writer doesn't back up her information. It just made sense to me in the very words that you said yourself, "Also I'm wondering how deadly competition for mining minerals leads to rape," which is why I posted that.
I also agree that we probably are biased, but I think either way the solution is help, not isolationism.
So far I've skimmed through the comments the rest of you have made and it seems to lean toward not banning these minerals and I can agree with that. One idea I saw was creating an alliance with other nations to really hurt the Congo but I don't think that is the right direction. We have a free market and believe in expressing that almost completely. Of course there are limitations as of selling a grenade in a super market. I know this may come off as insensitive, but I believe that if a company wants to use there minerals to make a cell phone then they should be. But in doing that I think they should be forced to let their customers know in some sort of warning label. In doing this we would keep a free market, but hopefully the companies would want to keep a good reputation and not use them. This would ultimately be my solution to this.
Re: Austin
You're solution is exactly what the law is asking for. It's not making it illegal to use the minerals it just requires companies to tell us where they got them from.
Re: Dustin
Agreed haha.
@ Jacky: The relationship between the war for rare minerals and rape is that the armies fighting for control of the mines are slaughtering the villagers living in the surrounding area and then raping the women there. The information is on the huffington post link.
And I don't think our government should interfere directly in the Congo situation, instead it should continue to regulate companies and hold them accountable for ethically acquiring their resources.
The law that congress passed should help the situation in Congo. 5 million people are dead beacause businesses all over the world need the minerals from Congo. Just like in sierra leone the warlords in Congo have ripped the country apart and devestated its people. To keep a demand for these minerals means more violence will occur. One of the articles stated that the Congo economy will suffer if we stop getting our minerals from there, but isnt worse if actual human lives suffer? The article also said that if we stop buying minerals, the warlords will start targeting the banana business. I dont believe that will cause as much havoc.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2011/0718/Congo-conflict-minerals-bill-hurts-the-miners-it-hopes-to-help
As for dealing with this problem, i believe the United Nations should step in and gain some order in the country.
I also don't think that a ban on the importing of these goods is a proper solution. Companies should have the right to use whatever sources they want. I'm still undecided how I feel about the government making companies post the sources of their materials, though. Generally I'm all for laissez-faire type economics, but in this case I'm wondering if it's not such a bad idea that the government step in a bit. On one hand, revealing this kind of information to consumers might cause a company to lose revenue if people decide to stop purchasing goods from it, but on the other hand, it could push companies away from conflict materials in the long run.
But then, of course, there comes in the argument in the last article about how less dealing with conflict materials might be detrimental to the victims. I think altogether the articles make a good point in showing that it's hard to decide what would be best for the people of Congo because we can't accurately predict how the conflict material dealers will react to less business. They could decide to clean up in order to lure companies back into business with them, but they could also move into a different market or inflict worse enormities on innocents.
Overall, I'm kind of at a crossroads on this one. I think at this point the only real solution would be to deal with the issues on a government level, but I'm also not sure that America has the will or the money to do that right now. This is just one of those issues that I think no matter what the world does, things are going to get worse before they ever get better.
Re: Connor Mullins Re: Jacky Chen
While obviously the rapes are related to the conflict materials, I don't think it's really so direct that quitting the business with the dealers is really going to stop them. Connor, you said that the relationship is that the soldiers are pillaging the villages and then raping the women, but raping women isn't anything that's going to help them get more materials, unless it's supposed to be an intimidation factor. Basically, I think the only real relationship between the rapes and the war is that suddenly the soldiers have the power to do what they want, and so they take that power and use it to overcome their victims. There's nothing really to do with their exporting business there.
I don't know if using less of the conflict minerals will really help the victims in this case. Eventually it might, but that would only be if every company was prohibited from using conflict materials, which is not what the government is requiring. In the mean time, warlords would only be more violent trying to get enough minerals for the companies that still choose to use the conflict materials. It would also definately hurt the Congo's economy, as the CSMonitor article states, making life way harder for the victims who have already lost so much. Whatever action we take should definately affect the Congo's government more than the citizens because the government is causing the problem (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-gosling/congos-conflict-minerals-_b_854023.html).
I don't know what a proper solution to this situation would be because it seems like everything has the same number of pros as cons. Also, in order to know if something is really going to work it would have to be tested out in the Congo.
John Gennaro
The law allowing individuals to see where their minerals come from is very important in changing the circumstances in the Congo. I believe individuals will not want to buy minerals from these countries because they hopefully don’t want to support the events taking place there. I think placing a ban on the country will overall make things worse however, by producing more brutal actions by warlords and a terrible panic because of the sudden stop of income to the country. So to stop their economy by banning their minerals will only hurt the Congo more than it is already hurting. I completely agree with Mitch on how a possible solution could be made by a coalition of nation’s only accepting trade through certain companies whose practices are acceptable and meet certain standards. Overall, something needs to be done and this issue needs to be more understood in the United States and in other countries so actions will be taken to aid the Congo.
I don't believe that the United States should ban the sale of the mierals from Congo. These minerals are important in our fast moving technological world today. If we banned the sale on these minerals it would hurt Congo in the long run. The government is the one to blame for all of the violence towards its citizens, but the U.S. does not have the economic stability to interfere nad help the people. Strictly monitoring where the minerals came from and the sources is the best approach. No matter what the U.S. or other nations do to try to regulate the whereabouts of the minerals, there is still going to be violence in this country. Greed is a powerful feeling, and it has taken over Congo and the government.
Re: Laura Hately
You make a valid point that the U.S. is looked to as a moral high ground, but putting a ban on the minerals doesn't have to be the solution. I know I sound like a selfish person, but electronics are necessary in our lives today, and I understand that people are being killed over them but its the government that is doing harm to the citizens not the consumers of the minerals. The government is the one that needs to be regulated, not the minerals.
I agree with almost everything Dustin said. The government should not ban the sale of these conflict mineral resources. While the law forcing companies to publish the minerals' origin was established with good intentions, it is not at all effective. Like the CSMonitor said, "cutting off demand for Congolese minerals on international markets does absolutely nothing to stop violence against civilians". In fact, it leaves civilians in even worse conditions, because they will no longer be able to financially support their families.
I like Mitch's solution, but instead of a coalition of nations, businesses should form a coalition. If the CEOs of various phone companies pressured Congo to get their act together and treat their people with civility, we might have an effective solution. I think this solution would see better results than a military threat or some United Nations resolution.
(Re: mollie)
It's Hatley....
I absolutely agree that the government is the one that needs to be regulated, and I know that the ban isn't the best solution; I said that. I just don't see what other plausible action we can take (although on skimming these comments, Mitch's idea does seem excellent). The American government has a moral standard it must uphold. The white population is already seen as the devil in many African countries - imperialism saw to that. For the continent to see that we continue to buy items that came as the cost of human lives and dignity? Not a politically wise move. The area is too volatile and open to the control of China; we don't need to make enemies there. Thus we cannot attack the government (we wouldn't have the resources to do so anyway), but we cannot appear to approve either. We are already losing ground in world public opinion as a country; we have lost our economic prowess, the failure in the Middle East is quickly losing us our military prowess, government apologies are losing us political prowess.... what do we have left that distinguishes us from China? We still have a higher moral standard. I support only the solution that will send a clear message to the world that what is going on in the Congo is unacceptable - as I've already said, we do not have the resources now to deal directly with the government. I would be more than open to solutions like the one Mitch has proposed, but still I cannot under any guise support apathy to the situation as a matter of conscience. :) <3
I do not disagree with people trying to boycott these conflict-minerals. I do believe that consumers and companies should strive to find goods that are not stained by this kind of conflict.
That being said, I do not think that putting restrictions on exported minerals from the Congo will solve the situation. Even if minerals from the Congo became valueless, it would not solve anything. As the president of that refugee camp in the Huffington Post article said, the people doing the killing are "greedy." If the minerals weren't worth it, they would undoubtedly move on to the next profitable export. Like the writer of the Christian Science Monitor article said, people would probably start boycotting conflict -free bananas. The killing would continue, and that is the thing we are trying to stop, not the export of minerals. And that's not even considering the citizens that could be harmed. There are still a lot of people who depend on the success of these mines, making them even poorer.
To solve this problem, I don't think economic restrictions are the way to go. I personally think that a sizable UN force would do much more than just boycotting one export. The forces doing the killing need to be stopped, not the export. All the economic tactics will do is make some people outside of the Congo sleep a little easier.
I don’t putting a ban on mineral will be effective for two major reasons. One, the dealers will simply move to other products like bananas. Two, If the raping, killing and murdering people do we honestly think that they will be above lying? How we companies completely know that they are coming from clean sources. They can’t.
I think the ban is to make Americans feel better about the part they have in the crime. In reality we are still participating and feeding this atrocity. Just be because we wipe are hands clean of something doesn’t mean we are actually clean. Now I don’t think that America should get actively involved in Congo. Congo has become the way it is largely in part because the world has uncaringly taken from Congo. If Congo and the atrocities there are to be fixed there will have to be rebellion or revolution in Congo. It will have to come from the people of Congo because other wise it won’t stick. Americans aren’t preventing the problem, But neither do I believe Americans have the power to solve the problem.
https://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/07/12/motorola-seeks-conflict-free-electronics-supply-chain-drc
Its terrible what is going on in Congo and I think that we should begin banning gold, tin, tungsten, and tantalum that is from Congo. I also think that we should be able to ask where the materials came from and be given a straight-up answer. We need to have some ethics and we are just fueling the fire if we continue to purchase materials from Congo. It may not be a solution and it may even get worse but if other countries see that we won't allow this to happen than maybe they will follow. If the rapists and murderers have no reason to be stealing gold, tin, etc, than maybe they'll stop. If we can't completely stop the purchase of these items than we need to at least purchase them from non-rebels. There may not be an answer but we have to try to do something, we can't continue to allow this to proceed.
There is no easy solution to the problem that has been ongoing in the Congo with the Blood Diamonds and other various precious metals. I don’t believe a direct ban imposed on the government is necessarily the best way to handle the problem. As Dustin and the article pointed out that cutting off this market from the various dealers in the Congo will create an even harsher environment for the people who have to live through it. The dealers make less money so they are unhappy and bring this pain down on the innocent civilians. However, just saying that this isn’t our problem and leaving it as such is also not a proper way to deal with the “war”. We as individuals and as a country are part of a global community whose duty should be to help out a neighbor when in need. An intervention that was imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan could be the rational course of action. In this time around though not only the United States should be involved. Many other powerful and industrial countries need to put away their differences and think of everyone as a whole Earth and not just separate countries. The ban at least shows that there are people in our government who feel passionately about this subject and desire a change. The method for imploring this help is just misguided. With the cooperation of multiple world leaders this issue can be put to rest for good and save another small genecide caused by greed.
AJ Solomon
Basically, the way I see it is that, although Laura made the point that America isn’t in the best political or economic shape to interfere with foreign affairs that don’t directly involve us, we need to step in (as usual). Banning materials such as the gold or tin being used by cell phone companies would do anything but help the Congolese; the economy would suffer, and the killing would not cease, regardless. The warlords will only get increasingly agitated with finding the minerals for those companies who choose to maintain their mineral supply from conflict materials. Therefore, as I said (as well as many people before me), banning these materials is not the solution that the Congo is looking for.
However, as far as finding the “proper solution”, I don’t know if I can suggest one. I believe that the United Nations should get involved; a similar solution to what Mitch suggested would be ideal in this case. What Courtney suggested in particular, seems like the best idea mentioned so far: form a coalition of CEOs that pressure the Congo to grow up and stop treating their people with such cruelty and disrespect. A business solution, rather than a military one? Yes.
RE: Allie
I was thinking the same thing about the pros and cons! We basically have the same ideas- surprise! What you had that I didn’t though, is when you said “whatever action we take should definitely affect the Congo's government more than the citizens because the government is causing the problem.” Good point.
RE: Courtney
I really like the idea that you had suggested about the solution to this issue. Before reading yours, I saw the one Mitch posted, and I liked it, but yours completes it because I think that it’s something different.
Banning mineral imports from Congo will only worsen the situation in the DRoC. Once purchasing stops, the slave lords will look to other avenues of profit, and may very well exploit the same people to a higher degree in order to make the money. I think this is a terrible situation for all parties involved, but there are times when the economy has to take the reigns. The coerced labor may become too expensive, or an honestly run business there will have all the American Conscience run Telephone companies turn to them for money.
Re: Kevin Kichi
I mostly agree with you, except the part where the U.S. simply calling out the Congo wil fix everything. Something more important needs to happen, but with the lives of so many people on the line, its best for the U.S. and the coerced Congolese to just continue as is and let the 'democratic republic' solve its own issues with democracy and republicanism.
I think that it is more the peoples' responsibility rather than our governments to help end the war in the Congo. The government shouldn't have to really go over and stick their nose into the Republic of the Congo's government's business. The citizens who buy the products that are use the resources that fuel the war should just be aware which companies use conflict materials. Just like the huffington post article said, if all of us consumers unite and impose a boycott of conflict materials ourselves, business will have no choice but to comply to our demands. The government doesn't have to ban the products, it's sort of at the point that we have to reveal our true nature as humans, are we going to do the right thing and not buy these products that fuel the war or are we going to continue using them at the expense of another country and other people. The government has done the right thing in making an effort to require companies to report the origins of the materials in their products on their website. This way they aren't limiting the market in any way, companies can use the unethical materials, just at their own risk. From there the consumers have to decide what their conscience will allow them to do.
A federal ban or regulation on the conflict minerals from the Congo will not end the war there. As for the regulation requiring the list of sources, that's not actually a ban, a company can still choose to buy Congo materials, and to be honest, the average American probably won't check all or most products they buy - the regualtion would most affect the policies of manufacturing and trading companies depending on their integrity. In the opinions of Congolese who have had first hand suffering, and American policy makers, this legislation would be beneficial; those who have not suffered beyond general poverty would probably be against losing their jobs. Important step? Perhaps. At least there is some focus on the issue. But unless we have true experts of the motives and influence of the civil war in the Congo, on all levels, and careful planning of actions to take, there will be no resolution in the near future.
Re Jacky
I'm a bit confused at what you're arguing against...
What I mean to say in my opinion is less trade to Congo means less money to the markets there, it wouldn't solve the issue of people dying.
Dustin, Jacky and Mitch all have very good points that closely reflect my feelings on the matter. I'm not going to question the fact that the CSMonitor's statement is unbacked, but rather take it as a logical connection. I think that entire boycott of these materials is not a solution to the problem at all, but I don't think it should go unchecked either.
Total boycott by the United States isn't a solution because no one benefits (absolutely no one). The prices on our devices will likely increase because manufacturers will say that it costs more to get "fair-trade" minerals. Rather than giving us the option to pay more for the same product, it would be forced upon us, and many would resort to importation due to this next point. Just because the United States totally bans minerals from the Congo doesn't mean the rest of the world will. Europe and Asia are very much gadget saturated as the United States, and depending on the product, buying straight from Europe (even with VAT) could be cheaper than buying our "fair-trade" devices. On top of all this, warlords in the Congo wouldn't be happy, but their income won't shrink too much. Asian and European markets will still be buying their minerals, and they will still be raping women. The problem was not averted, but the United States can say that its hands are clean at the least.
We can't leave the issue unchecked either, though this one is more obvious. While we benefit thanks to the "lower" prices that we're paying now, conflicts will obviously not have stopped and this issue would still be ever present.
So what do we do? Mitch had a very good solution, almost a hybrid of fair-trade associations (such as those formed for Coffee) and a UN type international coalition to establish fair practices in the Congo. Speaking of, this is something the UN should be looking at closely, as they have the potential to help right these conflicts before any single nation does. We're dealing with an international product that the United States doesn't maintain a dominant portion of market share, this is an issue that must be solved internationally.
Until then, we can start stamping our phones with a fair-trade logo and feel that we're doing good for the world.
RE: Laura Hately
Your argument makes sense, I guess I just don't have much of a moral conscience then. I just don't believe that morals play that much of a role in today's world as you seem to believe. I could understand back when slavery was around that morals would play in this issue, but I just see us in the 21st century. Not living in the past.
RE: Maddie Anderson
If we stop the purchasing of the minerals from Congo, it doesnt mean that the rapists and murderers will stop. They will just find something else to be greedy about and continue their ways in order to make money.
Although the continued use of such bloodstained minerals is regrettable, I do not believe we should ban their sale. It seems, like some of you have already stated, that it is the government that is so corrupt and allows this violence. I don't think it helps to take away the little money the miners gain. And should we decide to avoid conflict minerals, I agree with the last article that the criminals would just find another perhaps more harmful method to get their money. I figure Mitch's suggestion is a very good idea.
I really don't think that the problem is the goods we buy. It is the region and its instability. If we want to avoid buying products associated with such conflict, I have the feeling we'd basically put an embargo on trade with the Congo and any other country with such a violent and criminal reputation. And I don't think it's in the best interest for us or the Congo that we do that.
Fixing the conflict mining in the Congo is not a task that can be fixed over night; it is something that will occur over time. I think that the Bill that was passed by Congress is one of the first steps that needed to take place. Although it does not punish the electronic companies for their actions, it allows the public to see the origin of their electronics. Since the public is aware of the situation and origin, they can make their own decision on whether or not they want to support the company. This is a step in the right direction but I think more vital actions should be placed so that change will happen faster.
Death and rape are occurring in the Congo because the Congo mining leaders have a greed for money. I think that we should take these leaders out of power so that they are not harming their miners. To do this electronic companies should either have their own mining crew or make a pact with a mining company in the U.S. to find their needed resources. This solves the issue of not knowing the origin of the minerals and it stops Congo people from getting harmed because there will be no need to mine. If the United States does not have all of the needed resources and the electronic company must outsource then they should send their own mining crew overseas and have it supervised by the American companies. I think that this will stop the horrid actions that are taking place in the Congo along with boost the American economy.
This reading upset me. Not in a warm, fuzzy let's get together and really help these people way, either. For somebody to say that it's our fault that their own people are raping and killing them because we're buying cell phones is ridiculous. Like the first link said, most people know nothing about this war. It's like Holocaust victims blaming America for the Holocaust because they didn't immediately go to war with Germany. Well America had no idea what was going on in German Europe, just the same as America has no idea what's going on in Congan(?) Congo. What bothers me is that there is no international conflict like there was in World War Two. Germany isn't importing Congans to be gassed. They're doing it to themselves. It's not American people buying cell phones. It's the Congan government lacking the control over their citizens most governments have. I also don't really like the general comparison to the Holocaust. They're both truly horrific but the Holocaust killed 12,000,000 in twelve years, the Congan conflict has killed 5,000,000 in sixteen. I'm not trying to be disrespectful but there's really a huge difference between the two. Now as far as the purchase of these phones "funding a gang rape in Central Africa"... Please. It's not like we're giving them a cash incentive to rape and pillage. If the problem is going to be solved, the Congan government needs to do a whole lot of work. They need to throw in some regulation, not us. We're buying minerals. They're slaughtering their own countrymen. How is this being turned into America being evil? Anyway, I don't think the government should ban the sale or purchase of these minerals. If companies want to have a clean conscience (read: avoid bad press)then they can follow in Motorola's footsteps. If our government is to do anything, it should be to work with the Congo to draw up some plans to reel in their murderous citizens, and enable the rest of them to take some sort of pride in their country's accomplishments rather than blaming other countries for their own atrocities.
Re: Rob
So, you are the one that made the comparison to the Holocaust "It's like Holocaust victims blaming America for the Holocaust because they didn't immediately go to war with Germany", but then you go and say that you don't like the comparison to the Holocaust? Does that mean that it isn't at all like the Holocaust victims blaming America for the Holocaust because they didn't immediately go to war with Germany?
And also, on the first article, I found it to be most similar to an ASPCA commercial as opposed to an educational article.
Re: Connor Mullins
Yes, it mentions it on the Post article but it doesn't explain it. Like Kathleen said, it's not a direct cause of rape.
Re: Kmow
To give you a better explanation, have you started the undercover economist? Well it says there that drug-dealing is profitable and gang "foot soldiers" and guns are relatively cheap. Throughout the gang almost nobody makes much money. The book said that some were making less than 2 bucks an hour and higher ranked members made like 10. So after all that violence, only the few bosses at the top make money. I would guess that the profit distribution is similar in this case. Also, some companies are still going to buy from Congo because the law doesn't prevent it so the people can still sell their minerals.
Re: Rob
Despite your inherent paradox (as pointed out by Dustin), I totally agree with what you're saying. When I go buy a phone, or a computer, or a TV, I'm not thinking about the fact that some of the tungsten inside is from the Congo, nor am I saying that whoever got this tin should go rape someone. If I'm thinking anything of the source, I'm thinking of the factory that made it in China or Taiwan and if I'm feeling really humanitarian: the awful working conditions those people have.
I don't want to come off sounding heartless, the issues in Congo definitely need to be solved. At the same time, it's an issue that the Congolese government needs to solve within its own country. The United States isn't responsible for this, just as we weren't responsible for the Holocaust, Asian tsunamis or the Irish Potato Famine. These events all affect us, but we don't have total control to just solve these problems.
RE: Ryan
I liked everything about your first comment. You made some very good points and I think that a combination of Mitch's and Courtney's ideas would be a great solution.
RE:Rob
I do understand your comparison to the Holocaust and I agree. The United States can't be blamed for the Congolese conflict because we aren't the ones actually harvesting the materials or manufacturing the phones.
And I agree with Ryan on the fact that the UN should be looking at this conflict closely. I also agree that the UN has the most power to come up with and enforce a solution.
Putting a strict regulation or ban on these minerals will only fuel more conflict, I don't really see it as a solution at all. If a ban or restrictions were to be put on these minerals, the companies that benefit from them would only find ways around out to get what they need to make a profit. More often than not, greed overpowers ethics and morals completely.
Even with the bill that was mentioned where companies must provide where they got their resources from, most people don't take the time to stop and look at details like that before purchasing materials. Is that right? No, but unfortunately it is a reality.
If any progress on this war is to be made, the government should be addressed directly, which is something the United States really isn't in the ideal economic state to do.
RE Mitch:
I completely agree! I think that the solution you are putting forward would be a nice and realistic step in the right direction at the least.
RE Jenn:
I definitely agree with you that small steps in the right direction need to be taken first, as you said, it is a problem that cannot be fixed over night. You make another great point in saying that something should be done about those in power, as they are abusing it.
RE:Scott
I enjoy that you and me think much alike in that in the matter of the Conggolese people suffering. The thing i dont understand is that how can the economy take the reigns when the governmnet has full control over the money flow. Government troops are some of the armed bands that attack villages for thier Earth mineral mines. I believe that the banning of the export of Earth minerals to the U.S. will bring more hardships to the people of the congo, at least they have some farm of a steady job, some other contries are so par that its citizens dig through mountains of trash to scrap up $5 a day in rycycable goods. I can understand that i sound cruel by saying they at least have work. i was saying that the U.S. can bluff saying to put up trade barrier to the Congos, this way even if we know that it is a bluff the DRC doesn't want to risk losing one of thier biggest customers. Back to the point where the government holding economic control, the Tariff rate of the congo is 14.5% compare to our 1.3% avarage in the U.S. in 2010. To finish off, im not saying the U.S. are the ones raping and killing the Congolese, im saying that due to the Telephone companies that are based in the U.S., that they fund such violence by buying the minerals without learning of the orgins.
Very much agreed with Rob and Ryan! I do not understand why America is taking the hit for this conlict.
And even if we were to put a ban on Congo's "bloodied exports", how could we be sure that this would stop the conflict and violence?
In agreement with Laura, I don't think America is in a suitable state to be entering into our big brother role and engaging in another commitment in a full scale war.
Something definitely needs to be done about this conflict and i don't think the way of resolving the "blood diamond" issue would work for this issue. There is too big a difference between diamonds and electronics in popularity and familiarity in today's society and age. Furthmore, is America the only nation acquiring Congo's 'blood minerals"? Other nations would need to be on the same page as us.
I like Mitch's proposal.
It is a horrible tragedy that is taking place in the Congo but putting a ban on the minerals being mined there is not going to help their economy recovery or help stabilize the country if anything it could cause the already fractured groups within the area to become more violent. If the goal is to help the people of the Congo have a peaceful and secure life then a group or panel should be made to review minerals begin used in electronics and post no biased information about where they come from to give to consumer's. That way if a change happens it can be gradual and not an abrupt shut off valve of money into the area. To put a ban on the minerals is to take away an aspect of the free trade we enjoy, however a review would offer us to be able to use that freedom to help put pressure on the companies taking advantage of the congo minerals and in turn the companies could pressure the government to change conditions in the area.
So really the whole problem is the the fact they there is no order and a bunch of crazy warlords rule over the Congo so really wheter we ban minerals or restrict them people are still going to get raped, killed and have their stuff stolen until someone just goes down there and changes things. As well known as the U.S is for sticking our noses into other nations affairs I really think we can't be the only ones trying to change things since we really don't have the resources to sort this one out. I guess my opinions cancel eachother out, so I guess thats why it is still so messed up there.
As much as I would like to believe that imposing a ban on "conflict-minerals" would actually save lives and cause the DRC government to get their act together, I simply cannot. Change should not be forced onto the people, but rather be a product of the people.
Hence the reason why I support the idea of enforcing companies to list the areas in which they are extracting the resources necessary to build their products. A regulation allows the populace to make an aware decision of their purchase and the possible repercussion's of that purchase on conflict-areas around the globe. All while refraining from infringing upon the capitalistic right of free trade. The shortsightedness of human existence is perhaps its greatest weakness. The key to unlocking the potential that exists within us as a species is through self-awareness. Only then when we have realized that every action we commit sets off a string of actions unbeknowest to us, will we be able to peacefully bring conflicts, such as the one in the Congo, to a close.
Kathy Nguyen
I would like to first apologize for posting really late tonight. And as well as starting off by saying that I have never seen "Blood Diamonds". But I am interested in this topic. I would like to say that it can go wrong either way. If we had decided to ban the minerals then it would hurt the economy. If America decides to interfere with this conflict is would cause another situation that we don't necessarily need.
When I read the first article I found it odd that Marie said that companies were no different to the people killing in the Congo. But it's not the companies fault and I agree with the article, "It's the Congo's greed." The United States and the phone companies are not the ones who are causing the violent actions or the raping. We've already known that greed has been the main problem even before all of this happened. The greed tore them apart.
Even if we put up strict regulations or try to ban it, who is going to stop the greedy ones from bribes or even taking things to their own hands? This situation will not be a "conflict-free eletronic" decision.
(I think I'm forgetting something so I'll post it when I remember)
@Mitch:
Wow! I totally agree with what you are saying! That is a really brilliant idea.
@Jennifer
I like the idea that are you taking the right steps and precautions for the miners and how well you explain how if we remove the greedy ones that the miners wouldn't be in so much danger as before.
@Maddie
I'm kind of getting confused about what you are trying to say. I think I agree with Mollie's reply to you, us stoping the buy on the minerals won't stop the rapists and murders from what they want to do.
@Amanda
I think that, that is a smart point that you are trying to say. And it's hard to figure out what to do with America's interference and the lives in the Congo conflict. I also agree that there are really messed up people within the Congo's rulers.
I kind of have an "odd" feeling towards the reviews though. If that would happen, I would be kind of anxious to see the results.
(Re: Rob )
I understand that perhaps the comparison to the Holocaust is over the top, but the principle stands: innocent people are being killed and we are providing a market for it. Although as Caitlyn pointed out, the true problem lies with the government and the general instability of the region, we are not helping things by allowing them an easy method of dispersal. The law of supply and demand dictates that if the demand or market were to decrease for these unlawfully gleaned products, their production must decrease proportionately. Thus if the United States, as the largest technological consumer, were to limit the ability of these minerals to be sold, they would be harvested less, thus reducing the related conflict. The root of the problem, absolutely, lies with the government and for that they are solely responsible. But to say that no other nation has a hand in it is untrue - just as the man in the getaway car did not commit the robbery, but he did facilitate it. The difference between this conflict and the Holocaust is that we were not providing a market for killing Jews. We weren't involved in that conflict really in any way. This matter, however, we have entangled ourselves in financially, and that sends a message to the rest of the world: that Americans either approve or don't care about these people being brutalized and that it's alright to facilitate it. This is not what America stands for. I absolutely believe in free economy, but Adam Smith himself admitted that capitalism unrestrained by conscience will implode on itself. We have a responsibility and a standard to uphold if we wish to remain world leaders. To me, this is almost as much about world image as it is economic conscience. Whether or not we are the ones who are committing these crimes, we are in some ways complicit by providing an incentive. :)
(Re: Mollie)
To say that morality belongs in the past is a bit of a dangerous statement to my mind. Human greed has been around since the dawn of time, and it exists today exactly the same as it existed in the time of slavery. The motivator is exactly the same as human nature has not changed. Thus to intimate that it only the bad side of human nature belongs in today's society, the side that instigated slavery in the first place, but not the side that counteracted it is to me a very fatalistic philosophy. By this method of thinking, slavery's equivalent will still continue and regenerate, as I assume you agree that human greed still exists, but there will be no force to counteract it... Perhaps that's not what you were saying, but what I'm getting is that people today have and should have no conscience? <3
RE: Rob
First off i can't understand why bring up the holocaust and use it as a analogy to what is happening in the Congo. Then after stating your point you say that you hate the Holocaust analogy? Why did you use it in the first place? To move on, the news isn't talking about how America is evil, but its true that we are funding violence in another country. What do you expect when you buy a high profit material and not even bother to know the source of the product. If anything this topic should talk about how U.S. companies have become careless. To finish off the congan government can change a lot of pressing issues within thier own country, first off is to take control of government troops that are running amuck. Second go after those armed bands that exploit the villages of the Congo. To finish off rape is used in those countries as a form of control because once woman is raped they can not be married. this gives the violaters control over the village, more so then even pointing a gun in a persons face. why control in way where the captives can rebal when you can destry thier very being and have a easer time, with less hardships. This may not be directly caused by the U.S., but by buying products from a shaddy source you allow people to impose such violence onto others. (sorry for sounding cruel, hate thinking in those ways)
Re: Caitlin Burns
You make a really good point that us buying the minerals is not the problem, the region and instability is. Like the article you mentioned said, if we stop using the conflict minerals, the warlords will just turn to the banana plantation. And then what? Would we boycott everything in the Congo because the area has become to violent? That would destroy their economy and not solve any of the problems because the problem is the violence.
Sorry Caitlyn I spelt your name wrong!
Re: courtney
Hey girl! :)
I also think your suggestion is a good idea. Why don't we combine the two suggestions from you and Mitch? Have both governments and companies pressure their government into ending the violence. I think that with all this pressure coming from everywhere, it'd be really effective!
Re: TRobinson
I agree that we aren't in the economic state to directly deal with Congo's government. Plus, I'm pretty sure a lot of Americans would be really upset if we got involved in another countries problems. If a bunch of countries were to get involved as well, it would definitely be more effective but this problem may not be a big issue in other countries. I also agree that most people don't pay attention to details before purchasing anything, I know I don't look at every single detail.
Re: Laura Hately
Its not that people today shouldn't have a conscience, I just think in order to get through life being the dark pit as it is, its necessary to block out your conscience. Yes people are dying, but its like a food chain. Some are at the bottom of it, and others are at the top. Its just the way of life, and by banning the sale of these minerals isn't going to change that. Harsh I know, but true.
RE: Sam R.
John Gennaro
I agree completely that their government is at fault in this issue. They can’t pull it together and keep their own country from tearing itself apart over greed. Also, putting the locations of these corrupt companies will help put the issue in the lime light and prevent at least some of the money flow from getting into the warlord’s hands. However, this issue needs to become more ‘popular’ so that more people realize what is going on and will try and prevent purchasing anymore blood diamonds or and other minerals doused in innocent blood.
RE: AJ
John Gennaro
I like your positive outlook and hope in the world coming together as one to defeat all evils, but in truth this will never happen. Yes it is our duty “to help out a neighbor when in need”, but that is only said if morals were actually taken into account in international issues. Which they aren’t, so hoping this issue will be solved by multiple countries ‘caring’ about unjust actions taking place, is just as bad as sitting there watching the warlords slaughter thousands of innocent natives of Congo. However, I do agree the United States should get involved and help at least somewhat of the problem through trying to target and prevent sale of corrupt company’s minerals from Congo.
RE: Jackie
I completely agree with you on the point that the workers for the minerals are making next to nothing, and that not much will be lost on their end if the U.S. bans their items. I believe that the only one's that will be hurt by the situation are the warlords, because what will they be pillaging for?
Re: Laura
You are right that other countries look up to the United States to act. I believe that it is our duty to go in, with the help of other countries, and stop the horrendus crimes taking place. You are right that we are lacking means to do so, but i believe the U.N. can come together and put an end to what is going on. In this case ethics proves stronger than economics.(hopefully)
This subject is a very fragile one. I don't believe there is much our country can do. Unfortunately, behind the scenes of nearly every big business, people are getting burned. Now most aren't to the level where people are being raped and killed as the case is in Congo, but things similar to this are going on.
My belief, and it probably isn't a popular one, is that you can't think about ethics if you want to run a highly successful business. As much as I hate it, it is the dead truth.
RE: Sam
I completely agree with what your saying, but achieving total self awareness is like trying to build a house of cards in a tornado.
RE: Caitlyn
I also agree with you, especially when you said the problem is not the things we buy, but where we buy it from. Companies choose places where goods are the absolute cheapest to ensure they maximize their profits. Who cares if 5 million people and counting have died right?
RE: Caitlyn
Hi Cait!
I agree with what you were saying in your response. You're right, the problem isn't the goods we buy, it's the region and its instability. While we COULD put an embargo on trade with Congo, I don't think anyone would benefit. Like you said, it wouldn't be in the Congo's best interest and ultimately we want to try to help the Congonese, right?
RE: Mitch
I really like your solution (and so does everyone else)! Like I mentioned earlier, I think a coalition of businesses would be more effective than a coalition of governments. Not all countries have honored previous UN resolutions, so how could we be sure they would now? I think the coalition of businesses would be the appropriate free market solution.
Re: Sam Rabichow
Your idea sounds exactly like the externality charging strategy in undercover economist. Sounds complicated but worth attempting.
Re: Mark Web
Thanks Mark. I guess a lot of people aren't realizing that. Btw, how did you spell my name wrong when it was right above my post ha?
Re: Sam and Mitch
Despite the tediousness of people responding to a post made 52 posts ago, I will have to agree with all those people too. I think you guys both have the right ideas, and if we did both I think the conflict would end much better than our shallow regulations in place which help nothing. So kudos to having logical ideas on what to do.
Re: Dustin
Its a bit late, but I agree with your first post, and whoever else made that point, that problem needs to be dealt with through the Congo's government, and within the country, rather than just putting trivial regulations in place in buying countries. You can't fix a problem like this from the outside, you have to go into the heart of it.
RE: Mitch
I agree with you about how an international coalition opposing these minerals is necessary in ending the bloodshed. however, I still feel that peacekeeping force would be more effective than just economic pressure.
RE: Mark
I have to disagree with you on a couple of points you made. You said that we shouldn't worry about the effects of boycotting will have on the miners because they make so little. Sure, they make very little according to our standards, but it is all those who work there have. Stopping the mining will make those people even more poor.
You also said that the warlords would have nothing to fight over if the mining were stopped. However, I have to agree with the article in the Christian Science Monitor, where the author suggests that the warlords would just move on to the next biggest export, like bananas. I really don't see why greedy and powerful warlords would just go way because on product is no longer profitable.
Re: rob
I understand the parallelism of this situation to the holocaust. While it is not at that scale and has different motives, millions of people are dying and being raped. And I think what the outrage is all about is the moral repugnance that the companies demonstrated by ignoring the conflict in the Congo. I agree it's not really American civilians' fault and that as long as companies or government are at least trying to help that situation, that we should not discontinue use of those minerals. However, not having some kind of intervention in this conflict is much like not intervening in Hitler's genocide. Those who are instigating such violence are committing crimes against humanity.
Re Allie:
Yes you make a very good point. Any action that will be taken will have an effect on the Congo whether it is positive or negative. If we want to stop the buying of conflict goods, then the Congo Economy will be hurt but people will be safer. This is a difficult situation to find a soluntion to because no matter what happens there is always a consequence to it.
Re: Mark Webb
The solution to invade and force the Congo to stop what they are doing is, in my opinion, something we should get ourselves into right now. We have enough wars and enough problems on our own and I don't think it would be for the best of our country to fund another war. As of getting the UN involved in this, they already have in a small part. I found an article from 2 years ago that talks about rapes and murders in the Congo that were made worse by the UN involvement. So, a small involvement would only makes things worse as explained in the article. The solution in my mind would be to launch a full scale invasion on the Congo which is not likely to happen due to the cautiousness of the UN and the economy of our country now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121401383.html
Re Amanda:
As you said that banning the sale of minerals would not solve the main issue.In fact I think that it would have more negative effects because the Congo's economy will be in jeopardy and the people that are doing the crimes are still in the Congo harming others. I think that this should be a United Nations issue that is solved by taking the warlords out and putting in righteous leaders. I know that it is not as spimple as that but some change for the better needs to occur.
Re: Ted Robinson
I think you brought up a lot of good points in your opening argument, including how the United States is not in a stable (or powerful) enough economic state to addres the Congolese government on this issue.
If legislation passed banning mineral imports from the Congo, the phone companies would have to look for other sources of metal, which would probably be much more expensive. That would drive the price of cell phones and other similar devices up. Moreover, without their biggest customer to assume all their product, the Congolese may turn to other lucrative and coercive forms of profit to make their money.
Of course, they could send it to Mexico first to act as a middle man, which would drive the price up (again).
Re: Kichi
Yes.
Re: Marks re to Jacky
So many re.
:
When the ban is put into effect, the warlords will still find ways to make money. What little currency the workers saved while digging for the minerals will be taken by the warlords; they will use the money they earned to invest in weapons, and well. You can spell out the rest.
Re: Jacky
Okay, that makes more sense now. and in agreement I dont believe trade will end in Congo either.
Re: Anthony
Your last statement in your original comment is pretty straightforward. I agree with it, big companies can't slow down for the "little guy's" needs
RE: Cooper
Your suggestion of a UN force would likely put an end to the violence caused by the aggressors there, but it would only be terminated after much bloodshed on our part. To me, solving violence with violence seems like a poor solution. And judging from the UN's (and especially the US') involvement in foreign countries, we would most likely seem like "the bad guys" to the citizens of the Congo, rather than being their saviors.
Re: Jenn
I agree with you completely that the Congo government is what needs to be fixed to help the people there. Those greedy people are not going to stop being unjust because of a ban on minerals.
Re: Allie
I like that you pointed out that each solution being proposed has a down side and that there really is not a way to approach the problem without causing some repercussions. This issue has to much emotional impact to be handled logically and I totally agree that its hard to find a solution that helps the Congo and the free market economy when all the solutions have the same amounts of pros and cons.
Re: Lauryn
I totally agree that it is the peoples choice in wither or not to help Congo not the government.
Re: Austin
I think telling consumers what they are buying is a waste of time people won't care and companies will get around saying it. It will be in the fine print and go unnoticed doing nothing, avoiding the problem.
Re: Rob
I agree the situation is being overly dramatized. In order to come up with real solution we will have to think with clear heads and no exaggerations.
RE: Laura
I completely agree that the situation in the Congo could mimic that of the Middle East if we involve ourselves militarily. This sort of action should be a last resort for our country. However, I do not agree with your idea of America being the world's "moral indicator." Quite the opposite, really. While we have good relations with other English speaking countries (Australia, Britain, Canada) and most of civilized Europe, most of the Asian continent, Africa, and the Middle East would never consider us their "moral indicator." There are exceptions to my generalizations (such as Japan) but my position on the issue stands: We aren't morally right in foreign eyes (or my eyes, either!). There is much to be done to improve this.
@ Mitch
I disagree about the point you make in your re to couper. I think that if we come in and don't pilage and rape and restore control of the mines to the villagers instead of the warlords, we'd be viewed as the good guys. Yes, the UN would have to work on their PR, but we can successfully help the Congo through a War on War. No matter how contradictory it sounds.
@ Mitch
I disagree about your re to Cooper. If the UN sends in a task force and stops the Warlords from pillaging and raping and returns control of the mines to the villagers, then we will be the "good guys". Yes, we need to work on our over-seas PR, but the UN can stop this and should. I mean, fighting evil is part of the UN job description... right...?
RE: Anthony
I disagree. I don't think that in order for a company to be ighly successful they can take all eyes off of ethics. Ethics could pertain to the way you treat people and as seen in The Undercover Economist a business who has better customer service is more applicable of success.
Re Cooper:
I agree with your response to Mark (snd the article from the CSM). Even if the mining and exportation of minerals were to be shut down, the violence and corruption is not just going to stop.
I think the Congoan government needs to get on its feet to topple these rebel leaders but i fear if America were to help we would end up in an entanglement such like we found ourselves in, when we attempted to help the North Vietnamese in Vietnam and the Northern Alliance in the Middle East. Are we ready for another war? Economically?
Re Mollie:
Excuse me for being frank, but I feel strongly that it is exactly your point of view that is at the root of many of our world's problems today. Mankind has been able to justify its actions and "block out" its conscience since the beginning of it's existence. It is that kind of moral anestesia that allowed segragation by race to culminate in America for years. Slavery and segragation was in fact "just a way of life." Without conscienceness of the world around you and at least some-what of a moral compass to take direction from, change that benefits all of humanity, instead of simply those in power at the moment, doesn't stand a chance.
Re: Dustin (and others mentioning my Holocaust paradox)
I know. Hahaha I knew when I was writing it that I sounded like a hypocrite. But they're not the same thing, at least to me. Maybe it's because I wrote it. I compared the two to illustrate my frustration with the blame we're receiving. I stated that I didn't like the comparison because they are not on the same scale. It's not like I'm allowed to compare the two and they aren't. I was comparing the responsibility of the United States in the two. They were comparing the cruelty.
Re: Laura Hatley
I really liked your response! I didn't mean to sound like it was all on the Congolese government. I know that our desire for the valuables provides them with an excuse to butcher each other. However... They shouldn't be butchering each other. I liked your bank robbery comparison, with us being the driver and they're actually robbing the bank. I'd like to think it's more like a taxi driver who unwittingly drops off the robber at the bank though, you know? We aren't intentionally funding their conflict like we would be if we were true getaway drivers.
Re: Ryan Batchelder
Thank you for the Congolese knowledge. I feel like a fool for typing Congan... I should have known :'(
Re Jennifer:
Thank you for mentioning something that slipped my mind! People must not go looking for a solution to the problem that will be a quick and easy fix! There is none! Instead, defusing a complicated situation, such as the conflict in the Congo, will take time and must be done with care in order for its success to be ensured.
RE: Rob
I agree with you about the Congan government needing to control their own. We can't do much overseas and the last thing we want is to get too involved. Congo needs to figure out a solution.
RE: Kathy and Mollie
I agree that it may not work but it may give us some time to figure out a better plan.
Re: Rob
I have to disagree that it is not partially our fault for buying the conflict materials. By buying the materials we support the people who are destroying the lives of people just to control mines that contain the materials that power our electronics. It's hardly comparable to the Holocaust because we actually have information on what's going on we just refuse to act on it. We had no notion of what the Nazis were doing until they had already done it, and when we found out we put an end to it. But you are correct in saying that a large portion of blame must be laid on the country itself because it is an internal conflict, but it is fueled by external influences.
Re Maddie Anderson
I don't think we should ban all materials from the Congo, I just think companies should have to prove the materials they use are conflict free. They must also state if they are conflict materials and if that is what they choose to use then it is up to the general public to either buy from them, if their conscience allows them to, or choose a company that does not encourage the rapists, thieves, and murderers.
RE Mark Webb:
I disagree with your statement that the ban that has been recently passed will help the situation in the Congo. The warlords that are currently in place in that country desire one thing only, money. These are not sensible human beings anymore and devastation to their only source of income will result in harsher dealings with his already enslaved workers. When the article stated that the Congo economy will suffer this implied that the warlords will lose immense numbers in their profits. Irrational people enslave other humans to run a business to ship “blood diamonds”. Irrational people would also blame their workers for the lack of business and in turn slaughter innocent lives to please their fancy. I do not believe that slowly damaging the warlords through their pay grades is intelligent. I do agree with you that the United Nations needs to get involved but not just gain order in the country but perhaps repossess it from these diamond dealers.
AJ Solomon
RE Rob Dale:
I have very mixed feelings after reading your response to the problem of accusing America at fault for not helping the Congan Government in dealing with the situation of “blood diamonds”. I agree the government in the Congo should have had a better grip on their outlaws pillaging villages for their own benefit but at this point this problem is way beyond their control now. Now this is when I disagree with most of your statements. I believe that since America has the capability to assist in this problem then they are bestowed with the responsibility with assisting a young government. In a global community the older and more mature governments and military should help out fledgling nations so everyone can benefit in a stronger and more closely knit globe. Countries cannot just leave Earth if they disagree with each other’s policies. We must at some point accept others faults and directions to achieve a stronger global community and economy. It’s in the interest of a brighter future to assist all struggling countries because they could help assist back in later years.
AJ Solomon
Re: Allie
Allie makes exactly the point I was thinking. Unless we can completely cut off all of the suppliers' buyers, the dealers will still be making money and they'll be using that to make the Congolese people's lives worse. I have serious doubts that America could convince all the companies of the world to suddenly drop a huge supplier of materials, so this solution will likely hurt more than it will help.
Re: Rob
Good of you to clear up that confusion. And while blame, claim, moral compass or whatever can't be stuck on the U.S. completely (nor should it be) there is still the idea and history of the country being a driven force to help the oppressed and/or war-torn countries. As discussed in the Libyan posts, America, at this point, has that image of a moral and physical supporter, so its that sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation that the US has been getting a lot.
So blame - somewhat frivolous. But claim, or the idea of America having the first bite of the apple, based on past and current events, is not that surprising. It's kind of like Batman - he's the big guns; if he doesn't get involved or stop a psycho, it's his fault when the guy kills 10 people. If he does stop the guy, and it gets a bit messy, whatever the circumstances, it's his fault there's collateral damage. Public blame is not always the smartest animal, but it can be the ugliest.
(Re: Rob)
Haha, genius. Alright, we are the taxi cab drivers, but still we must take responsibility because we know that we are driving the robbers to commit a crime, must we not? Maybe not, this issue is so much in the gray area. :)
(Re: Mollie)
Well I'm just a little depressed now and I can't say I agree with you at all, but that's just my opinion. I just don't think we can hope for a better world or an improvement in the lives of our children if we encourage people to ignore their consciences... that pushes us to anarchy and with all of our military technology I think we can agree that anarchy would be a very bad thing... but that's just my thought. :)
(Re: Mitch)
You make an excellent point in that the world in many places do not hold us in high esteem for some of our actions, but in general I think you will agree that we, along with countries like China, set the example for international relations because of our position as world leaders. But we, unlike China, have a tradition of upholding human rights. The country had a meltdown over the Anthony Weiner incident because we believe that with power comes responsibility; our position as a world power comes with the same. Think of it this way: who donates millions when an earthquake hits Haiti? Who offers free asylum to all Cubans who land on our shores? Who sends humanitarian aid all over the world the most? We do. And many countries, whether they agree with all of our policies or not, take their cue from us. America is the most successful, developed, free democracy and as such we have a standard to uphold; we have a responsibility to demonstrate that our citizens can use their freedom well. We absolutely set a moral standard. There are no sweat shops in the states, no child labor, no government shootings. We are and always have been a humanitarian country that protects human rights, and the world knows that, whether or not they are in favor of some of our other policies. If the even the STATES ignores a human rights issue, who is going to take up the cause? No one.
Re: Sam Rabichow
That is your opinion and that is fine. I was just raised differently, so I have my own viewpoints. That's life. I just see it as a dog eat dog world, and that is how I will always view it.
Post a Comment