Conflict minerals are a girl's best friend

History often repeats itself. Citizens and sovereigns in the global community are given an exorbitant number of chances to improve upon past actions, with human lives and welfare at stake each time. Yet despite this long collective memory, we find ourselves falling into old, ineffective habits. Some faulty trait of human nature makes us cling to actions and thoughts that we believe inherently to be ethically and socially responsible, completely independent of their pragmatism. Nine years ago when the blood diamond trade threatened the stability of sub-Saharan Africa, the international community created the Kimberley Process. Today, a similar tack is attempting to combat “conflict mineral” proliferation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with similarly dissatisfying results.

The Kimberley Process in its heyday focused on top-down methods of regulation. It required that nations certify their diamond exports as “conflict free” by tracing supply lines and providing guarantees for human rights in the process. Using mere cooperation and ethical application of purchasing power the international community was going to levy real social change. What could go wrong?

The government of Zimbabwe excelled in showing the international community exactly how many things could go wrong. Using military resources, President Mugabe and Zimbabwe’s army forced women and children to labor in the diamond mines of Marange, and then subsequently sent the diamonds through Mozambique and South Africa on their way to legitimate destinations. Regional corruption and governmental decentralization contributed to the failure of the Kimberley Process, and supply-side regulations forgot that the people contributing to the violence weren’t a pure product of diamond production. In fact, increased regulation hurt the average citizen and miner more than the powerful entities controlling production. Other factors and power dynamics were responsible for affronts to human rights, complex issues that could not be addressed with a quick fix.

So today we find ourselves with the Kimberley Process’s kid brother: section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. This gem of an act is the Kimberley Process reincarnate, and if we’re lucky, section 1502 might just grow up to be an ineffective top-down piece of legislation too! When Congress passed it in 2010, the act required that any companies with products containing gold, tin, tungsten or tantalum must disclose whether or not these minerals come from conflict regions in the DRC, and then use “due diligence” to ensure that the minerals themselves were mined conflict-free.

There are a multitude of pragmatic concerns with the Dodd-Frank Act, but those most alarming revolve primarily around the future of the artisanal miners formerly employed in mines. Artisanal mining is one of the least mechanized industrial projects. At just one site called Bisie, the lives of 13,000 people were being supported by 3,000 miners in 2010. United States legislation that restricts exports even from a single mining area has the capacity to impoverish thousands.

Having lost their mining jobs, men between 19 and 35 are then forced to find other ways to make a living. Agriculture isn’t a very appealing possibility—constant instability makes the investment of effort and resources in agricultural fields very risky, and crime presents itself as the best alternative to mining. The highest rollers in the Congo are after all the members of militias who tax miners. Instead of just limiting the monetary resources of these militias, mining bans and limits on export opportunities serve to provide violent groups with human capital.

It’s clear to international observers that in the post-Dodd-Frank era, militias continue to hold just as much power and perpetuate just as much violence. Miners and their families end up bearing the brunt of the embargo without economic infrastructure for dealing with massive job losses. Perhaps now is the time to learn from the Kimberley Process and alter our method.

That said, a “live and let live” approach would be disastrous. There are very real and equally unacceptable human rights violations taking place in the artisanal mines of the Congo. It is inarguably reductionist to view these conflicts as a product of mining, but mining itself exists as a gift and a curse, one of many factors in the complex political dynamics of the region. If the United States and human rights advocates wish to make a positive contribution they must apply serious and flexible reforms to top-down efforts and collaborate with local authorities in the Congo to actually build stable, non-corrupt infrastructures from the ground up. If you’d rather see a remake of “Groundhog Day” than political progress, however, maybe the Dodd-Frank Act is just what you’ve been looking for.