Archive | January, 2015

Conflict Mineral Regulation in the Democratic Republic of Congo

The Center for Global Studies is hosting the following event:

Disclosure Based Certification of Conflict-Free Minerals:

Update from the Democratic Republic of Congo

a talk by

Dr. Richard B. Robinson

Extractive Industries Technical Advisor

USAID, Kinshasa, DRC

Friday, January 30, 12:00 pm

GSLIS 131

Tantalum, Tin, Tungsten, and Gold. Rob Lavinsky, iRocks.com – CC-BY-SA-3.0

What are conflict minerals?

Conflict minerals include tin, tantalum, tungsten, (known as 3T) and gold which are mined under conditions of armed conflict. The mining of these materials at mines controlled by militant groups is usually associated with human rights violations because those doing the mining are either forced to work at gunpoint or are persuaded to work to protect families and loved ones. The mining of these minerals plays a major role in funding militant groups engaged in armed conflict.  In fact, the accessibility of conflict minerals to militant groups has been statistically linked to longer and more deadly conflicts¹.   Currently the country most affected by the mining and sale of conflict minerals is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where there have been an estimated 5.4 million deaths in civil conflicts to date.  Prior to 2010, it was estimated that conflict minerals provided $185 million per year to armed groups.

The Legislation

As part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (Section 1502), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission now requires companies using any of the four minerals designated as conflict minerals to perform a “country of origin” inquiry on the materials. They must then report to the SEC their determination that the materials are either “DRC Conflict Free,” “Not Been Found to Be DRC Conflict Free,” or “DRC Conflict Undeterminable.” The law does not ban the purchase or user of products from DRC, but requires companies to report and publicly state their use of such products.

The Effects

The 2010 legislation has significantly impacted the mining economy of the DRC. A June 2014 report by the Enough Project, based on five months of field research in DRC, produced several findings, including the following. 1) Two thirds of the DRC’s mineral mines are free of the presence of armed groups. This is even more meaningful when compared to a 2010 (pre-Dodd-Frank) study by the UN Group of Experts, which found that in the Kivu province of the DRC, military groups controlled almost every single mineral mine. 2) Because the majority of companies buying minerals will only purchase “certified conflict-free” minerals, the price of non-certified minerals has shrunk by 30 to 60 percent. 3) Many electronics companies are investing in conflict-free mines, which has created up to 15 new certified conflict-free mines since 2011.

However, there are critics of the law who believe that, while something needed to be done to keep conflict minerals out of the hands of militant groups, the 2010 legislation was flawed. Reporting for the Washington Post in December of 2014, Sudarsan Raghavan discussed how the law has negatively affected many miners who relied upon mineral mines for their livelihood. Others, such as business law scholar Henry Lowenstein (citation below), criticize the legislation for delegating the enforcement of the law to the SEC, which was overwhelmed with regulatory tasks after the 2008 financial crisis and which had no prior experience in regulating natural resource imports and exports.

Come and Learn More!

Richard Robinson’s lecture on Friday will discuss the context of the Dodd-Frank conflict materials provision, as well as the effects of the legislation on international economic and development policy. Join us to learn more about this important issue.

Learn more on your own with the following resources:

Web Resources

Conflict Minerals 101 (Video) – Enough Project

Conflict Minerals – Global Witness

Sec.gov – Conflict Minerals Fact Sheet

Conflict Minerals Infographic – Sourceintelligence.com

Effects of Dodd-Frank Investigative Report – Enough Project

 

Books (Available through UIUC Libraries)

Bøås, Morten. (2015). The politics of conflict economies :miners, merchants and warriors in the African borderland. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Boulden, Jane. (Eds.) (2013). Responding to conflict in Africa: the United Nations and regional organizations. New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilpin, Raymond.Downie, Richard. (2009). Conflict-business dynamics in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Institute of Peace.

(2013). The unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank’s conflict minerals provision: hearing before the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, first session, May 21, 2013. Washington : U.S. Government Printing Office.

 

Scholarly Articles (Available through UIUC Online Journals and Databases)

Carter, R. A. (2012). Conflict Mineral Regulations Cause Corporate Concerns. Engineering & Mining Journal (00958948), 213(9), 136-140.

Lowenstien, H. (2014). DODD-FRANK’S CONFLICT MINERALS RULE: THE TIN EAR OF GOVERNMENT-BUSINESS REGULATION. Southern Law Journal, 24(2), 189-219.

Nanda, V. P. (2014). CONFLICT MINERALS AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSES. ILSA Journal Of International & Comparative Law, 20(2), 285-304.

Veale, E. (2013). IS THERE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS-FREE DEVICE?: EXAMINING LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO THE CONFLICT MINERALS PROBLEM IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO. Cardozo Journal Of International & Comparative Law, 21(2), 503-544.

$new_string

Charlie Hebdo: Freedom of expression, freedom to offend, and freedom from violence

Hannover rally in support of the victims of the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting‎. Credit: Bert Ungerer, CCBY2.0

The violence in Paris between January 7th and 9th, where attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s offices and subsequent sieges led to the deaths of 17 victims, has sparked a worldwide outcry of support for freedom of expression. The magazine was targeted by Islamist extremists because of its depictions of the prophet Muhammad.

On Sunday, January 11th, powerful pictures hit the international press of world leaders (Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mali’s President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, French President Francois Hollande, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merke, European Council President Donald Tusk, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) standing arm in arm in Paris during demonstrations where an estimated 1.5 million people marched to show solidarity with the victims.

The phrase “Je Suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) went massively viral, showing up on Twitter, Facebook, on signs at rallies all over the world, and even displayed by Hollywood celebrities at last Sunday’s Golden Globe Awards. Cartoonists the world over have shown their support for the victims of the attacks with countless drawings and cartoons expressing sorrow, hope, and renewed commitment to the right of artists and journalists to express themselves without fear of violence.

Some journalists and commentators have used this tragedy as an opportunity to discuss the larger issues of censorship and press freedom, and as always, this is an extremely complicated topic. Millions of people worldwide are proclaiming the right to freedom of speech, but what if that speech is offensive to certain religions or ethnic groups? Salman Rushdie famously stated, “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

But some see a distinction between the freedom of expression and the “freedom to offend.” Some people have responded with a counter-slogan, “Je ne suis pas Charlie” (I am not Charlie). Roxanne Gay, in a piece written for The Guardian, stated, “Murder is not an acceptable consequence for anything. Yet it is also an exercise of freedom of expression to express offense at the way satire like Charlie Hebdo’s characterises something you hold dear – like your faith, your personhood, your gender, your sexuality, your race or ethnicity.”

Others have had more extreme reactions to the “Je Suis Charlie” demonstrations. Beginning on January 19th, counter-protests broke out in several predominantly Muslim countries.  While many of the counter-protests remained peaceful, several turned violent. In Niger, CNN is reporting that 10 people were killed during protests and several churches and homes were burned. In Pakistan, Algeria, and Jordan, protesters reportedly have clashed with police forces as well, although no injuries or deaths have occurred.

So, while the horrific events in Paris brought millions of people together to support free speech, they also revived a worldwide debate about what that freedom means. While some uphold that freedom of expression must include the freedom to offend, others disagree, feeling the need to defend their faith from speech and actions that they find offensive. These varying viewpoints will, hopefully, lead to respectful debate with the common belief that violence is not an acceptable response to artistic expression, no matter the content in question.


 

Want to learn more about this complicated issue? The UIUC Department of French and Italian and  the School of Literatures, Cultures, and Linguistics and the European Union Center are hosting the following event:

Are We Charlie? – France, Europe, and the World after 1-11

A forum with brief remarks by special guests Nancy Blake (French & Italian and Comparative & World Literature), Maimouna Barro (Center for African Studies), Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi (History), Jean-Philippe Mathy (FRIT and CWL), and Yasemin Yildiz (Germanic Languages and Literatures).

Wednesday, January 21, at 4 p.m.
160 English Building


The resources below will help you with further research on these topics.

 

Books (Available through UIUC Libraries)
Amos, Merris., Harrison, Jackie,Woods, Lorna. (Eds.) (2012). Freedom of expression and the mediaLeiden ; M. Nijhoff Pub.
Grenda, Christopher S. (2014). Profane: Sacrilegious Expression in a Multicultural AgeBerkeley : University of California Press.
Hare, Ivan.Weinstein, James. (Eds.) (2009). Extreme speech and democracy. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Radsch, Courtney C.. (Eds.) (2014). World trends in freedom of expression and media development. Paris : United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

 

Scholarly Articles (Available through UIUC Online Journals and Databases)
DANCHIN, P. G. (2011). DEFAMING MUHAMMAD: DIGNITY, HARM, AND INCITEMENT TO RELIGIOUS HATRED. Duke Forum For Law & Social Change (DFLSC),2(1), 5-38.
Kyi, A. S. S. (2012). Word Power. Index on Censorship, 41(1), 28-31.
Pomerance, B. P. (2013). WHAT ARE WE SAYING? VIOLENCE, VULGARITY, LIES . . . AND THE IMPORTANCE OF 21ST CENTURY FREE SPEECH. Albany Law Review, 76(1), 753-756.
Veit Bader (2014). Free Speech or Non-discrimination as Trump? Reflections on
Contextualised Reasonable Balancing and Its Limits, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40:2,
320-338.

$new_string