Blog Series
Conflicts
Announcements
Archive
- May, 2013 (7)
- April, 2013 (32)
- March, 2013 (35)
- February, 2013 (26)
- January, 2013 (26)
Blog Roll
- Africa in Transition
- Africa24 Media
- African Arguments
- Across the Aisle
- Burning Billboard
- Chris Blattman's Blog
- Congo Siasa
- From the Front Line
- Huffington Post
- ICC Observers
- IJCentral
- Impunity Watch
- In Situ
- Institute for War & Peace Reporting
- Opinio Juris
- Meskel Square
- Mia Farrow
- National Security Network Democracy Arsenal
- Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times
- Promise of Engagement
- Pulitzer Center - Untold Stories
- Reinventing Peace
- Resolve Uganda
- South Sudan Info
- STAND
- SudanReeves.org
- TakePart
- Think Progress
- UN Dispatch
- United to End Genocide
- Voices from the Field
- Voices on Genocide Prevention
- WITNESS
- Woodrow Wilson Center
- Wronging Rights
Books by John Prendergast
Blog Posts in OpEds and Letters to the Editor
This post originally appeared on Global Post:
What do corrupted Congolese warlords and Washington lobbyists have in common? They’ve joined forces to become the biggest obstacle to development and stability in eastern Congo.
In response to David Aronson's op-ed last week, "How Congress Devastated Congo," The New York Times published four rebuttal Letters to the Editor this morning titled, “A Conflict Over ‘Conflict Minerals’.”
Ending the world's deadliest conflict is no easy task, but a growing consensus of Congolese civil society, electronics and metals companies, investors, and governments are now taking action to do so. A chief driver of their work is the Dodd-Frank legislation on conflict minerals, which is why a coalition of 40 Congolese human rights groups called it "the leverage needed to instill and impose ethical business practices in the Great Lakes region."
David Aronson's op-ed "How Congress Devastated Congo," misses the critical link in eastern Congo: the continuing role of the minerals trade as a fuel for violence and a major source of revenue for armed groups and military units responsible for atrocities.
Reacting to a misleading editorial by the Wall Street Journal about U.S. efforts to curb the trade in conflict minerals from eastern Congo, Enough Project Executive Director John Bradshaw wrote this letter to the editor, published by the newspaper yesterday.
Why would the regime in Khartoum decide to escalate right before the South’s independence? There are tactical and strategic reasons. Tactically, the regime is bullying for a better negotiating position on where borders will be drawn and how oil revenues will be shared, with billions of dollars at stake. Regime officials are probing, attempting to ascertain whether deploying a total strategy aimed at setting the South, border areas, and Darfur on fire will draw any reaction beyond rhetorical concern from the international community. Strategically, the regime is doing what it does best: ruling by arson.
