From African Affairs: Dangerous Tales:
Three narratives have dominated the discourse on the Congo and oriented the intervention strategies. These narratives focus on a primary cause of violence, the illegal exploitation of natural resources; a major consequence, sexual abuse against women and girls; and a central solution, reconstructing state authority. … The use of these three narratives has enabled advocates to put the Congo on the agenda of some of the most powerful states and organizations, and thus prompted action to end what remains a “forgotten conflict.” However, I argue that the well-meaning international efforts have also had unintended ramifications that have prevented the intervention from achieving its stated goals, and that have even, at times, contributed to the deterioration of the situation in eastern Congo. … Because of these exclusive focuses, the international efforts have exacerbated the problems that they aimed to combat.
From the Center for Global Development: What's Wrong with Dodd-Frank 1502?
Although its provisions have yet to be implemented, section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is already having a profound effect on the Congolese mining sector. Nicknamed “Obama’s Law” by the Congolese, section 1502 has created a de facto ban on Congolese mineral exports, put anywhere from tens of thousands up to 2 million Congolese miners out of work in the eastern Congo, and, despite ending most of the trade in Congolese conflict minerals, done little to improve the security situation or the daily lives of most Congolese. In this report, I trace the development of section 1502 with respect to the pursuit of a conflict minerals-based strategy by U.S. advocates, examine the effects of the legislation, and recommend new courses of action to move forward in a way that both promotes accountability and transparency and allows Congolese artisanal miners to earn a living.
From The Harvard Law and Business Review: Conflict Minerals and SEC Disclosure:
While I am an advocate of disclosure and of the use of disclosure requirements to increase corporate social responsibility, the conflict minerals provision of Dodd-Frank poses serious risks to the integrity of such efforts. The provision and the rules drafted to promulgate it go far beyond disclosure and may impede issuers’ ability to conduct business in the DRC region. The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”), which pursuant to Dodd-Frank is charged with promulgating rules to implement § 1502 (the conflict minerals provision), lacks knowledge of the issues surrounding conflict minerals, a fact its Chairman freely admits. The rules that the SEC has currently proposed are overly draconian, and strict enforcement of them will put the SEC into the position of dictating not only rules of corporate governance but of indirectly dictating daily corporate operation themselves, as the proposed provision will likely drive companies to stop dealing entirely in minerals from the DRC region. Although the conflict minerals provision is framed as a disclosure requirement and thus seemingly falls within the purview of the SEC, the provision in fact is a back-end run around which indirectly imposes a trade embargo on the DRC and an attempt to require action, through SEC regulation, that Congress has previously refused to authorize. As such, the conflict minerals provision as proposed exceeds the mandate of the SEC and the intent behind disclosure requirements of the securities laws. If the aim is to block the trade of conflict minerals, there are more appropriate mechanisms to do so. If the provision is revised sufficiently, it may be a useful disclosure tool and could serve as the model for future requirements aimed at improving corporate social responsibility.