Categories
Conflict Areas
Blog Series
Our Campaigns & Initiatives
Announcements
Archive
- February, 2012 (17)
- January, 2012 (53)
- December, 2011 (55)
- November, 2011 (69)
- October, 2011 (51)
Blog Roll
- Africa in Transition
- Africa24 Media
- Across the Aisle
- Burning Billboard
- Change.org - Human Rights
- Chris Blattman's Blog
- Condition Critical
- Congo Siasa
- From the Front Line
- Genocide Intervention Network
- 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
- Resolve Uganda
- Save Darfur
- South Sudan Info
- STAND
- SudanReeves.org
- TakePart
- Think Progress
- UN Dispatch
- Voices from the Field
- Voices on Genocide Prevention
- War Crimes
- WITNESS
- Woodrow Wilson Center
- World is Witness
- Wronging Rights
Minerals Down Under
Down under, the Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting article on the trade in tantalum, one of the 3T minerals from which armed groups profit in eastern Congo. Australia has a unique perspective on the minerals trade—it’s home to the largest tantalum mines in the world, but they’re currently mothballed, partly because they cannot compete with inexpensive tantalum that is sourced from Congo’s war zone. More press like this will help keep the pressure on electronics companies to demand more responsible behavior from actors in the supply chain, but it’s important to keep in mind that if companies were simply to drop Congo in favor of Australia, that could actually make things worse for the average miner living in the Kivus. Instead, companies should contribute to Congolese and international efforts to help build a legitimate Congolese minerals trade that doesn’t finance armed conflict and atrocities.








