▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ⟶
The leaked draft of a presidential memorandum Donald Trump is expected to sign within days suspends a 2010 rule that discouraged American companies from funding conflict and human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo through their purchase of “conflict minerals.”
The memo, distributed inside the administration on Friday afternoon and obtained by The Intercept, directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily waive the requirements of the Conflict Mineral Rule, a provision of the Dodd Frank Act, for two years — which the rule explicitly allows the president to do for national security purposes. The memorandum also directs the State Department and Treasury Department to find an alternative plan to “address such problems in the DRC and adjoining countries.”
The idea behind the rule, which had bipartisan support, was to drain militias of revenue by forcing firms to conduct reviews of their supply chain to determine if contractors used minerals sourced from the militias.
The impending decision comes as Trump held a meeting Wednesday with Brian Krzanich, the chief executive of Intel, one of the leading firms impacted by conflict mineral regulations. At the White House today, Krzanich appeared with the president to announce a new manufacturing plant in Arizona.
Thank you Brian Krzanich, CEO of @Intel. A great investment ($7 BILLION) in American INNOVATION and JOBS! #AmericaFirst???????? pic.twitter.com/76lAiSSQ1l
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017
Human rights advocates — who had celebrated the conflicts rule as a major step forward — were appalled. “Any executive action suspending the U.S. conflict minerals rule would be a gift to predatory armed groups seeking to profit from Congo’s minerals as well as a gift to companies wanting to do business with the criminal and the corrupt,” said Carly Oboth, the policy adviser at Global Witness, in a statement responding to a Reuters article that first reported the move.
“It is an abuse of power that the Trump administration is claiming that the law should be suspended through a national security exemption intended for emergency purposes. Suspending this provision could actually undermine U.S. national security.”
Advanced computer chips, including technology used in cell phones and semiconductors, contain minerals often sourced from war-torn countries in central Africa. Firms such as Intel, Apple, HP, and IBM use advanced chips that contain tantalum, gold, tin, and tungsten — elements that can be mined at low prices in the the DRC, where mines are often controlled by militias fueling a decadeslong civil war.
American tech companies, such as Intel, lobbied directly on the rule when it was proposed. But since passage, tech firms have largely used third party business groups to stymie the rule. Trade groups representing major U.S. tech firms and other manufacturers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, attempted to block the rule through a federal lawsuit. In 2014, a federal court struck down a part of the rule that forced firms to reveal DRC conflict minerals on their corporate websites.
Intel is also one of the firms that has touted its effort to comply with the law, publishing a report that notes the company has conducted 40 on-site reviews of smelters in the eastern DRC.
Reuters also reported that acting SEC chief Michael Piwowar has taken steps to also weaken enforcement, asking staff to “reconsider how companies should comply.”
Read the draft memo here:
Top photo: Mining workers stand on a muddy cliff as they work at a gold mine in north eastern Congo in 2009.
However horrific the gutting of regulations and protections contemplated by this administration, I believe the intimation that DT is relaxing this ban at Intel’s urging is wrong. Wouldn’t put it past DT to claim that Intel loves his proposals but the company has for years been a pioneer in the elimination of conflict monerals from the supply chain. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_569520e5e4b05b3245da6ea7
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/09/intel-fab-42-arizona-plant-trump-obama Is this story being reported by the guardian true? If so, is this not a direct pay for play? Isn’t this the kind of stuff that normally takes place behind closed doors not out for all to see? Trump gives a massive cut to regulations surrounding the trade in conflict diamonds. As reported by here, Intel is a massive beneficiary of this deal. In return for Intel being given a green light to continue to unapologetically exploit conflict minerals, they now fuel the Trump Propaganda Machine. Building him as the job creator helping to cement his image as a man of the common people.
Suspending the ban of conflict minerals because “national security”? In a perverse way, I am in awe of the behavior exhibited in the Executive Department and from Republicans in the past weeks. I lack the self-control and would not be able to sustain that level of dishonesty. I would break and tell the truth.
We need to get to the core of the problem. I mean, we need to get to the core of the earth to mine those alloys to correct our resource shortage. What could possibly go wrong?
The author of this article is clueless.
The Afghan War and 9-11 happened because of COPPER in Afghan.
The Congo was another source of COPPER and a civil war back in the 1960s.
COPPER was the issue in the Argentine and Chile civil wars.
WHO OWNS ALL THE COPPER?? Those are the one you should be writing about. HINT: Read the declassified Kissinger State Dept Cables.
Concur, amongst other resources..the stories I’ve read, (by Cole and Hersh et.al), mention the Unical Pipeline and the intransigent CIA “economic hitmen, jackals ” who objected to the Talibans request for their share of the profits..but the straw The broke the camels back was the eradication of the poppy fields; essentially depriving the CIA of their source of income for “black-ops” as well as unsettling the worldwide money laundering industry
Forget about the Unical. It was/is/always has been a ruse.
As I said, Read the declassified Kissinger State Dept Cables.
Afghan war was “designed” in 1973. The cables name names.
Thanks Alex
“Alex” won’t touch what I just told you.
about 10 years ago, very big lithium deposits were found in afghanistan … it’s a crucial strategic metal for all those cell phone and computer batteries
http://www.mining.com/1-trillion-motherlode-of-lithium-and-gold-discovered-in-afghanistan/
I know that too… but that wasn’t why we went to war.
COPPER deposits (the largest in the world) have been known to exist in Afghan since the days of Alexander the Great. The British East India Company fought 3 Anglo-Afghan Wars over the mineral resources in the 1800s.
Starting in 1957, Afghan’s new government (in cooperation with Western Europeans and the US) began 10 years of geographical surveys to put a monetary value on all of it… especially copper.
In 67-68, Afghan underwent another revolution/change in government. Then the Russians began 10+ years of their own geological surveys.
By 1973, friends of the Rockefellers (see the Kissinger Cables), worked out a business deal between Western and Eastern blocs (including Russia) to exploit the mineral wealth of Afghan.
Guess what? Rockefeller worked out a deal with China as a hedge against the Eastern Bloc “deal” and to keep it all to themselves as David Rockefeller wanted to repeat JD’s performance in China with Std Oil of the late 1800s.
Some bad sh1t happened somewhere between 1973 and 1979.
Russia invaded Afghan and we financed AKA Al Queda. Kicked the Russians out of Afghan.
Ungrateful Afghans then bombed the WTC in 1993. In 2001, an inside job, 9-11 gave these “Americans” the colorable right to invade Afghan like the Russians.
Today, the copper is going to China at beheast of the Rockefeller Klan. Why? You can’t ship copper ore out of Afghan by boat. It has to go by rail.
So, Railroads are being constructed between Afghan and China thru the Pakistani Peninsula.
What’s the dollar value of the Copper? Over 3 trillion.
So,… what really happened? ANSWER: It’s just like the plot in the Christopher Walker movie, “The Dogs of War.”
Well, the new technologies modern cell phones use aren’t based on lard anymore and they already ran out of the needed mineral compounds they were bringing all the way from Ganymede (moon of Jupiter), so, what are they going to do!?!
Also, I found this article too “theIntercepty”. It is hard to put a finger on its Ws. The paragraph started with these two sentences:
can definitely be improved! In fact, these two sentences should what the whole article was all about, as this is ultimately where the rubber meets the road
RCL
We defeated the Nazis…and became them.
A parallel story in the Guardian about a draft executive order to lift a ban on ” US extraction firms making undisclosed payments to foreign governments for access to natural resources “.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/09/trump-draft-executive-order-coffers-poor-countries-equatorial-guinea-cardin-lugar-amendment
Focus on the Guardian story is not minerals — though it mentions the minerals order toward the end — but on petroleum, notably Equatorial Guinea, where the biggest extractor is Exxon-Mobil.
I have a case of ‘I hate myself.’
So how do I break out of this: I believe I’m a good person and want to to do good but persons in my supply chain that help me do good do evil. Viz I do good w/ my computer but my computer is made in China (an env. and human rights disaster/nightmare) from materials mined & refined in Africa (again same disaster and nightmare)?
Seems the soln is to stop buying their products; stop using those sources and suppliers; you’re then forced to make those products and mine those metals and minerals at home…
OR
You must abandon your computer, national security, automobile, etc..
What will be the origins of the products that ‘good people’ in the USA want to use? It will have to be made in the USA and you will pay the price for it.
Whether you’re an Orc or you’re Liv Tyler: the fires of Isengard must be fed!
You’re obviously a man who sees the whole picture. I don’t think most people get it. We crave these objects and companies like Intel, Nike, etc will supply them. When the companies act immorally we convince the government to “fix it” for us so we don’t have to get morally involved when of course the manufacturers find a third party way around the fix and supply what we demand at great profit to themselves.
The only way to stop it is cease buying shit that requires exotic elements or take a gun, go over to places like the Congo and fight for the side you believe to be morally right. No takers, I’m sure. Rather our government protect us from our own unquenchable greed and licentiousness.
I so rarely see statements that acknowledge this, what seems to me so obvious, connection, between our western quality of life and the horrors of international realpolitik that its jarring. It makes me feel less alone, though still confoundedas to why smart people can’t see it or won’t.
The arguments below supporting Trump’s action seem to fall into two categories:
1. Obama did it too; and
2. Boycotts of Conflict Minerals are ineffective so should not be engaged in.
Both of those arguments represent examples of the same flawed, immoral thinking. The fact that the previous administration (as well as its predecessor) actively engaged in human rights violations provides no excuse for the current one to do so, especially considering the fact that the current President and his most ardent supporters have consistently repudiated the former one. With respect to effectiveness, the personal intervention of senior Intel management on behalf of this executive order means that the ban was, in fact, having a beneficial effect, by making it more expensive and difficult for companies like Intel to do business with the human traffickers. If in fact we claim to be moral leaders, the “Shining city upon a hill” as Ronald Reagan put it, we should discourage immoral behavior rather than embrace it.
Hey Lee,
By what metric do you gauge that which you claim is immoral? Consensus opinion? The Koran? Whispers from a dog named Sam? If you yourself take exception to moral pronouncements of those who claim(ed) that the U.S. is a “Shining city upon a hill”, then the onus is on you to provide the moral standard by which trade in “conflict minerals” ought to be weighed.
The answer to all your questions is something that is common to almost all formal religions as well as being one of the pillars of atheistic humanism: The Golden Rule. (Not the capitalist version.)
I, personally, do not ascribe to Reagan’s characterization of the US as being a “Shining City Upon a Hill” for the simple reason that our national behavior throughout most of my life has been exemplary of anything but. There are many good, moral people here, like in any other country, but we have allowed ourselves to be led by people who have been increasingly bad. I have suggested elsewhere that the decline in the quality of our leadership may be analogous to increasing entropy.
Well said.
It should be said that some companies, particularly Apple, made moves in the direction of cleaning its supply chain of conflict minerals.
But it became very clear, very quickly, that this was either a scam or too expensive for the companies as news organizations proved Apple was still sourcing conflict materials.
I agree a boycott would be the only effective response. But finding companies with clean supply chains is very hard and ultimately expensive. And given the sheer volume of electronics being made and bought, it will be difficult to shift the market.
It’s a very difficult issue. And as ephemeral as legislation tends to be, it still put enough pressure on companies to rely on third party sources which makes conflict material more expensive for them to source.
“But since passage, tech firms have largely used third party business groups to stymie the rule.”
Figured this was the case. So now they will be openly using blood minerals. How much of this filthy business was prevented by the rule of they just went around it? We need more info. on this aspect.
Regardless of course this is still a grotesque step backwards except perhaps as regards transparency of US actions in service of corporate pillaging.
Has TI just become a wiretap ?
I think it was about last year .
This rag is now CIA owned !!
Organics are the superior alternative to minerals.
Yeah ,,,
The FUCKING INTERCEPT is Yak,,,yakin ,, about this NEW running bit of BS . What about the SIOUX IN DAKOTA
This fucking line is is contaminated !
What did the Intercept have to say about Obama’s trade deal with known human traffickers?
_”Obama Shrugs Off Global Slavery To Protect Trade Deal“_
“Advocates say the move damages U.S. credibility on human rights.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/malaysia-human-trafficking-tpp_us_55b66521e4b0224d8832fe28
Crickets from the Intercept.
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/27/blocked-trade-pact-failure-trafficking-malaysia-suddenly-gets-passing-grade/
From David Dayen
Guess you didn’t even bother to look. Took me all of 15 seconds to find.
May your mother do it for love !
Even though others have been patient enough to reply to you, your comment has precisely zilch to do with anything highlighted in the article. Nice try though.
I think the Obama people are leaking a bit too much these days. They need to wear diapers.
In any case, all the mineral wealth of Africa is now safely in the pocket of China while we have been too much concerned with the health of the distant cousins of our good BLM folks. I don’t think we can access that so easily even with President Trump’s blessings.
Hey ,
Herk,, old Obama served his Massa . He said “Yow’sa Suh” at every tern . Hillary was going to the “THE BITCH THAT KEEPS ON FEEDING ” but along comes a new sort of an freak . A freak born divorced from the life 99.999% of humans experience .
It’s called ” TOTAL DISCONNECT ”
Glad I’m 78 years , cause it’s going to be a real bitch !!
To be fair, China actually NEEDS these minerals because they’re the one doing the manufacturing. Then… ‘we’ buy the stuff and it IS made out of those conflict and transgender-adverse minerals but… that’s Okay?
So the logic is this: if China gets the minerals, manufacture things and then they sell it to us it’s Okay because buying stuff from Communists is no big deal for as long as ‘Putin’ wasn’t involved. However, if ‘we’ try to get the minerals and manufacture the stuff in our own country, that’s unacceptable.
See the logic? No? Then you are not diverse enough and you need some mind readjustment.
The next question is, what will be the origins of the jewelry sold by the Melania and Ivanka lines in the coming years? Jewelry was definitely in the request for damages in the Daily Mail lawsuit, as quantifiable from the opportunity to sell her goods in her position in the White House family. So, are these blood diamonds we’ll be wearing?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-lawsuit_us_5899e21ae4b09bd304bd88a3
(Yes, I know the order mentions gold and other minerals, presumably mostly metals. Gold and platinum are also used for jewelry settings, and presumably blood diamonds and other stones come into the picture at some point as well. Fun fact: it mentions the Congo and countries bordering it. Much of Africa seems to border it.)
Trump never talks about improving workers conditions. It is a safe bet in my book that “making America Great Again” involves lowering pay and trashing workers rights to make the USA workforce competitive with Mexicans and Chinese. This position on the Mineral Act is entirely consistent with Trumps vision. If he succeeds we may ultimately achieve American sweat shops and the return of full service gas stations.
MAGA: make America greedy again. Hey, we need cheap gold if we’re going for another Gilded Age.
Surely whoever coined the phrase Gilded Age didn’t think of the redecorating potential inherent in the Oval Office. :-s
Before they’re done, these Trump cats are going to make the original Gilded Age look like an era of relative restraint.
[[[ Trump never talks about improving workers conditions. It is a safe bet in my book that “making America Great Again” involves lowering pay and trashing workers rights to make the USA workforce competitive with Mexicans and Chinese. ]]]
Damn you’re dumb!
American manufacturing companies moved offshore so they COULD have slaves.
The GLOBALISTS are the ones enslaving you. Not Trump. If you don’t want to be a slave, your job will be exported to China…. and then you won’t even be able to eat.
Brainwashed democrats are the scourge of the world.
Truthseeker? Your a real brainiac! So Republicans did not go along with NAFTA and enabling corporations favorable tax treatment to get “slaves” offshore? You hold that opinion and still call others “dumb”? I am no Democrat but I am not a brain dead Right Wing Talk Radio zombie.
This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats, specifically. There’s just a class of slaver-wannabees that still exist in America.
Democrats ARE worse, tho. That’s what the Clinton Foundation is really all about.
It has nothing to do with taxes, either. A ready supply of slaves is the goal. “Free Trade” is “Tariff Free”… because Tariffs are NORMALLY used to prevent this stuff. That’s why these globalists bitch about Tariffs.
I will say that I think Trump is real…. He shocked the hell out of anyone.
Trump was also onboard with Ross Perot and the Reform Party when that was going on. He’s real.
p.s… Remember Ross Perot talking about NAFTA? He used the term “huge sucking sound”.
He was right. And, Trump agreed with Perot.
A stopped clock is correct twice a day, and this is one of the rare times when the generally repugnant Trump regime has the facts on its side.
Advocates of Dodd-Frank 1502 said it would help end the conflicts in the region by depriving militia of the profits they derive from the “conflict mineral” trade. What they won’t tell you is that virtually every serious scholar and journalist to have visited the region oppose the law, and that some of the most reputable organizations, like Human Rights Watch, have silently withdrawn their support for the campaign.
For a round-up of the scholarly literature, see here: http://www.congoresources.org/2013/02/the-persistence-of-folly.html, and for a round-up of journalism from investigators who have actually gone to the region, see here: http://www.congoresources.org/2013/01/press-round-up-on-conflict-minerals.html
Four key points:
1) The law hasn’t ended the conflicts because they’re only secondarily about the minerals. Neither of arguably the two worst militia, the FDLR and M23 (originally known as the CNDP) is in it for money, and both have access to other sources of revenue.
2) By pushing the mineral trade under ground, Dodd-Frank actually drove it into the hands of the very militia the law was meant to hurt, earning them windfall profits (think what prohibition did for the mafia).
3) Advocates failed to disclose that nearly all local knowledgeable civil society groups opposed what they were doing and warned them of the harm it would cause their communities. By framing the issue as brave advocates versus nasty rich corporations, the effectively silenced the very people they were ostensibly championing: The Congolese themselves.
4) Most importantly, the embargo of the region’s minerals has come at a tremendous cost to the miners and their families. This can’t be emphasized enough. Once the law came into effect, in April of 2011, the mineral exporters shut down. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of artisinal miners, already among the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, were deprived of their livelihoods, all-but overnight. When I visited their villages, in the summer of 2011, they were angry and desperate: They blamed “Obama’s Law,” as they called it, for the fact that they could no longer afford school fees for their children or medical care for their pregnant wives. By December of that year, some of those villages were reporting outbreaks of Kwashiorkor.
One more point: As far as I know, none of us who oppose Dodd Frank 1502 on humanitarian and intellectual grounds has any criticism to make of Dodd Frank 1504, which mandates disclosure of payments by resource extractors. On the contrary, we repeatedly warned the advocates that this law, with its manifest cruelties, would be used by corporate interests to make the broader case against reform. This is, of course, exactly what has happened. Why else did the acting chair of the SEC make this provision the subject of his very first official statement?
Let me conclude by citing some of the Congolese who have been affected by the law, and whose voices have been all-but-ignored in the debate:
Serge Mulumba, president of the mining cooperative CDMC, in a letter to the SEC:
“We can not give you exactly the number of lives that are lost each day following the cessation of artisanal mining in the DRC and yet even if a child died or who is hungry or do not go to school because his father digger lacked money, this is a tragedy, it is a sad news that should challenge our humanity.”
Pastor Raymond, in an open letter posted on Fair Jewelry Auction:
“Please listen attentively to our cries of weeping and anguish. Our families and us will be doomed to death if you do not hear these cries of alarm. Do not wait to rescue us when we will be already in the grave. Act in time to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that would arise from the consequences of your suspension to purchase our minerals.”
Heads of three South Kivu mining associations, in a letter to the SEC, begging them to reconsider DF-1502
“What is the refuge of all the Congolese jobless, around 85 % of the population. Is it to make peace or to trouble the peace, when the life is stopped for a population? No job, no life. Please imagine the consequences…”
This is one of the most persuasive comments I’ve read on The Intercept, coming as a surprise compared to what I had believed. Nonetheless, David Aronson’s view of the world has opposition: http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/setting-record-straight-congos-conflict-minerals At this point you have perplexed me enough to halt a knee-jerk reaction, but that’s all. Since Trump will do what he wants to do no matter what we think, there’s no harm for us to reserve judgment while asking whether some other approach might help innocent people of the Congo better.
Well, thank you. I can’t ask for more than that. The issues get complicated quickly, as you can imagine, with experts disputing what happened with this or that rebel group in this or that mining zone. (For a taste of that complexity, see this piece regarding Enough’s premature claim that the conflict minerals campaign had helped end the violence in eastern DRC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/25/did-cutting-access-to-mineral-wealth-reduce-violence-in-the-drc/?utm_term=.2ea464348c76)
And for a more entertaining look at these issues see here: http://www.wewillwinpeace.com/
Let me just raise a practical matter: Gold is now the primary mineral being exploited in eastern Congo. I can’t imagine how a law governing US security disclosures would ever be able to stop a local village chief in Kampala from selling a half ounce of gold to a Lebanese middleman who will ship it to a Dubai-based exchange, where it will wind up in the holding company of some Chinese billionaire. Gold is simply too liquid, too fungible, too compactly valuable to get control over. We spent how many billions on the drug war—and locked away how many hundreds of thousands of people—with what success? But an SEC-guideline regarding a securities regulation is supposed to stem this global trade in gold? Seems unlikely.
As to what other approach might work best, I’d reframe the question this way: Why is the central government, which after all has access to several orders of magnitude more financial and military resources than the various ragged militias of eastern DRC, so unwilling to exercise its sovereignty over these contested regions? Posed like that, the question shifts attention away from the border Kivu provinces to the shambolic failures of the national government 1000 klicks away, in the capital city of Kinshasa. I think most Congo watchers (and most Congolese) would say that that is where the focus needs to be. The president of the DRC has been a major disappointment for a host of reasons, very much including the fact that he’s failed to suppress the violence in the east. He’s also supposed to have left. According to the national constitution, his second and final term ended in December 2016, and there is an enormous ongoing effort to convince him to cede power and hold fair and credible elections. If Congo is ever to fulfill its potential, it will only be if it enjoys a modicum of competent, honest, and democratically responsive government.
“Secretaries’ Plan. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall propose to the President a plan for addressing human rights violations and funding of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country. The plan could include targeting persons and entities engaged in violations of the law and negative human rights impacts, consistent with Section 13 of the Exchange Act. The Secretaries shall submit their plan to the President within 180 days of the date of this Order.”
That’s a good thing, right?
“The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall propose to the President a plan for addressing human rights violations and funding of the armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country. The plan could include targeting persons and entities engaged in violations of law and negative human rights impacts, consistent with Section 13 of the Exchange Act. The Secretaries shall submit their plan to the President within 180 days of the date of this Order.”
That’s a good thing, right?
MAGA! The affairs of African countries are not the business of the US Govt.
The US govt should be about making America Great again.
African affairs should be handled by the UN. The USA should not be a member of the UN, but have an emissary. We can choose to agree with, or not, UN policy.
It’s nice to know that when I buy my next computer with Intel, I’ll be funding a Central African Warlord. Thanks Comey.
and *hi* FBI
Sooo, it’s just America funding terrorists where they need them.
Nothing new here, Just a different part of the African continent.
Can’t be letting China get a foothold building hospitals, stadiums. roads and water treatment facilities now can we? Warlords are waaaay cheaper than those other methods.
obama, afghanistan, lithium deposits
discuss
Obamas not president anymore. Irrelevant
On topic and well worth the read–interview with Cambridge University Prof. of Economics Ha Joon Chang:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/39393-exposing-the-myths-of-neoliberal-capitalism-an-interview-with-ha-joon-chang
To be successful, such industrial policy will have to be backed up by a radical redesigning of the financial system,
done.
Isn’t the Donald one fucked up piece of work
I swear on my child and all that is good in this world, these are very corrupt and intentionally mean bastards.
Lee Fang, please clarify your text: you write that the rule “discourages” businesses.
Does it ban them from buying bloody conflict minerals – or does it let them self-regulate?
Thank you.
I concur
Business is Business
An Energy Corporation with its own Military ..and those who won’t do business with you are Terrorists
Those espousing africa is backwards, is due to the manipulation of corporations & foreign nations agenda’s! They don’t want these peoples culture’s too develop much because they will lose mass profits & have to pay a good deal more for the resources they seek to effectively steal (paying such a low price). It’s why uk_naziland is home to these tyrants children & where they get educated to again prevail over the enslaved population their parents reside over.
The uk_naziland is the hive of an evil agenda at holding back developing nations from realizing there potential. We only allow them certain technologies so that we can again oversee how & were they are changing. The U.S & U.K have both been caught installing listening nodes onto the world wide internet so that the secret services can do the evil bidding of these shadowy government billionaires..
Aaaaw, crap. I knew whitey would cut into the Israeli conflict diamond racket and get some action sooner or later.
What’s a good Rhodesian scholar to do these days for blood money??!
(where in sheol did I put my Zwi Migdahl “community service” portfolio?)
https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-blood-diamonds/8754
Trump os leaving the hypocrisy to the side. Thus policy change is bringing this operation from the shadows to the sunlight and making it legal. The war that started in Ruanda and followed to old Zaire in 1997/8 was part of planned USA freeing itself of dependence from China on Rares Earths elements. An war started at least 12 years in advance from China’s blocking unlimited exports of such elements. USA without these elements are powerless to keep the most powerful armed forces at the top of food chain. So why you are acting so surprised and upset?
It seems that Trump is using the terrorist trump card in order to enrich himself and his billi-buddies. All of a sudden, Islamic bogeymen (and women and children) are threatening our ability to do what ever the hell we want.
The public has been propagandized against Muslims for 15 years now, so an amorphous threat by a religion most christians know nothing about, except what their ‘leaders’ tell them, becomes plenty scary to these people who have been promised eternal life, but can’t seem to believe it.
Of course, murdering people in foreign countries has already pissed some people off enough to kill Americans, which prompts more killing and immigration bans and up-armored police and spy drones and presenting ‘alternate facts’, until the Constitution itself becomes a quaint document from an idealistic past. Keeping Us Safe becomes the only job of the State.
A suggestion, my fellow Americans: You are going to die eventually anyway. Try to do it with with your dignity and personal freedoms intact.
In other words, Grow A Pair.
My T.I acquaintance you need to consciously push for a third political party to rise up. That truly seems to be the only way the system will change in north-america.
.. Africa does not seem to have changed a lot in the last hundreds of years. Places in Africa should be immune to these things yet wallstreet thieves need the money. Compared to other fashionable offences like droning, guantanamo, NDAA, home theft by wallstreet thieves, palestinian genocide etc, the protections pretended for the planet by the UN and ICC are just expensive suggestions that wallstreet corporat thieves depend on to dead-end the voices that might otherwise block their monetary achievements. So for 364 days a year the D&D’s in charge wear a mask and that one day a year on halloween they put on their real face.
Most of these rules about conflict minerals, while well intentioned, often do very little good other than subject companies to giant headaches. The US and Europe can avoid buying them but that just means that someone else will. Meanwhile you’ve just caused manufacturers to hire a lot more supply chain employees to manage the compliance bureaucracy making us even less competitive with China.
This is a pretty common response, but I’d encourage you to look no further than the situation surrounding Joseph Kabila for evidence that these laws work.
I’ve been investigating the extent of conflict-free claims for some time and I can tell you that foundries are routinely investigated by neutral third parties — there is no inexpensive way to “get around” these laws.
I could talk for hours about the situation in Eastern Congo and how important these laws are — I encourage you to at least keep an open mind about this and look at the OECD Report and organizations like the Enough Project.
Shorter Dave A: it’s hard and more costly to do the right thing, so fuck it, profits uber alles.
Here’s a novel idea–boycott Intel and other tech companies who use these minerals until they can prove their supply chains are conflict mineral free. You know, give consumers a choice by being transparent about your business practices, and let the consumer decide whether they want products with conflict minerals or free of conflict minerals and willing to pay marginally more in the case of the latter. What a horrifying thought for a businesses and consumers, eh?
Of course it is never really about “transparency” in “price” or accurately pricing in “externalities” that the private sector creates, because transnational corporate business executives knows their businesses, products and services would die either a slow or quick death if people really understood and were well informed re: what went into those products and services like conflict minerals, or child or slave labor, or murdering union organizers, or polluting the air and water . . . .
rrheard if only it were that easy. What other CPUs are you going to buy if you boycott Intel? AMD? They have the same practices and are the only other chip maker. So are you just going to stop using technology until these companies all change their behavior? Good luck getting the whole word to do that…
Absolutely. The ethical diff between Intel execs & ‘warlords’ is that Intel runs a much larger racket. And the miners themselves are only participating in the gig economy , after all. Similar to Intels’ customer base.