The Congo Tantalum Rush

Logic Bomb writes: "The New York Times Magazine takes a look at the mining of a muddy substance called coltan. Once refined, it becomes tantalum, the crucial ingredient in capacitors. To put it simply, the modern high-tech world depends on this stuff. And while most of us have images of squeaky-clean chip factories and such -- in marked contrast to sleazy textile sweatshops -- it turns out that this industry has a dark side that takes a major toll on human lives. Definitely worth a read."

Comments

Re:And the point is?

[lemox]

The crux of the matter is that when you talk about the poor conditions in just about any region of Africa (aside from the extreme north), almost all o fthose poor conditions did not exist until industrialized European countries and the United States decided to change them into colonies or banana republics to benefited their own economy at the expense of the African ones.

Re:And the point is?

[Logic Bomb]

Your argument is a fairly standard one against those who bitch and moan about the horrors of globalization. (I think it's basically a good argument.) This is not a typical case of globalization though, because "the wheels of progress" are not turning in the Congo. The mining is not an organized commercial operation at the lowest levels, like a factory. The reason fully organized commercial operations are beneficial is because they a) build infrastructure, and b) educate the population in at least some capacity, whether it be through pure technical skills or through low-level management. The mining does neither. In fact, it destroys the potential for future infrastructure by wrecking the environment. And people digging around in holes for buckets of mud is hardly an educating process.

This process is not an example of globalization at work. It is advanced-industrialized countries extracting resources from poorer countries and leaving little in return. Though I am not attempting to place a value judgement upon it in this comment, I must point out that arguments which attempt to defend globalization are not valid here.

Thank you.

[Fat Casper]

I love it when non-NYT articles get linked to here, because I don't feel like registering to read my news. I like it even more when they are linked to in the actual story (nudge, nudge, folks).

Not exceptional...

[Mike Schiraldi]

Sure, the story sounds appaling -- notably the way Mama D. exploits her workers. But do you really think any other business is different? You like having a car, right? Hundreds if not thousands of Mama D.'s went into the production of it. They're called entrepreneurs, and we'd all be living in the dirt without them.

The workers are thrilled to make $80 a day -- it's 400 times what they'd make otherwise. They're overjoyed to trade some muck they dug up for whores and antibiotics and beer and cash. Nobody's forcing them to do it -- they can always go back to whatever they used to do. Without someone "exploiting" them, they'd be bored and poor.

If you're really concerned about this kind of thing, how about asking the guy who cleans the the toilets at work how much he gets paid to do it. Or the people who pick the oranges so you can have a morning glass of OJ. Or just about anything else you enjoy.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong!

[Robber Baron]

Now here comes my admittedly controversial point: the vast majority of the world is still like that. The Congo basin is still like that. The evil greedy capitalist colonial corporations have nothing to do with it. There are all kinds of funky diseases, famines, and ethnic infighting in the area. If anything, the establishment of mining and factories will add stability to the region, since the companies want to protect their money and investment.

With all due respect, you are out to lunch on this one.
From the Article:

In the 1960's, the Americans waded in. To fight Communism and secure access to cobalt and copper, the Central Intelligence Agency helped bring about the assassination of Congo's first democratically elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba. That was followed by three decades of White House coddling of his successor, Mobutu Sese Seku, Africa's most famous billionaire dictator, who set a poisoned table for the chaos that followed his eventual overthrow in 1997.

The evil greedy capitalist colonial corporations are NOT helping the situation. Sure, they'll give them the bare minimum to keep them digging or to keep churning out Nike's but they will never allow them to achieve the stability that will allow them to choose not to be exploited.

Re:And the point is?

[H310iSe]

The funny thing is I usually find myself argueing postions similar to yours, only in this case I think you're wrong. In the olden times (say, Rome) they lacked the ability to raise living standards for a majority of the people to a decent level. Technology, etc. (maybe even capitalism...), has provided this ability to our age for what is probably the first time in history (sure,you could create small utopias in the past but nothing large scale). Therefore since we have the ability to achieve this, we might also have a moral obligation to pursue this end. This addresses your next point, that the 'wheels of progress' will pull these people out of thier current state. This is the typical arguement for global capitalization (vs. the anti-WTO crew) and it has some merrit. Just extend it logically - take a sweat shop making Nikes. If you pay the workers $.50 a day and this is twice as much as they'd make otherwise and applaud yourself for it, why not continue and give 'em a dollar or two? See, the wheels of progress tend to weigh human suffering and profit margins rather peculiarly, giving *way* too much weight to profit margins. They're important, but maybe, say, equally important as alleviating (sp?) suffering.

Now your point about how farked up the place is before 'we' got there and how 'we're' a stabalizing influence, well taken. It's true that many places would be content to screw themselves for eternity and capi-colonialism stepping in simply changes the dynamic somewhat but doesn't nesc. create any *more* suffering (different, sure, but not more). People like killing other people. Still, the point is we *could* do better so maybe we *should*. Not just leave, but intervene more positviely. ...

Not just hi-tech

[Sawbones]

To put it simply, the modern high-tech world depends on this stuff. And while most of us have images of squeaky-clean chip factories and such -- in marked contrast to sleazy textile sweatshops -- it turns out that this industry has a dark side that takes a major toll on human lives

The sad thing is I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY industry that doesn't depend on some "sleazy textile sweatshop" at some point. I would wager that most of us are wearing at least one piece of clothing produced under less than ideal conditions.

Lets also not forget that caps have been around for a hell of a lot longer than the "modern hi-tech industry".

Re:And the point is?

[MrGrendel]

Why should we care? Maybe because we (or at least some of us) have a sense of ethics and respect for human life in general. This kind of oppresion is wrong. All the time. Everywhere. There is no possible way to justify it. The fact that humans have been treating each other badly and enslaving one another for much of the past 10,000 years does not mean it is an ethical activity that we should be supporting, whether it contributes to the illusion of progress or not.

If anything, the establishment of mining and factories will add stability to the region, since the companies want to protect their money and investment. In short, the next time you feel like whining about the plight of people in the third world, ask yourself "Do I want to live like that?" I suspect the answer is no, and if it is no, please don't stop the wheels of progress from helping them escape.

Why don't you explain to everyone how giving money to a group of people conducting an extremely violent and oppressive civil war contributes to the stability of the region? Companies don't need to bother protecting their money and investment, because they have no investment in the region. The rebels run the mines and then sell the raw materials to western corporations. They then use the money to buy weapons which are used to enslave, kill, and torture their advisaries. How is this improving anyone's life (other than those who are getting rich off of the war)?

And as long as we're talking about helping people escape from poverty, let's talk about what "the wheels of progress" are up to in neighboring areas of Africa. In Sierra-Leone we have (you guessed it!) another civil war being funded by western corporations. In this case it's the diamond industry that we can blame. People (even children) who are not active rebels or aren't eager enough to mine diamonds for them are helped by having their hands lopped off. Children are sometimes helped by being forced to participate in the torture and murder of their parents. That's progress if I've ever seen it! In nearby Nigeria, Chevron officials helped labor leaders trying to organize their employees by participating in their assasinations. More progress inspired by a corporation protecting it's valuable assets! Unfortunately for the people who were helped by Chevron, human beings are not considered to be valuable and worthy of protection.

So, no, I don't want to live like that and I don't want to help turn the wheels of progress. Trade can help people, but only if they actually get paid fairly for their labor and their countries are not turned into toxic wastelands in the process.