Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thirst For Coltan Fueling African Conflict

Posted by timothy on from the thirst-for-coltan-would-be-a-great-movie-title dept.

MetaPhyzx writes "According to an article put forth by the Toward Freedom website, the metallic ore known as columbite-tantalite or coltan for short is fueling conflict in central Africa. The relevance to us who read news for geeks: Coltan is in quite a few consumer electronics; the article references the Sony Playstation series." As reader fahrvergnugen points out in the comments below, there's reason to more than doubt the currency of the claims in the above-linked article, as outlined in a post at Joystiq.

13 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry to say but... by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anything and everything fuels conflict in Africa. At most, this is throwing a match into a raging fire.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Sorry to say but... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As with most generalizations, yours is too general. A great many regular Africans would be happy to get by not much above subsistence, if they could do it in relative freedom.

      The problem happens to be that while 'a great many' think a world of peace, love, and understanding would be a great place to live, there are a few who think it sounds like a great place to pillage.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    2. Re:Sorry to say but... by digitrev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real problem is that the few who think it'd be a great place to pillage also have the means to do so.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    3. Re:Sorry to say but... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real problem is that peace, love, and understanding don't defend you from guns, knives, and rocks.

      The parent is saying, essentially, that Africans, like the rest of us, live in the real world, and not fantasy hippy fairy land.

    4. Re:Sorry to say but... by JonTurner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The means, yes, and the will. Either alone is not enough.
      If history teaches us anything it is that the world is, and always shall be, ruled by force. Those who are willing and able to use it shall have their way with those who cannot or will not.

    5. Re:Sorry to say but... by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Peace, love and understanding has nothing to do with defending yourself. The martial arts are primarily a means of defense, not attack, and are said to be quite handy against guns, knives and indeed rocks. You can love your fellow man and wear body armour, to much the same effect. Peace does not require intimidating everyone else into cowardice. It is quite sufficient to make hostile intent completely ineffective.

      (Hell, most geeks already know this. Which is a more effective way to stop someone reading your e-mail? Threatening them or encrypting it?)

      Violence is the last resort of the incompetent, a wise man once said. I beg to differ. It is usually the first. It is the competent who defer it until all other options have failed, and even then the most competent would seek to find ways to not have to resort to it.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Sorry to say but... by Ares · · Score: 5, Insightful

      every so often i see a quote in someone's sig around here saying something along the lines of "a man with a gun is a citizen. a man without a gun is a subject." sad, but very applicable here.

    7. Re:Sorry to say but... by lee1026 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The martial arts is not effective against guns - there is a reason why the army issues its soldiers guns instead of martial arts training.

    8. Re:Sorry to say but... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with African tribes is they have too much freedom. They have the freedom to violate the rights of others without any consequence. This lack of law creates a rule by force in which the incentives favor violent force over non-violent competition. This means any new resource found will lead to bloodshed as the means of competing for them instead of market competition. I don't see that as being to general, since the entirety of history until constitutional monarchy was implemented is filled with the same pattern.

      I got assaulted with negative mods when I said the Burma junta was going to seize the aid as being ethnocentric and making over generalizations, a week latter they did. I was no more wrong about that than this because it is human nature to follow self interest, and the incentives as they exist in Africa now make the competition by force and the war of all against all it brings the most rational.

      The problem is Human nature is that it is very rational even in irrational situations. Africans may know that if they support co-operation today they might eat better tomorrow but they also Know that if they don't kill the other town they will probably not live to see tomorrow and will eat better today if they do. the option of furthering the system of violence in this case is the more rational. this is played out in movies, no one is going to be the first to drop the gun when they know the other will shoot them if they do.

      Africa has a great many regular Africans who WOULD be happy to get by not much above subsistence, if they COULD do it in relative freedom, but they opt instead to do it through organized violence.

    9. Re:Sorry to say but... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your wise man was wise. Violence is sometimes appropriate, and a smart person would know when to use it. An idiot would say "it's the last resort", and try to reason with an aggressor rather than defend himself.

      You live in a peaceful society because we have chosen to apply violence when necessary to stop those that deviate from our generally agreed upon rules of conduct. If we instead chose not to use violence until the last resort, we would find ourselves constantly fighting for our lives against those who chose to exploit us; or more likely, we'd be dead.

    10. Re:Sorry to say but... by xappax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, no. You have little to no knowledge of the conflicts over diamonds, and should learn some more before making such proclamations. The "gvmnt. of that country" is not the only party responsible for most resource conflicts in Africa. In many cases it's not even a significant player.

      We're not talking about Iraq here, a country which had a stable government until the US showed up. We're talking about a situation where various militant factions and warlords ally themselves with transnational export companies in order to fund their weapons and equipment, and in this case use forced labor to supply the export companies with what they want.

      So in short, it doesn't matter worth a damn whether you show them a better way and have them elect their own government, because their neighbors are members of an armed militia which operates completely independently of the government, and may someday decide to enslave them.

  2. In other news.... by johnny+cashed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thirst for oil is fueling middle east conflict. News at 11.

  3. Hmmm by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's one way to do it.

    Stop selling weapons to Africa. Join the ICC to put those in jail who do sell weapons to Africa. Help them become self sufficient instead of just sending them cash. The US Economy alone could cut it's war budget by 10% and feed the whole continent. (I factor in nuclear research, the Dept of Homeland Security, and all other actually war related expenses for a total of one trillion dollars per year.)

    The reality is that we don't want to help Africans because we don't care about Africans. Rwanda? Darfur? Give our leaders a call when you can find some better natural resources to exploit, and then our march of freedom will spread southward. Otherwise we'll keep people like Nelson Mandela on our terrorist watch lists along with anyone else who dares to oppose pro-American governments.