Seeing Red

Veteran satirist Tom Lehrer said that the world of comedy changed in 1973 when the greatest living war criminal, Henry Kissinger, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. ‘At that moment, satire died. There was nothing more to say after that’.

If, during Bono’s cosying up to the G8 last summer, I’d done a sketch about him launching a consume-to-give campaign, urging people to buy products made by sweatshop barons Nike and Gap, it would’ve seemed like a cheap shot.

It would’ve gotten plain unfunny if I’d said there’d be a ‘help Africa by buying a special mobile phone’ idea.

I’m just one of many who’ve written about how Central African mining of coltan – the metal for mobile phone chips – is the catalyst for the largest war on earth and the destruction of World Heritage rainforest habitat and wildlife.

To say Bono would endorse flogging a ‘sexy, sophisticated, groovy’ phone for Africa would be too far gone. He couldn’t possibly be so ignorant. Someone who says he’s been spending years looking into Africa’s problems would surely have stumbled across a war that has killed tens of millions over the last 12 years, drawing in troops from Libya in the north to Zimbabwe in the south.

Yet as Bono edited an edition of The Independent on Tuesday for his Red campaign, all this happened and more. He fakes humility, claiming rock stars can’t instigate real change, with an clever-clever wink that saying so in a campaign edition of a national newspaper means the opposite.

He’s a dab hand at declaring one thing about himself when the opposite is true. In his speech to last year’s Labour Party conference he warmly compared Blair and Brown to Lennon and McCartney, yet in The Independent he claims to have been constantly ‘banging my fist’ on their doors.

He uses his one-day tenure to allege that concentrations of power and wealth predicated on poverty are actually some kind of mechanism for eradicating it.

He gets Radio 1’s Zane Lowe in to discourage any altering of political power. It’s not that multibillion dollar corporations don’t want to help, it’s just that they can’t figure out how to and we’ve been slack in showing them.

 

The only thing people who are trying to make a difference can do is work alongside corporations. We’re not going to abolish big business, people aren’t going to stop drinking Starbucks and buying Nike, but you can say to them, ‘There’s a big difference you can make and if we find a way to make it easier for you, would you contribute?’

 

The contents got as incongruous as the ‘Genesis 1.27’ on the cover. (It’s the bit that says God created humans in His image. Thanks for that, Bono); Condoleeza Rice claiming that anything by U2 would be in her all time top ten. Yeah, right.

The role the rich play in creating poverty isn’t dealt with anywhere. Conservative Party consultant Bob Geldof takes a look in that direction and turns away. He laments how ‘African states never developed from the skittish single-commodity market into a more balanced economy’ without asking who forced the single-commodity economies on them and prevented any change.

He says there should be ‘no enforced liberalisation by the IMF, the World Bank or the EU’. That would be enforced liberalisation such the G8 making debt relief conditional upon measures to ‘boost private sector development’ and ‘the elimination of impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign’, and not actually cancelling any debt until such measures are up and running.

Those would be policies that Geldof praised to high heaven last summer, scoring them ‘eight out of ten’. Indeed, in this supposedly critical new article he contradicts himself and reiterates his support, calling them ‘brave and bold political breakthroughs’.

The overall message is that Africa is a helpless starving victim and we are the people who should generously help out of the kindness of our hearts. The fact that Africans had been feeding themselves perfectly well for millennia until colonialism just doesn’t get a look in.

The attitude is one of stirring us to charitable consumption. Yet our consumption is the engine of the problem. We are still the colonial power, just without the imperial troops. The farming methods we impose that ruin the soil and ecosystems, the cash crops grown in them for our demand, the vicious client governments we set up and support, the arms we sell them, the minerals they supply for our fuel and jewellery and hi-tech gadgets; these cause the problems. We can’t consume our way out of overconsuming.

Just as we may say we want ‘no war for oil’ but by our oil-thirsty lifestyles we demand the war it requires, so we find poverty distressing but are not prepared to give up the ‘rights’ and goods that can only be made possible for us by the poverty of others. We would like to see change, but not at the expense of our comforts.

One Labour MP recently conceded,

 

We are imprisoned by our political Hippocratic oath: we will deliver unto the electorate more goodies than anybody else. Such an oath was only ever achievable by increasing our despoliation of the world’s resources. Our economic model is not so different in the cold light of day to that of the Third Reich – which knew it could only expand by grabbing what it needed from its neighbours.

 

We get our out of season fruit and our cut flowers at the expense of their staple crops. Put simply, we are rich because they are poor, and they are poor because we are rich.

As Nyarai Humba said

 

I hear tell
that the ‘West’ claims
‘Third World’ countries
owe them a debt. 

The white people them
They come to our countries
they unleash
upon we
the holocaust of slavery
the evil, parasitic, violent process
them call colonization.

What this means is
them rape Mother Africa
took her children to use as donkey
went right inside Mother Africa belly
and steal her resources
send them back home
to the ‘west’.

We the Africans,
funded the industrial revolution
with our blood, sweat, and tears and
Life.

So I don’t really understand
what the ‘west’ means
when them talk
‘bout ‘Third world debt’
I believe them have no shame
I know they full of untruth
they lie to themselves constantly
cause truth will kill them fe true.

I ask you to reconsider
who owes whom?

The west owes Africa
a debt so great
them can never
fully repay.

 
 

It is an obscene insult to think our responsibility is merely charitable, and it is a nonsense to think we can do it by means of corporations selling us phones built on African blood. It’s a nonsense to think a corporation can be truly moral at all. A public company has a duty to maximise profits to its shareholders. To stray from that is actually illegal.

Corporate Watch’s Corporate Law and Structures report explains,

 

profit is absolute, social and environmental values are relative: their first aim is to make as much money as possible, but given two ways to make that money they choose the one that requires the least murder, blatant theft or environmental destruction. Then they pat themselves on the back for being so responsible.

 

The solution, much to the distress of the corporations Bono and friends court, is not something they can sell us like a Make Poverty History wristband made in a Chinese sweatshop. For corporations and their agents in government to make poverty history they would need to dismantle the power they derive from poverty.

That’s beyond turkeys voting for Christmas, it’s more like expecting the farmers to baste and cook themselves for the turkeys to eat.

12 comments
  1. JimG said:

    “The fact that Africans had been feeding themselves perfectly well for millennia until colonialism just doesn’t get a look in”

    Some evidence for this fact would be nice. According to John Reader,

    “The poor, whom the Merrie Africa scenario presumes never to have existed in pre-colonial Africa, were a conspicuous feature of African society when the Portugese established Europe’s first direct contacts with Africa in the early 1500s. Francisco Alvares, a Portugese priest who visited Ethiopia in 1520, wrote of more than 3,000 destitute people seeking help at a shrine near Axum. In West Africa, visitors noted that while the rich were well dressed and lived in substantial houses whose interiors were furnished with fine-quality mats and three-legged stools covered with oxhide, the poor lived under open shelters, wore grass skirts when even goatskins were beyond their means, and subsisted on meagre, inferior diets. Whether by the compulsion of fate or force, many of the poorest gravitated towards enslavement.”

    He also notes plenty of evidence that slavery was not unknown in pre-colonial times.

    I’m not saying colonialism didn’t make things worse, just that the idea there was no hunger or poverty in Africa before then is extremely fanciful. Oh, and I don’t really see how us choosing to buy cut flowers from someone else is really going to make things that much better for them either.

    Agree with you about the debt though.

  2. “Put simply, we are rich because they are poor, and they are poor because we are rich.”

    Piffle.

    “I’m just one of many who’ve written about how Central African mining of coltan – the metal for mobile phone chips – is the catalyst for the largest war on earth and the destruction of World Heritage rainforest habitat and wildlife.”

    Further piffle. Have a look at Table 10 in this:
    http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/niobimyb04.pdf
    Even if we assume that all Tantalum production in Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe is from the Congo (not a valid assumption but let’s play) then that is responsible for 49 tonnes out of global production of 1,510.

    From your article:

    “Tantalum is a refined metal that stays stable at very high temperatures, it’s the only thing capable of making such tiny electronic processing chips work so well. It’s in everything that has a small processing chip, and by far the biggest user is mobile phones.”

    Even further piffle. Ta is used in the capacitors, not “chips”. It can be replaced with either aluminium or ceramics (although with a lossofperformance).

    “Tantalum is not only essential for all processor products, it is also unrecycleable.”

    Unimaginable piffle.
    Tantalum is recycled all the time: I’ve actually bought Ta capacitors off ebay and sold them to refiners for a profit. Those who scrap mobile phones (no, we no longer are allowed to throw them away) recover the Ta….because it’s valuable.

    “and yet it is running out at an ever-increasing rate.”

    Err, you don’t know anything about mining do you?

    “By far the largest amount, some 80% of the world’s reserves, is in central Africa. Some 80% of that – two thirds of all the coltan on earth – is in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

    According to the USGS most identified reserves are in Australia, Brazil and Canada:
    http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/tantamcs06.pdf

    BTW, coltan mining hasindeed caused problems in The Congo. It’s just that you are rather over egging the pudding with your claims.
    What did the Aussies, who supply 48% of the world’s supply of Ta, do to make you mad? Why punish them by reducing demand?

  3. Tasneem said:

    Well, before reading this, Bono was getting + ratings from me, excellent analysis to correct my ignorance. I am awful with conclusions often ;-(

  4. Merrick said:

    Tim Worstall:

    “Piffle.”

    Thankyou for that considered intelligent response. How it informs the debate and makes me see that I’m wrong.

    Tim, if you have a point to make then make it. If you use a one-word dismissal without elucidation then you’re not saying anything of worth, you’re merely throwing insults around. Such chest-beating doesn’t help anyone.

    Putting it at the start of your response colours the reader’s perception of you and detracts from their willingness to properly listen to any good points you may have.

    I’m sure that’s not what you want, I’m sure you’re bright enough to respond without recourse to such tactics and I’m sure those who visit The Shaprpener expect a higher standard of debate.

    “Even if we assume that all Tantalum production in Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe is from the Congo (not a valid assumption but let’s play) then that is responsible for 49 tonnes out of global production of 1,510.”

    Nowhere did I say that Central African tantalum is the majority of the world’s supply. I said it holds the majority of the world’s reserves and that mining it is the catalyst for the war and the destruction of World Heritage rainforest habitat and wildlife.

    Disagreeing with something I didn’t say or imply doesn’t really help us any more than the insults or make you seem any more engaged, but at least it’s more polite.

    “Ta is used in the capacitors, not ‘chips’.”. Thankyou, my mistake and I stand corrected. The validity of the points about coltan’s essential role in modern electronics remains unchanged though.

    Can you tell me how my statement that ‘it’s the only thing capable of making such tiny electronic processing chips work so well’ is ‘even further piffle’ when the only alternatives deliver ‘a lossofperformance’?

    ‘Tantalum is recycled all the time'; again, I stand corrected. When writing the article several years ago I couldn’t find any reference to recycling, whilst coming across numerous ones about the tremendous difficulty of recovery. One German phone recycler was proud that they’d found a way to recover and recycle all elements even including screens and fascia, but not the tantalum.

    and yet it is running out at an ever-increasing rate. Err, you don’t know anything about mining do you?”

    Please enlighten me; if there is a mineral that we are using more and more of and having less than 100% recycling rate, how are we not running out at an ever increasing rate?

    “According to the USGS most identified reserves are in Australia, Brazil and Canada”

    That’s not what they say. They talk of the Reserves and the Reserve Base. There are other kinds of reserves. Check the USGS definitions document
    http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2006/mcsapp06.pdf
    Its terms for Speculative Resources, Restricted Resources and Reserves comfortably cover coltan that’s under protected World Heritage rainforest in the middle of a war zone.

    They say the figures are not available for the African nations, not zero. You conflate ‘no precise data avaiable’ with ‘non-existant’.

    The ‘80% of reserves’ figure crops up in a wide range of places. A quick google gives me

    The UN:
    ‘The DRC contains 80 per cent of world reserves of columbite-tantalite’ (coltan).
    http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/monuc/drc.pdf

    Industry:
    ‘It is estimated that Congo contains 80% of the world’s coltan reserves’
    http://www.mineweb.net/columns/african_renaissance/884789.htm

    media:
    ‘DRC is home to 80% of the world’s coltan reserves’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1468772.stm

    NGO (Friends of The Congo):
    ‘Congo possesses 80 percent of the world’s coltan.’
    http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/coltan.php

    “What did the Aussies, who supply 48% of the world’s supply of Ta, do to make you mad? Why punish them by reducing demand?”

    I am intrigued by the idea that reducing demand for unsustainable items is merely a punishment for the producers, but that’s by the by. The key point is that the central African war is colossal; it has been going on for 12 years, it has killed tens of millions of people, it has involved atrocities so bad that I do not repeat details of them to people. The mining of coltan has not only caused environmental devastation in the region, but it has been one of the main causes of the scale of the war, supplying the militias with hundreds of millions of dollars.

    An unmarked shipment of coltan does not have an identifiable source. The convoluted chain of supply means that the processor company and end consumer have no idea where it comes from. As the article says, manufacturers say their tantalum’s not from Congo, but they have no way of guaranteeing it. Given that the people who supply it to them get it from the region, it’s undoubtedly fair to say that it is still going into our gadgets.

    Our demand is what gives coltan its value, and in buying Congolese coltan we greatly exacerbate the largest war on earth and the destruction of enormously valuable ecological habitat and the wildlife it supports.

  5. Jonn said:

    While I don’t know enough about this specific case to argue particularly strongly either way, it is interesting that many of the richest countries on earth – Singapore, Hong Kong (yes, I know it’s not a country, but the point stands), Switzerland – are those which are pretty poor in terms of natural resources.

    The presence of mineral wealth seems to be something of an economic curse for developing countries: it gives local elites something to graft off without needing to invest in the kind of diversified economy that creates affluence.

  6. JimG said:

    Reminds me of the story of the money tree in Slaughterhouse-Five: “It had twenty-dollar bills for leaves. Its flowers were government bonds. Its fruit was diamonds. It attracted human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer.”

  7. dsquared said:

    [Singapore, Hong Kong (yes, I know it’s not a country, but the point stands), Switzerland – are those which are pretty poor in terms of natural resources.]

    A deep water port at the end of a railway is a natural resource.

  8. DishonestJohn said:

    dsquared
    Maybe the deep water harbour is a natural resource; but the port isn’t ( a railway certainly isn’t).
    And how many deep water ports are there in Switzerland?

  9. Dunc said:

    I’m not saying colonialism didn’t make things worse, just that the idea there was no hunger or poverty in Africa before then is extremely fanciful.

    I don’t think anyone is saying there was no hunger or poverty in pre-colonial Africa, but I think it’s fairly safe to say that it didn’t occur on anything like the same scale. Yes, many people were poor and needy, but millions of people didn’t starve to death in a single year whilst simultaneously exporting huge quantities of food. There is a significant diffence between being poor, even destitute, and actually starving to death. That requires a really astonishing level of deprivation.

    On the tantalum side, it can’t be effectively replaced in modern sub-minature electronics such as phones. An equivalent aluminium electrolytic capacitor is about 100 times the size of a tantalum capacitor, and ceramic capacitors are bigger still. I mean, you can make capacitors out of foil and oiled paper, but if you tried using them in in a mobile phone it would be the size of a large suitcase…

  10. “I don’t think anyone is saying there was no hunger or poverty in pre-colonial Africa, but I think it’s fairly safe to say that it didn’t occur on anything like the same scale. Yes, many people were poor and needy, but millions of people didn’t starve to death in a single year whilst simultaneously exporting huge quantities of food. There is a significant diffence between being poor, even destitute, and actually starving to death. That requires a really astonishing level of deprivation.”

    Why would pre-colonial Africa be different than pre-colonial Europe? We used to have mass famines here….why wouldn’t they there?

    “On the tantalum side, it can’t be effectively replaced in modern sub-minature electronics such as phones. An equivalent aluminium electrolytic capacitor is about 100 times the size of a tantalum capacitor, and ceramic capacitors are bigger still. I mean, you can make capacitors out of foil and oiled paper, but if you tried using them in in a mobile phone it would be the size of a large suitcase…”

    Indeed. Although you can use Niobium with only a small loss of efficiency: unfortunately that usually comes from the same ore.

    One thing that has happened to capacitor demand for Ta in recent years is that it has gone down: even as we make ever more capacitors. This is because the stuff is expensive and so there has been continual pressure to use less of it. Minuturisation in short, and it’s had an effect even over so short a period as the last 6 years.

    What really bugs me about Merrick’s idea that we must reduce demand for Ta so as to stop coltan mining in the Congo is that it won’t actually work: not unless we stop using Ta and Nb altogether.

    He implies that they are the lowest cost producers (in purely cash terms, not including those environmental and other externalities) by stating that they make huge profits (which he, BTW grossly over estimates. That 50 tonnes of metal from the surrounding countries, even if we value it as metal not ore, is worth about $10 million at today’s prices. Tough to see how anyone can make hundreds of millions of dollars out of that.)

    I have to assume that “huge” means more than the Australians or Brazilains etc.

    So if we reduce demand then it will be the highest cost producers who close first: leaving the lowest cost, the Congo, producing whatever small amount we do use.

    So to stop that mining we’d need to completely ban the use of Ta across the globe. Wouldn’t it be simpler to just go shoot the warlords?