Conflict Minerals and Cell Phones

Presto Vivace sends in this story at Slate: "If you are reading this on a smartphone, then you are probably holding in your palm the conflict minerals that have sent the biggest manufacturing trade group in the U.S. into a court battle with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At stake in this battle between the National Association of Manufacturers and the government is whether consumers will know the potentially blood-soaked origins of the products they use every day and who gets to craft rules for multinational corporations—Congress or the business itself. ... These minerals are tantalum (used in cellphones, DVD players, laptops, hard drives, and gaming devices), tungsten, tin, and gold, if they are mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo and surrounding countries including Rwanda, where the mineral trade has fueled bloody conflicts. The rule requiring disclosure of conflict minerals will go into effect in 2014. Congress included it in Dodd-Frank out of concern for what is known as the “resource curse”—the phenomenon wherein poor counties with the greatest natural resources end up with the most corrupt and repressive governments. The money earned from selling the natural resources props up these harsh regimes and funds violence against their citizens and neighbors."

Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems this should apply to oil, as well...

Re:let the Congo bombing raids begin

[0123456]

So the history of the 21st century will be America going to war for Apple rather than oil?

Makes sense.

Where does the moral outrage end?

[Nutria]

Why not also China, where manufacturing props up a violent and corrupt dictatorship? What props up equally -- though differently -- corrupt India? The US is pretty violent too, and corrupt, as is Mexico.

Natural resources have no influence on poverty

[dutchwhizzman]

Natural resources have no influence on poverty in countries like Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and many others. They have a lack of control over their resources. Or, to put it a bit more in perspective, a few corrupt bastards have control over all of the resources. The have so far successfully managed to keep the rest of the people either not unsatisfied enough to tolerate this, or oppressed them successful enough to still be in control. It's in the best interest of "western" countries to keep this status quo, because it means overall lower prices and less powerful other nations. Third world countries would stop being third world countries if we stopped exploiting them pretty fast. We're still pulling out more resources and money than we're sending back, even after the colonization has ended. By supporting their corrupt assholes and destroying their local markets we keep the status quo without having to resort to sending soldiers, usually. Sometimes the price of oil is in danger, or they might actually revolt successful enough to become an actual threat and we need to send military to "support democracy" and "regain stability in the region".