Tag Archives: students

Organizational Organization: Approaches to Addressing Conflict Minerals

While there are many organizations that take on environmental and human rights causes, it is important to understand their unique approaches and how they can translate into action in the field of conflict minerals.

There is a wide array of rights organizations that take on the topic of conflict minerals in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). However, each one has its own unique history and raison d’être. It is important to take a step back in order to truly understand the different approaches and structures of such organizations active in the field.

A previous blog post titled, “Campaigning for Conflict-Free Campuses” highlights the Conflict-Free Campus Initiative (CFCI) developed by the organization Enough Project. CFCI encourages college students “to build the consumer voice for conflict-free electronics, such as cell phones, laptops, and other devices that will not finance war in eastern Congo.” Though this approach appears to be quite effective, it is important to note that not every organization seeks to work with students. Others focus their efforts solely on government lobbying and ground research.

As defined in an e-mail by David Spett, Enough Project Administrative & Operations Manager, the organization was founded in 2007 “on the belief that policy ideas are only as good as policymakers’ willingness to adopt them,” thereby emphasizing the governmental lobbying component of Enough. Enough Project focuses on such American policy advancement—for it is a division of the Center for American Progress; however, it also focuses on mobilizing American citizens. Spett continued, “We aim to combine the policy expertise of a think tank with the public mobilization of an advocacy organization. Our work with college students is very much in line with these core goals, as young people are some of the smartest and most effective activists around.”

Enough Project consciously views college students as an extension of their efforts. By motivating students to act on campuses across the country, they are tapping into already established communities; the organization enables these students to project their voices to a large audience of peers on campus. Whether through social media outlets, campus newspapers, or school-based e-mail lists, hundreds of students can read about conflict minerals in a short period of time. Enough Project utilizes such resources, thereby rapidly expanding its networks.

"After a screening of the documentary, 'The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo,' Gayle Smith, Enough's Co-founder John Prendergast, actress Robin Wright Penn, and others, discuss the film's issues." Photo and Caption Courtesy of ENOUGH Project / Flickr Creative Commons

Enough Project addresses the Congolese conflict mineral campaign specifically through its Raise Hope for Congo campaign. This campaign seeks to “fundamentally change the equation for Congo by using The Enough Project’s robust field research, advocacy, and communications to bolster a broad grassroots movement that promotes lasting solutions. [Their] initiatives work to educate and empower individuals to be a part of these solutions to the conflict.” The latter component is an important one to note. While other organizations focus on ground research and advocacy as well, some specifically steer clear of the student empowerment approach.

Jewish World Watch (JWW) is an organization based in Los Angeles that has a very different founding than Enough Project. It was co-founded in 2004 by Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis and Janice Kamenir-Reznik as the “Jewish response to genocide in Darfur.” After the holocaust, many Jews wondered why more people had not stepped forward to try to end that genocide. With this history in mind, the evident question remains: how could the Jewish people now stand idly by while other genocides take place? In reaction to this question, Rabbi Schulweis and Kamenir-Reznick decided they must act, which sparked their decision to create JWW. The organization’s model was to rally synagogues to act as members of the organization. Each synagogue would help educate their communities and encourage their congregants to take action. Since its founding, JWW has expanded a great deal. It “has grown from a collection of Southern California synagogues into a global coalition that includes schools, churches, individuals, communities and partner organizations that share a vision of a world without genocide.”

JWW takes action by partnering with other organizations based locally in the specified region of conflict in order “to develop high-impact projects that improve the lives of survivors and help build the foundation for a safer world,” in addition to “[inspire]…communities to support tangible projects and advocate for political change.” JWW’s local partnerships allow it to specifically meet the needs of those individuals in the conflict area and ensure funding successfully reaches them. While JWW originally just focused on the atrocities in Darfur, Sudan, the organization has since expanded to also address the violence and injustice in the Democratic Republic of Congo surrounding conflict minerals.

Through six partnerships with projects in the Congo, JWW raises funds to address a wide variety issues that impact Congolese men and women as a result of rape and violence. These projects include vocational training for women who have been victims of sexual violence; maternal care and agricultural development for women involved in sustainable agriculture; and burn treatment for Congolese victims of war. JWW also addresses matters in the Congo through their education programs and international advocacy campaigns. JWW runs the Activist Certification and Training program for middle, high, and religious school students in the United States to help involve them in activism at a young age.

Though Enough Project and Jewish World Watch have very different organizational histories and projects, one distinct commonality is that student groups are viewed as holding the potential to bring about immense change. Though these organizations both have effective approaches, there remain several other ways of structuring human rights and environmental organizations. For example, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Global Witness (GW) have developed very different models.

Human Rights Watch’s “rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse.” Through on-the-ground, original research, HRW exposes violations of human rights abuses all around the world. The organization uses this research to create in-depth reports that describe the events, responses, and reactions of these violations and abuses. Such reports are used as evidence with which to publicly expose the perpetrators through targeted media efforts. Through this work, HRW seeks to “tenaciously…lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.”

"Jasmine Herlt, Director, Human Rights Watch Canada speaks prior to the screening of 'Last Train Home', this year's opening night film." Caption Courtesy of humanrightsfilmfestival / Flickr Creative Commons and Photo Courtesy of Jacquie Labatt, Jacquie Labatt Photography / Flickr Creative Commons

Rather than rally individuals or students, HRW focuses on systematic governmental change through exposure of violations, as well as on holding perpetrators responsible through international pressure and the challenging of governments. Because of HRW’s local researchers and country experts, the information they have published regarding the Congo is precise and up-to-date.

Global Witness (GW), a British organization that focuses on environmental exploitation, is another rights organization that has a similar model to that of HRW; however, one of GW’s main focuses is on the exploitation of natural resources, as it relates to corruption, conflict, accountability, and the environment—whereas HRW focuses on human rights abuses whether or not they are caused by such utilization of such resources. GW’s “[i]nternational campaigns operate at the nexus of development, the environment and trade. [They] are motivated by a desire to tackle the underlying causes of conflict and poverty and to end the impunity of individuals, companies and governments that exploit natural resources for their own benefit at the expense of their people and the environment.” Therefore, the topic of conflict minerals fits well into their mission, for such minerals are fueling violence and acute injustices; GW’s documentation of the matter fits well within its described area of involvement.

In terms of GW’s strategy, it appears to focus more on interaction with decision makers than with public pressure campaigns, for their unique selling proposition does not center on rallying up large groups of students. Thus, it is evident that organizations like GW and HRW differ from Jewish World Watch and Enough Project, which utilize students as main agents for advocacy work and to gaining support for a cause. That said, each of these four organizations does incorporate legislative lobbying into its work. Each values the need to communicate with government officials and policy makers—whether within the conflict country or abroad—in order to accomplish their missions and bring about change. Though they all take on the task of trying to diminish violence in Congo as a result of mineral exploitation, they each delve into and address the conflict in a unique way. This serves to diversify efforts and the way in which they address the many different components of the issue. In such a complex matter, it is important to see global, multifaceted endeavors working to address the negative outcome of mineral exploitation.

Campaigning for Conflict-Free College Campuses

College students across the U.S. are taking a stance and asking their administrations to work toward building a conflict-free institution. Whether they face roadblocks or successes, students are continuing with their efforts to create the most profound change possible.

Large, international humanitarian and environmental crises can often be paralyzing. Upon reading about such a conflict, it can be easy to feel disconnected from a far-flung location ridden by chaos. Where to begin; what stance to take; who to communicate with on the matter. These can all be difficult issues to face. One tactic is to turn to a community you already feel a part of—a workplace, organization, religious institution, school, or family—to discuss the matter and decide on an educated course of action. An example of such communal action has begun to take root at college campuses across the United States and in parts of Canada.

Sixty-two American and Canadian colleges have already come out in support of conscious consumption of electronics. Conscious consumption refers to purchasing electronics from companies that do not buy products containing Congolese minerals from conflict mines. As campuses take action on this matter, support generally comes in one of three forms: a procurement policy, a shareholder resolution, or a statement of general support.

A procurement policy is the strongest level of commitment a university or college can take. This involves the passage of a resolution that states the institution will favor purchasing electronics that come from companies that do not purchase conflict minerals. A shareholder resolution would require the university to vote their shares in favor of any resolution—regarding conflict-minerals in the DRC—that arises at companies they hold stock in. The third option, a statement of general support, expresses the university’s support of conscious consumption and conflict-free electronics in general. Each of these three efforts also acts as an awareness tactic as well.

These three options all pressure electronics companies, whether directly or indirectly, to clean up their mineral supply chains and to only use conflict-free minerals in their products. That said, each of these commitments does hold some noncommittal component. The language of procurement policies remains somewhat vague, allowing universities to express their “intent” to purchase conflict-free products. The shareholder resolution is a somewhat indirect piece of action; it deflects the need to actually purchase conflict-free electronics on campus. A statement of general support, of course, is only committing to releasing a public statement and falls short of taking any action beyond that.

At the same time, each of these steps does build awareness, seek to decrease the purchasing of conflict-ridden electronics, and pressures electronics companies by showing a growing demand for conflict-free products. Students are seeing the publicity and impact of these efforts and are now taking it upon themselves to demand more if universities do not self-impose stricter conflict mineral strategies.

Alexandra Hellmuth, Student and Youth Coordinator for Enough Project’s Congo Campaign, works with college and high school students to develop conflict-free campaigns on their campuses. The Enough Project is a non-profit organization “dedicated to ending genocide and crimes against humanity, and preventing them from occurring in the future.” Hellmuth expressed in an interview that she believes the most influential way students can become involved in the cause of conflict minerals in the DRC is through the Conflict-Free Campus Initiative (CFCI).

As stated on the Enough Project’s Congo campaign website, CFCI is a “national campaign to develop consumer advocacy for conflict-free electronics.” She clarified that the extent of these efforts never seeks to achieve Congolese divestment, but rather asks electronics companies to evaluate the legitimacy of mines. Hellmuth explains, “A main part of our campaign is that we don’t want companies to pull out of the Congo.” This would produce further chaos and economic distress in the DRC, which would work against the objectives of this campaign.

Stanford University’s chapter of STAND, “the student-led division of the Genocide Intervention Network” represents one of the leading college campus forces taking on the conflict-free campaign. Through Stanford STAND’s efforts working with administrators and Board of Trustee members, Stanford University became the first university in the world to alter its investment guidelines to help diminish its funding of the conflict minerals trade in the DRC. Through the club’s efforts, they achieved the passage of a proxy voting agreement, which is the same concept as a shareholder resolution, described above, except for that it does not take initiative to file these resolutions. Stanford STAND’s website describes the policy the university adopted: “The guideline states that the University will: ‘…vote in favor of well-written and reasonable shareholder resolutions that ask companies for reports on their policies and efforts regarding their avoidance of conflict minerals and conflict mineral derivatives.’” Even given this success, though, Stanford student and campus STAND co-president, Clementine Stip, stated in an interview that just because they have achieved this accomplishment does not mean they will back away from this issue; she insisted they must continue to perfect their rhetoric and stance as they now act as a role model for other campuses.

Students at Duke University provide another example of meaningful campus activism. Stefani Jones, Duke sophomore and student senator for athletics, services, and the environment, teamed up with a group of friends to spearhead these campus efforts. While interning for the Enough Project this past summer, Jones decided to bring the CFCI to her campus. In order to do so, she started a coalition of students that is now part of the Duke Partnership for Service, which acts as an “umbrella organization for student-led service organizations at Duke.” Jones explained the importance of establishing this coalition since there is not a STAND chapter at Duke. Her goal was to gain as much student support as possible: “We have been reaching out to different student groups… like human rights and ethics to…investment clubs to our environmental alliance.” Her goal was “to try meeting…all the parts of campus that have either a stake or an interest in stopping the conflict in Congo.”

Jones’ campus-wide support was reflected in the organization of the Eureka Symposium, run through Duke Partnership for Service, which attracted over 120 students. The symposium, which included a presentation by the Enough Project, sought to work with students to teach and develop effective mechanisms for social change.

Students gather at Duke University for the Eureka Symposium | Photo Courtesy of Stefani Jones

Despite the original strength of efforts at Duke—and the original enthusiasm of the administration—Duke advocacy did run into a roadblock. Once administrators discovered that many of their corporate sponsors were electronics companies, they feared jeopardizing their relationship with such companies and backed down from their position of support.

Jones shared her perspective on this setback and the importance of remedying the situation in the DRC, “These corporate interests aren’t as important as the fact of how severe this conflict is. We’ve had a hard time convincing administrators that it is something worth viewing as a serious issue.”

Jones ensured, however, that as she continues to work with fellow students to develop a procurement strategy for Duke, and to establish a dialogue with Board of Trustee members, that she would not stand down to the administration: “we’re not really going to take no for an answer.”

Each of the three campus action options work toward a solution to hold electronics companies responsible for their mineral sources. As discussed last week, this type of activism is just one component of the necessary efforts to address human rights violations being carried out by violent Congolese mine owners who exploit the environment. What is clear is that campus activism is taking root all across the United States and that students are tenacious in their efforts; they are not backing down, and they are fighting for a cause they deeply believe in.