Corporations Response to the conflicts

 In many ways, it can be said that the corporate world has been responsive
to conflicts in Africa. This is not necessarily, however, a positive statement.
The exploitation of extractable natural resources on the African continent has
made the continuation of many African conflicts possible. Weapons are sometimes
exchanged directly for resources such as diamonds, and often the very existence
of rebel groups and warlords depends on their ability to control these
resources. Mining companies helped finance Joseph Kabila’s push to topple
Mobutu in Zaire in exchange for mining contracts when his rebel forces were
still 1,000 kilometres from Kinshasa.

The chain of
exploitation of natural resources from extraction to the point of final sale is
often long and complicated, and the major Western firm selling the product that
is the reason for the initial extraction of the resource may or may not know
that that resource is contributing to the perpetuation of conflict in Africa
(see Pugh, Cooper and Goodhand, 2004: 28-29). 

It must be said, however, that
the exploitation of such resources is highly profitable, and it would go
against the business interests of these corporations to cease their involvement
in such business, or to use their leverage to reduce the violence related to
resource exploitation. One possible exception is the commitment shown by major
diamond corporations not to buy ‘blood diamonds’ (mined from conflict zones),
and their cooperation with the Kimberly process, which aims to ensure that the
origin of all diamonds can be certified.

Western-based
private security firms (a more politically acceptable term for what are
essentially mercenaries) are also seen as having a role in conflicts in Africa.
Such firms appeared to be instrumental in rescuing a government in began projects in the DRC, after having been attracted by
the response to the volcanic eruptions in Goma. One Japanese NGO, with a
minimal presence in Africa, sent emergency response teams to New Orleans in the
USA to assist in the aftermath of hurricane damage there.

<

p style=”line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 26.15pt; margin-left: 10.8pt; margin-right: 10.8pt; margin-top: 16.8pt; margin: 16.8pt 10.8pt 26.15pt; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;”>There are, however, a number of exceptions to this trend. Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) devoted
the vast majority of its budget to crises in Africa, the top three recipients
being Sudan, DRC and Angola in 2004. Less than one week after the Indian Ocean
Tsunami, MSF estimated that they had received sufficient donations to cover
their activities, and appealed to donors to instead donate for other pressing
emergencies in Sudan, the DRC and Somalia. The International Rescue Committee
(IRC) not only maintains humanitarian aid projects in the DRC, but has also contributed
greatly to awareness on the conflict by conducting a series of mortality
surveys, revealing the globally unequalled levels of humanitarian suffering in
that country.