How ‘conflict-free’ minerals are used in the waging of modern wars

Minerals such as cobalt, copper, lithium, tantalum, tin and tungsten, which are all abundant in central Africa, are essential to the comforts of everyday life. Our phones, laptops and electric vehicles would not function without them.

These minerals are also tied intimately with conflict. For decades, military and paramilitary violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and on its borders – particularly with Rwanda – has been shaped and financed by control over some of these sought-after commodities.

Many of these minerals, including those that have supposedly been sourced responsibly, are linked to violence at the other end of the supply chain too. As we found in our recently published research, minerals sourced in central Africa play a crucial role in the waging of modern wars.

The eastern provinces of the DRC hold large mineral reserves, but mining there remains fraught with the involvement of armed groups. gt29 / Shutterstock

Extensive campaigning and lobbying over the past two decades has focused on the idea of “conflict-free minerals” as a way to address links between extraction and armed conflict in mining regions.

This has resulted in a suite of legislation in the EU and US obliging tech manufacturers that use minerals from the DRC and surrounding countries to submit so-called “conflict minerals reports” to national authorities.

In the US, for example, tech firms file what is known as a “specialized disclosure form” to the Securities and Exchange Commission detailing all sources of four key minerals commonly associated with conflict in Africa: tantalum, tin, tungsten and gold.

The form requires a declaration that trade is compliant with the due diligence guidelines set by the OECD on responsible supply chains in the DRC and neighbouring states. This guidance has, in turn, given rise to an industry of regulators that seeks to ensure minerals connected to conflict do not enter supply chains.

Tech companies worldwide – big and small – now comply with conflict minerals policies. The fact that these firms can be held under a critical spotlight, and that attention is falling on how bloody wars are connected to consumer products, is a positive development. But there are many flaws to this system of accountability.

One issue is the difficulty in proving that mineral supply is truly conflict free. Many of the “conflict-free” minerals sold through Rwanda, for instance, are very likely to have at least some connection to war.

In the early 2000s, when Rwandan forces were involved in armed conflict in the DRC, the UN estimated that the Rwandan army controlled between 60% and 70% of all the coltan (tantalum ore) produced there. It is widely accepted that Rwandan influence has persisted in the DRC since.

Another issue is that, under conflict-free mineral legislation, “conflict” is associated with minerals only at source. There is no oversight on how minerals are connected to conflict at the other end of supply chains in modern weapons of war.

Conflict minerals

Weapons are no longer fashioned only with lead, iron and brass. They now depend on a range of advanced technologies: lithium batteries, cobalt cathodes, tantalum resistors, nickel capacitors, tin semiconductors, tungsten electrodes and so forth.

In fact, everything advanced militaries do nowadays – whether it involves a fighter jet, drone, guided bomb, smart bullet, night vision or remote sensing – utilises these components.

As we outline in our study, conflict-free minerals are essential to the waging of modern wars. We traced the movement of ores from the DRC into Rwanda, from where they are then sold to some of the world’s largest weapons makers as “conflict-free” minerals.

A coterie of defence contractors source minerals via this route. These minerals, as our previous research shows, are used as “volumetrically minor yet functionally essential” ingredients of the products these firms sell to militaries worldwide.

To draw focus on two “conflict-free” minerals traded through Rwanda, tin and tantalum are vital to the function of a wide range of military wares. According to the US defence department, tin is present in “nearly all military hardware”.

It is crucial in compound forms to defrost screens at high altitudes and to deflect radio waves to enhance stealth. Tin is also used to power the Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kits that improve the accuracy of bombs.

Tantalum-based semiconductors comprise the basic circuitry of drones. And among other things, tantalum is the active adsorbent material in the infrared camera tubes that make night vision possible. High-tech wars cannot be fought without these minerals, which are traded under conflict-free mineral legislation.

A Ukrainian soldier programmes a drone in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Jose HERNANDEZ Camera 51 / Shutterstock

Researchers have long suspected that minerals can never be conflict free at source. But our findings now turn attention to the other end of the supply chain. If it is to have any purchase at all, the idea of “conflict-free” minerals must be entirely refigured.

Virtually all commentary by journalists, lawyers and scholars focuses narrowly on consumer technologies, with the injustices faced by mining communities in central Africa contrasted with phones and electric vehicles. The source of minerals is the sole focus of ethical scrutiny.

This is an important aspect of minerals supply chains. But there is a growing prominence of other tech companies, in the form of modern weapons manufacturers, whose customers are not the global masses but the militaries of the world’s most belligerent states.

Companies like Elbit Systems – which did not respond to The Conversation’s request for comment – present themselves as complying with ethical standards.

In its 2020 conflict minerals report, Elbit declared a corporate stance against “human rights abuses and atrocities”. It also expressed a commitment “to sourcing materials from companies that share our values with respect to human rights, ethics and environmental responsibility”.

Yet, as our research shows, some companies are sourcing minerals from one war zone and then making profit from another. It should be recalled that Elbit, for example, supplies “hundreds of products” to Israel’s defence ministry.

There needs to be more scrutiny on the use of minerals “downstream” to stem the flow of the raw materials that propel wars in Gaza and beyond.

The research mentioned in this article was published as part of ‘War and Geos: the Environmental Legacies of Militarism’ (UKRI Horizon Europe grant number EP/X042642/1 (awarded as a European Research Council Starting Grant)).

Mohamed El-Shewy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.