Memorandum submitted by Global
Witness
Global Witness is a UK based non-governmental
organisation, founded in 1993, which investigates and campaigns
against the misuse of natural resources to fund conflict and corruption.
Our extensive work investigating and exposing illegal logging,
conflict diamonds and the lack of transparency in the oil and
mining industries in more than a dozen countries, including Sierra
Leone, Belgium, Israel, Cambodia, Angola, Liberia, the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Kazakhstan and East Timor, has made the breaking
the link between natural resources, conflict and corruption a
primary goal of many governments
We were co-nominated for the 2003 Nobel
Peace Prize for our work on conflict diamonds which led to the
creation of the Kimberley Process, and we are a founder member
of the Publish What You Pay coalition and a key participant in
the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, launched by
the British government in 2003. In 2005 we received the annual
Gleitsman Foundation International Activist Award.
1) How can the UK make its policies
more conflict sensitive?
Addressing
the sources of conflict through conflict sensitive aid and trade
policies
Global Witness believes the provision
of international non-humanitarian aid by the UK government should
be coherent on a regional and sub-regional basis. It is encouraging
that with regard to Africa, the UK has, in recent months, cut
aid to both the Ugandan and Ethiopian governments because of democratic
and human rights concerns, and it is hoped that this signifies
a more robust approach to recipient-government accountability.
Global Witness urges that these moves form part of a new and consistent
approach to the provision of non-humanitarian aid to countries
that fail to meet their commitments.
However Global Witness notes that these
moves have come late in the day. For example, for the past few
years both Rwanda and Uganda have received overtly favourable
status through HMG for their economic performance and a blind
eye has effectively been turned to their economic plunder and
military interventions in neighbouring DRC, which has resulted
in continuing conflict and instability. In December 2005 the International
Court of Justice recognised the illegal plunder of the DRC's resources
by Uganda and ruled that Uganda should pay US$10 billion in reparations
to the government of DRC, because it had violated their sovereignty,
committed human rights abuses and plundered their natural resources
during the 1998-2003 war. It is probable that Uganda's much lauded
economic success was significantly underpinned by the illegal
plunder of its neighbour's resources.
Rwanda continues to benefit from the
illegal exploitation of DRC's resources, and continues to benefit
from international political and financial support, primarily
from the UK and the US governments. Therefore the UK's approach
(together with the rest of the international community) should
be to ensure that actions in one country do not undermine the
wealth and stability of another.
Improving
peaceful resource management:
The British government should ensure
that DFID and FCO policies and programmes in post-conflict countries
promote forms of natural resource governance which are transparent
and accountable to citizens. These should include the implementation
of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) but
not be limited to it: transparency and independent oversight of
resource revenue flows from industry to the state should be embedded
in national laws and supported by necessary capacity-building
assistance to government officials and local civil society, so
that the latter can act as independent monitors of revenue management
by the state. Sequencing is vital: British policies should not
encourage an inflow of foreign private investment into extractive
industries in post-conflict countries unless the governance framework
is in place, and government institutions in the country have the
capacity to manage the resulting flow of revenues.
Britain should use its vote and influence
with the World Bank and IMF, and within the European Union, to
promote the adoption of similar policies by these institutions
in post-conflict countries. Although the World Bank, IMF and the
European Union have endorsed the EITI, both institutions need
to consistently promote good resource governance in all post-conflict
countries where they operate.
The ECGD and the Department of Trade
and Industry should also work to promote these aims in their dialogues
with private companies that invest in post-conflict countries.
The ECGD should not provide financial support to companies which
are not willing to be fully transparent about their financial
interactions with governments in post-conflict countries.
2. How can the UK improve its peace
building and post conflict reconstruction policies?
How
is the UK supporting peace processes and peace building initiatives?
Governments, international organisations,
academics and civil society groups now widely acknowledge and
accept that a number of the most devastating conflicts that have
ravaged Africa over the last twenty years, (Angola, Liberia, Sierra
Leone, the DRC, Ivory Coast) have a substantial cause and effect
relationship with the quest for controlling the extraction, trade
and marketing of valuable natural resources. As a result, when
these conflicts have advanced to the 'peace process' stage the
resources that have been fought for and the government bodies
that control them are often brought into the negotiations as a
valuable bargaining tool by either the negotiators or the belligerents.
This has been evident with the failed 1997 peace process in Angola
with an attempt to turn UNITA into a diamond mining company and
the promise of key diamond concessions, in Sierra Leone with the
RUF and the appointment of RUF leader Foday Sankoh as head of
the Strategic Minerals Marketing Commission, giving him control
over the countries mineral resources, in the DRC with all the
armed groups being awarded key government posts and territory
that had a key natural resources component and in Cambodia with
the Khmer Rouge being allowed to have valuable timber concessions.
However, the often bitter experiences of these peace building
efforts show that the lessons have not been learned. Global Witness
believes there are hard questions about the inclusion of natural
resource management in peace treaty negotiations that need to
be answered. How do peace treaties address natural resources (often
a war trophy) and natural resource management? Do peace negotiations
also involve horse-trading for lucrative positions in the government
or land/contract allocation for protagonists? Are there any defined
policies or guidelines which govern the decision-making process
of the sponsors of the peace process with regards to natural resources?
Global Witness believes that the
policy failures of this issue have not been fully understood,
therefore, Global Witness recommends that the UK government conducts
a multi-stakeholder study which will explore the nature of peace
treaty formulation and implementation, the role of natural resources
in these processes, and the effect of natural resource management
on the peace treaty implementation and post-conflict reconstruction.
We hope that the International Development Committee will show
leadership in initiating and leading this study, which, we believe,
will serve as a timely and useful contribution to our understanding
of how to prevent conflict resources and achieve lasting peace.
- Governance issues in post conflict
environments - building legitimate institutions and the rule of
law
Establishing and maintaining clear
principles of good governance in an immediate post-conflict environment
can be a delicate task, yet essential for laying a solid foundation
for a country's long-term peace. Too often compromises are made
for the sake of shoring up a fragile transitional process, as
in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the DRC's main donors,
including the UK, have effectively supported the transitional
government despite its blatant failures to adhere to principles
of good governance, transparency and accountability.
The risks of UK support for governments
which lack domestic and international credibility cannot be overstated.
In the longer-term, it will lead to increased frustration on the
part of the population, a heightened risk of renewed conflict,
and continued impunity for those responsible for crimes and abuses.
It will also undermine the UK's positive efforts to reform national
institutions in the country concerned. For example, initiatives
to support reforms of customs and tax systems, to increase the
provision of public information about revenues and contracts or
to provide assistance to the justice system could all be affected
negatively by a foreign policy which fails to hold political leaders
to account.
The UK government - in conjunction with
other donors - should give a clear message to governments in post-conflict
countries that corruption, looting of natural resources and failure
to account for revenues will not be tolerated. As evidenced by
numerous examples in Africa and elsewhere (DRC, Uganda, Ethiopia,
and Rwanda), private discussions between diplomats and officials
of the country concerned may not always be the most effective
form of pressure. In some cases, public expression of concern
and the formulation of conditions or benchmarks may be more likely
to produce results.
The timing of donor interventions is
crucial: a post-conflict environment provides a unique opportunity
to influence developments in a positive way, but the window may
be small. It is essential to lay down the principles and secure
a country's commitment to these principles before the previous
abuses take hold again.
Specifically, the UK should:
- in countries where exploitation
of natural resources has been linked to conflict and corruption,
ensure that the transparent management of natural resources is
explicitly included in all discussions on governance
- make non-humanitarian aid conditional
on measurable improvements in governance, especially in countries
such as the DRC where corruption and looting of natural resources
are deeply entrenched. Set up mechanisms to regularly monitor
these improvements. These will be significant steps in breaking
the link with decades of corruption and bad governance.
- support initiatives to rebuild or
develop a strong, independent judiciary and parliament as key
institutions which can enforce accountability and help end impunity
- support local NGOs in raising awareness
among the population of their rights to challenge their leaders
and to insist on accountability
Undermining
economies of war
Since the end of the Cold War,
the exploitation of natural resources such as timber, minerals
and oil has contributed to initiate, intensify or prolong conflicts
from Angola to Sierra Leone, from the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) to Liberia. The use of such 'conflict resources' to fund
violent conflict by predatory armies threatens regional stability
and halts development. It also contributes to gross violations
of human rights: the recruitment of child soldiers by force in
Sierra Leone and Liberia, the amputation of civilians' limbs in
Sierra Leone, the summary execution and enslavement of civilians
by UNITA in Angola, terror tactics in DRC, systematic rape of
civilian populations as a weapon of war Liberia, Sierra Leone
and the DRC[57]. It also
sustains international drug and arms trafficking networks and
harbours terrorism and organised crime[58].
In November 2005 in response to
a letter written by Global Witness discussing the role of natural
resource exploitation in funding conflict and policy issues relating
to conflict prevention, the UK government shared the concern of
Global Witness over the potential for natural resources to drive
conflict[59]. The key
recommendation of the Global Witness position is that there urgently
needs to be an internationally acceptable and legally binding
definition of what constitutes a conflict resource. In its response
to Global Witness the UK government expressed a willingness to
bring this topic to discussion in the Security Council. We are
keen to see that this willingness materialises in a concerted
and united effort between the FCO and DFID and made manifest through
the UK United Nations mission in New York.
As part of increasing effectiveness
and external coherence of its peacebuilding and post-conflict
reconstruction policies, we would like to see the UK take leadership
on the issue of 'conflict resources' and address systematically
the role that natural resource extraction has played in funding
conflict across Africa. In particular the UK could seek:
- An international agreement on a
definition of 'conflict resources';
- A comprehensive implementation and
monitoring of Security Council and European Union sanctions on
such commodities;
- Act on the inclusion of natural
resource exploitation governance as part of the UN Peace building
Commission's advisory mandate, when drawing up peace building
strategies and in guiding donor assistance;
Addressing
conflict resources: the UK government's role
A commonly agreed definition of
'conflict resources' would assist the international community
to differentiate between natural resources used to fund conflict
legitimately and where natural resource extraction and trade fund
illegitimate activities and contribute to the violation of human
rights, i.e, when they become 'conflict resources'. It is therefore
a key element to prevent and manage conflict, to ensure collective
security and safeguard social and economic development.
The need for such a definition has already
been emphasised as part of a common strategy to tackle and prevent
conflict. In March 2005 the Commission for Africa Report, spearheaded
by the UK government, recommended that "to speed up action
to control the trade in natural resources that fund wars, the
international community should:
- Agree a common definition of conflict
resources, for global endorsement through the United Nations;
- Create a permanent Expert Panel
within the UN to monitor the links between natural resource extraction
and violent conflict and the implementation of sanctions. The
Panel should be empowered to recommend enforcement measures to
the UN Security Council"[60].
As part of its commitment to support
the development of Africa's peace and stability, the 2005 G8 Summit
declared it would act "effectively in the UN and in other
fora to combat the role played by 'conflict resources' such as
oil, diamonds and timber, and other scarce natural resources,
in starting and fuelling conflicts."[61]
The 2005 UNDP Human Development Report
not only emphasises the need for a definition of conflict resources
as a main measure to reverse conflict and underdevelopment but
also stresses the urgency for such a definition:
"Urgent action is needed to weaken
the links between violent conflict and natural resources. Creating
a Permanent Expert Panel within the Security Council to monitor
these links is a first step. The second step is creating legal
instruments and certifications schemes to obstruct trade in conflict
resources, building on current initiatives in diamonds and timber.
The absence of clear criteria for defining "conflict resources"
and restricting their sale remains a major problem. Resolving
these problems requires the third step of effective sanctions."[62]
We propose that a tight and effective
trigger definition of such conflict resources could be:
'natural resources whose systematic
exploitation and trade in a context of violent conflict contribute
to, benefit from or result in the commission of serious violations
of human rights, international humanitarian law or violations
amounting to crimes under international law.'
We would like to see the UK government
launching the debate in the Security Council that defines conflict
resources in this way and proposes a comprehensive sanctioning
strategy to curb the exploitation and trade in such resources
when they are identified.
We would also like to see the UK government
take forward its announced policy to push for the creation of
a permanent body attached to the Security Council[63].
Such body should have the capacity to determine the most adequate
type of sanctions in each case, to oversee the effective implementation
of sanctions, coordinate sanctions with peacekeeping missions
and to investigate and act upon lack of compliance. Such a body
should be able to draw on professional experts and investigators.
This would prevent the piecemeal, ad hoc and inconsistent responses
to the problem of conflict resources that has delayed and prevented
effective international action so far.
We strongly believe that by taking leadership
with these actions, the UK government could successfully contribute
to undermine economies of war, improve peaceful resource management,
help reduce illegal arms trafficking and ensure overall more conflict
sensitive peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction policies.
The Kimberley Process and conflict
diamonds
The UK government through the FCO played
a critically important role in pushing for the establishment of
an international rough diamond certification scheme, the Kimberley
Process and for working hard on the implementation of the scheme
to ensure it could be a success. The FCO has also demonstrated
its commitment to the Kimberley Process by seconding a member
of staff to work on the Kimberley Process at the European Commission.
However, there is still more to be done to make sure that conflict
diamonds do not enter the legitimate diamond trade. The government
diamond office, within the FCO, should have stronger oversight
of the diamond industry in the UK, as set out in EC regulations,
and should be carrying out spot checks to verify diamond companies'
compliance with the Kimberley Process and with the industry self-regulation.
2006 will see a three year review of
the Kimberley Process. The British government should strongly
support the continuation of the scheme, and consider how it can
be strengthened. It should promote the establishment of a permanent
secretariat to improve how the scheme operates and to assist countries
in implementing the scheme. The British government should also
promote ways for the Kimberley Process to work with other international
agreements and international bodies, such as the United Nations
Security Council, in stopping the trade in conflict diamonds.
In Sierra Leone the British government
should increase their effectiveness by implementing a joined up
approach to the reform of the diamond sector in post-conflict
reconstruction work. In Sierra Leone, DfID has engaged in diamond
sector reform with varying degrees of success while in the DRC,
the diamond sector is being all but ignored by DfID and other
donors. Lessons should be learnt and shared from experience in
other countries where DfID and FCO are operating.
The British government should also take
an active role in supporting initiatives emerging from the recently
launched Diamond Development Initiative which aims to address
the political, social and economic challenges facing the artisanal
diamond mining sector. It hopes to improve the beneficial impact
of artisanal diamond mining to miners and their communities. The
inequalities in diamond mining areas left artisanal miners vulnerable
to abuse and co-option by predatory rebel forces and these problems
haven't changed.
3) Where does the UK fit in with
a 'global' peace building effort?
The
role of the UN - and the prospects for the UN Peace Building Commission
Global Witness believes the Peacebuilding
commission can play a key role to address resource-driven conflict
around the world more effectively and would significantly enhance
many UN peace and security initiatives.
As emphasised by the Minister of State
Dr. Kim Howells in response to Global Witness's letter mentioned
earlier, the United Nations Peace Building Commission is in a
good position to recommend actions to national governments and
to the Security Council on post-conflict natural resource governance
where its exploitation has been a cause and a driver of conflict.
We hope to see the UK government acting to secure the inclusion
of natural resource government in the Peacebuilding Commission's
future advisory activities.
January 2006
57 IRIN, Our Bodies - Their Battleground: Gender-based
Violence in Conflict Zones, September 2004, IRIN web special;
Report of the Security Council mission to Central Africa, 7 to
16 June 2003, S/2003/653, 17 June 2003. Back
58
For example, the Global Witness report For a Few Dollars More
(2003) details how Al-Qaeda moved into the unregulated diamond
trade to raise funds to finance their operations. Back
59
Letter from the Minister of State, FCO, Dr. Kim Howells to Global
Witness, 23 November 2005. Back
60
Commission for Africa, Our Common Interest - Report of the
Commission for Africa, March, 2005, p. 174. Back
61
G8 Gleneagles 2005, Africa, available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_Africa,0.pdf Back
62
UNDP 2005 Human Development Report, p. 180. Back
63
Letter from the Minister of State, FCO, Dr. Kim Howells to Global
Witness, 23 November 2005.
Back
| 
