United Nations Security Council expands mandate of UN force in Cote d’Ivoire/Ivory Coast

The UN Security Council on Wednesday unanimously adopted a resolution to expand the mandate of the United Nations Operation in Cote d’Ivoire (UNOCI), and the French forces supporting it, in an effort to strengthen its capacity to consolidate stability in the West African country, and renewed the term of the mission until the end of this year.

In the new resolution, the 15-nation Security Council gave UNOCI and the French forces the mandate to monitor armed groups in Cote d’Ivoire, protect civilians, monitor the arms embargo, promote the peace process, protect human rights, particularly those of children and women, and support humanitarian assistance.

The mission was also mandated to help in the organization of free and fair elections, which have been repeatedly delayed, and contribute towards the process of providing identification to the population.

UNOCI was also tasked to continue contributing to the implementation of the peace process by supporting the disarmament, demobilization, storage of weapons and the reintegration of former combatants of the two parties, as well as supporting the integrated command centre in the disarmament effort.

The mission will also support the redeployment of the Ivorian state administration and justice throughout the country, and help reform of the security sector. UNOCI’s other tasks include supporting the facilitator of the Cote d’Ivoire peace process and his representative and the protection of UN personnel, installations and equipment in the country.

The Council “authorizes UNOCI to use all necessary means to carry out its mandate, within its capabilities and its areas of deployment,” said the resolution, which also called on all parties to fully cooperate with the mission and French forces that support it.

It decided that UNOCI will comprise a maximum of 7,392 authorized military personnel, maintaining the current combined strength of 8,650 personnel, including 7,200 troops and staff officers and a maximum of just over 1,250 police and customs officers.

The Council expressed its intention to consider raising, for a limited time, prior and after the elections, the levels of authorized military and police personnel up to a total of not more than 500. It also welcomed the secretary-general’s intention to reconfigure UNOCI to increase its presence in the identified high- risk areas and to strengthen the capabilities of its force reserve.

UNOCI was established in 2004 by the Council to facilitate the peace process in the West African nation, which became split by civil war in 2002 into a rebel-held north and Government- controlled south.

The mission has been providing logistical and technical assistance for the preparations for the country’s presidential elections, which were supposed to have been held as far back as 2005, but have been repeatedly postponed, most recently from March.

While preparations for the polls were on track up until late last year, they were interrupted in January. Political tensions began to mount after voter registration was suspended due to violence and President Laurent Gbagbo dissolved the Government and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) in February.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had in his latest report on UNOCI recommended an adjustment of the mission’s mandate to allow it to focus on helping the parties to implement the remaining priority tasks in the peace process, including those related to elections, disarmament and all aspects of the reunification of the country.

The council has authorized the new operation to stay in the DRC until June 30, 2011.

In view of the new phase that has been reached in the country, the mandate of MONUSCO includes help to the DRC government in the protection of the civilian population and support in efforts aimed at stabilizing the situation and consolidating peace in the country.

The resolution envisions that any future reconfiguration of MONUSCO will be based on the evolution of the situation on the ground, particularly as regards security, an improved capacity of the DRC government to effectively protect the civilian population, and the consolidation of state authority across the territory.

Full link.

Did Buying Your Gaming Console Help Fund War Atrocities in the Congo?

GOMA, DR CONGO: Congolese army soldiers sit with their weapons on the frontline on November 09, 2008 just outside the town of Goma, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Over 250,000 people have been displaced after fighting erupted between the rebel CNDP and the army in the last several weeks.

A story reminiscent of “Blood diamonds“, this time it is about gaming consoles.

Do you own a video game console? Then you might have more to do with the bloody, brutal war in the Congo than you realize.While the availability of blood diamonds, those rare minerals mined in war zones and sold to build armies, has begun to dwindle under international scrutiny, a new set of conflict minerals is rising to take its place.

Minerals like tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, some of which are found in an array of electronics including video game consoles, are being mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and used to fuel what has become the deadliest conflict since World War II.

I was reminded of this by an excellent Op-Ed piece by New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof this weekend. In Death by Gadget he talks about his own experiences reporting on the Congo’s barbaric war and why electronics companies need to take more responsibility for where they get their supplies.

The link between gaming consoles and these blood minerals are so close that some refer to the decades-long conflict in Congo as the Playstation War.

As with blood diamonds, a number of international activist groups are asking companies to track where the minerals they buy come from to ensure it’s not the Congo. While most of these companies seem to get that buying Congolese conflict minerals is a bad thing, not all of them do much to ensure they don’t.

We contacted Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony to get their current thinking on conflict minerals and what they do to avoid using them in the DS, Playstation 3, Playstation Portable, Wii and Xbox 360.

While all three companies have been repeatedly singled-out by activists for their use of conflict minerals, only Microsoft responded to our request, saying that a “conflict mineral free supply chain is a priority” for the company.

“A conflict mineral free supply chain is a priority for us in our supply chain management policies and practices,” according to the statement provided to Kotaku by Microsoft. “Unfortunately, it’s very hard to reliably trace metals to mine of origin and verify that they are conflict mineral free. We are working with our industry partners, specifically the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative, to develop solutions that better monitor and incent the local mining companies, suppliers and governments to help drive responsible business practices.”

Earlier this year, Nintendo did respond to Raise Hope for Congo about the issue, sort of dodging the question by telling the group that the company doesn’t purchase any raw minerals themselves.

“On behalf of Nintendo I appreciate the opportunity to respond and thank you for your patience. Nintendo does not purchase any metals as raw materials. As a remote purchaser that buys finished components made from many materials, Nintendo requires its suppliers to comply with its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Procurement Guidelines, which stipulate suppliers comply with applicable laws, have respect for human rights and conduct their business in an appropriate and fair manner.”

Sony, the company behind the console most closely tied to the Congo war by activists, has not yet provided a statement. When they do we will update this article.

While corporate responsibility is important in global issues like this, not everyone is convinced that the best way to deal with conflict minerals is to ban them. Others argue that legitimatizing the mining of these minerals in conflict areas will help to bring stability to the area.

Your take on these issues as a gamer is, of course important. The biggest impact on the blood diamond trade likely came from the decision some consumers made to not buy those diamonds. Would you ever make the same decision about a “blood console”?

The Playstation War was debunked years ago. It’s not impossible that a percent or two of the minerals (I’ve heard mainly tantalum, niobium, gallium in past “reports” of this) may have come from the Congo, but it’s vastly more likely from Australia, Brazil, Canada, or China.

As for ANY amount being a crime? Prove to me that nothing you own has in any part fuelled any injustice anywhere… the game companies already do what they can to buy from reputable sources, and this isn’t about consoles – it’s electronics as a whole. That includes your car, your thermostat, your doorbell, etc.

This is an issue that is only loosely tied to the wars in the Congo, and only singles out video games to gain publicity. It’s sad, but if you’re not processing the raw materials into components to sell on to manufacturers, there’s little more you can do about it.

Even though Microsoft’s response sounds like canned PR-speak, at least it means that to actually have that, there have been discussions about the issue … serious discussions. It doesn’t mean they’ve done anything about it, but at least it’s on their radar.

US-based companies are usually under far more scrutiny for these things, though — I would add that I believe the additional scrutiny is warranted. As a nation, we often speak up about what we find immoral in other countries, so we should hold our companies accountable — it’s that whole thing about actions following words.