OUR RESPONSE TO THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, LAWRENCE CANNON, STATEMENT ON RECENT ATTACKS

Dear Minister Cannon,

We applaud you for expressing our governments recent concern regarding the plight of eastern Conglolese civilians and the recent attacks they have endured. Thank you for the interest you have taken in this forgotten region.

However, the hard reality is that Canada is not doing anywhere near enough to stop the violence in the Congo.  Congo is the deadliest conflict since World War II, the rape capital of the world.  Condemnation and concern are not enough. With millions dead, it is a no excuses game.

We call on you, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to immediately assist in coordinating an effort with fellow donor governments and the Congolese government to develop a comprehensive national security sector reform plan for Congo.  We are also sending a similar letter to the U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton.  Please initiate contact and work together for the good of the raped and tortured women, men, and children of the Congo.

Further, the leadership of the notorious FDLR militia, responsible for these attacks, live in the United States and Europe. How can our condemnation of these attacks be meaningful as long as the terrorists that are responsible are harboured so close to home?   We must initiate an immediate, coordinated effort with the United Nations and other “host” governments to dismantle FDLR diaspora networks and swiftly bring these war criminals to justice.

Enough is enough.

Warmly,

A Thousand Sisters

—————————————————————-

Canada Expresses Deep Concern over Safety of Eastern Congolese Civilians

http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2010/270.aspx?lang=eng

Ottawa, Canada

August 26, 2010

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement expressing Canada’s profound concern over recent reports of sexual violence against women and children in a village in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC):

“Canada is deeply concerned by allegations that members of two armed rebel groups raped more than 150 women during a July 30 attack in the province of North Kivu in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. MONUSCO, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is investigating the incident.

“Canada reiterates its condemnation of the ongoing violence in the eastern DRC, including sexual and gender-based violence, and remains greatly concerned for the safety of the population there, especially women and children. We call on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and ensure the protection of civilians.

“Canada once again urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent such criminal acts and to ensure that those who commit serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law are brought to justice.”

For further information, media representatives may contact:

Melissa Lantsman
Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
613-995-1851

OUR RESPONSE TO SECRETARY CLINTON’S STATEMENT ON RECENT ATTACKS

Dear Secretary Clinton,

We give you our standing ovation for you condemnation of recent attacks, and your heartfelt, ongoing concern for Congo. We are proud of the special interest you have taken in this forgotten region.

However, the hard reality is that the United States is not doing anywhere near “all we can” to stop the violence in the Congo. Congo is the deadliest conflict since World War II, the rape capital of the world.  Condemnation and concern are not enough. With millions dead, it is a no excuses game.

We call on Secretary Clinton to immediately initiate a coordinated effort with fellow donor governments and the Congolese government to develop a comprehensive national security sector reform plan for Congo.

Further,  the leadership of the notorious FDLR militia, responsible for these attacks, live in the United States and Europe. How can our condemnation of these attacks be meaningful as long as we harbor the terrorists responsible? We must initiate an immediate, coordinated effort with the United Nations and other “host” governments to dismantle FDLR diaspora networks and swiftly bring these war criminals to justice.

Enough is enough.

Warmly,

A Thousand Sisters

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON CONDEMNS RECENT MASS RAPE IN CONGO

http://bit.ly/9ZuLrU

Her Statement:

Allegation of Mass Rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Washington, DC

August 25, 2010

We applaud your visit to Congo last year. As American women, business owners, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, runners, and others deeply concerned with Congo, we are proud of your interest and commitment to Eastern Congo.

However, if the IRC mortality study statistics have held, more than 500,000 Congolese people have died since your visit. Tens of thousands of women, children, and even infants have been raped, including the recent incident of close to 200 women and infants, within 10 miles of a UN compound. This is our shame.

The USA has taken precious little action. That needs to change today. You are the leader to make it happen.

1. You promised Congo 17 million dollars. Why is it still sitting in a US Government account, buried in red tape? Unacceptable. Please do what you must to get this critically needed aid to Congolese women today.
2. The culture of impunity in Congo must end. Congo needs a justice system. The Congolese army must be professionalized, so soldiers “protect and serve” rather than “steal and rape”.   We urge you to coordinate with donor governments and the Congolese government to spearhead a comprehensive national security sector reform plan for Congo.

Congolese women and children need your immediate action. We look forward to celebrating your bold, immediate leadership on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

A Thousand Sisters

{Please add YOUR name and personal note to Secretary Clinton here. I’ll pass it on!}

Lisa Shannon, Founder, Run for Congo Women, Author A Thousand Sisters, Sister to Generose & Thousands of other Congolese women.

But on the morning of the Run for Congo Women in Congo, she showed up in a red suit and pink pearls. Although she was on old crutches, on one leg, she ran.  It was painful for her, and after about a third of a mile, she had to stop.  Some might say she didn’t finish the one mile course.

But you know what? She showed up.

She showed up and took it as far as she could.

And when I asked her why, she said, “If I can run on only one leg, everyone will know they can do something to help.”

Today, that humble war victim and her act of running made the national news in the USA. She became a voice for her nation.

Follow that woman.

All we need to do is follow Generose’s lead, and show up. Imperfectly, without always knowing the right thing to say or do, but show up for Congo. The reverberations will be far greater thatn anything you can imagine.

Here are some simple ways to get involved. Or join our group A Thousand Sisters on facebook.

http://athousandsisters.com/act

We asked for one thing: Guarantee Conflict Free.

I’ve brought them love offerings of pennies. I’ve logged countless hours on facebook. I’ve walked, run, driven and flown thousands of miles trying to visit companies like Intel, HP, and Apple, urging them to emerge industry leaders. I’ve sat down with corporate representatives in behind closed doors. I’ve sweated out the DC heat while hand delivering books and notes to urge the US Congress to vote for the strongest possible conflict minerals language. I’ve written to Steve Jobs multiple times. I’ve begged, yelled, argued, flattered. I’ve even used the word “rape” in front of tech guys, despite protests it made them “uncomfortable”.

But I have failed to do one thing: Take full responsibility for my own supply chain.

Based on the leadership and vision of my sisters Monica, Richa, Pamela, and Mom (aka Mrs. Claws), I see what I considered impossible is possible.

Pamela: I don’t really see adults getting the latest and greatest tech device as essential.

Richa: My kids enjoy swimming , bicycling , running around, singing and dancing . I don’t care for Nintendo products but just want them to stand up and be on our side of humanity .That’s all I care about .

Mrs. Claws: Boycott not feasible? I say it is imminently feasible and practical to make US buyers think twice and to hold back from the EASE with which they purchase upgrades to their sexy new tech products. And that will hurt the giants big time…if we institute a don’t buy unless you absolutely have to … and then, buy used on EBAY.

Thanks, sisters. I have made a decision. If tech co’s are too shy to go first, I will.

I hearby pledge I will not purchase another new tech product, piece of jewelry, or any item that may contain conflict minerals until the provider offers a guarantee it is conflict free. Until such products are available, if I need such a product, I will only buy second hand. From this moment on, I guarantee myself conflict free.

I encourage other to join me in this pledge. BOYCOTT CONFLICT MINERALS.

PS- And Steve Jobs, please fix this fast! I really want a new iPhone! XO- Lisa

A few basics: A 40- something guy who has worked in development and African war zones (Somalia, Darfur, Congo, etc) for more than 20 years, we started talking about rice cakes and almost instantly found ourselves in a raging debate about writing on Congo, development, neo-colonialism, and listening to Congolese people. Then he mentioned he almost drowned in Lake Kivu the day before.  He moved back to the US 2 years ago to try to create a life, though he “has no friends” in his new town.

Yes, he’s a difficult man, but I liked him nonetheless, and through the lens of the upcoming book, shamelessly found him fascinating.  We got together after one of my readings on my book tour and talked more.

I finally wrote him to fess up that I want to include him in my book. The following is our exchange:

Hey there. Happy 4th!

Sat down to start work on my second book this morning. Would you mind if I include a couple of our conversations? I always ask.

Was serious when I said some of our conversations stayed on my mind.

Lisa

***

Hi. Glad to hear you are busy again. Can I ask which conversations you’re referring to? Thanks

***

Hmmm. I could say orchid and after the reading….but I’m not sure that’s adequate.

Tricky to explain in lightweight terms. Most of the story will be focused on the LRA, my friend francisca and her family. But my narrative arc will deal with the opposite arc of the first book- stripping back the “one person makes a difference” story. Questions like-  what drives people to places like Congo? To help others or help ourselves? Running towards something or running away? Is “amazing” work a cover for personal failures? Does spending time in places like Congo make you more alienated, or does that sense draw you there in the first place? And ultimately- like every story in this genre- can one rejoin the living? How do you carve out a life, especially when everything feels so painfully low stakes when you return?  All issues I’ll address throughout the book. We touched on them briefly, in a way I found unintentionally poetic, the first time we talked at orchid- your near drowning, your return to the US after 20 yrs, since becoming a permanent ex pat is “its own kind of graveyard”. And the conversation after my reading.

***

Thanks. I would only add that I believe in a cosmic principle acc to which however much  you lose or become unmoored from your original community, you gain one some where else. So if I said those things about expat life I didn’t mean to diminish all that my time in congo, and congolese, have contributed to the quality of my existence on this earth.

Anyway it’s an ongoing discussion as these issues have no pat answers and are deeply personal, often to the point of useless western navelgazing. I’m sure you’ll steer clear of that.

I just edited a friend’s book with a similar theme.  Do we need another story of a lost westerner ‘finding themselves’ in the suffering of the less fortunate? It happens, sure, but the optics of such tales are very suspect, and support the notion held by many that we are only interested in the congoes of the world for selfish reasons. 

I’ll be in kinshasa from X to X if you’re through there.

Take care

***

Ah! No secret- pretty much from the moment we met- that your world view is inherently skeptical of my work, the way I would tell my story, and the methods I use. I still find you fantastic.

Was your 20 years in the Congoes of the world driven by selfish reasons? Is that inherently flawed, or is all human action driven in some way by selfish reason- the way every protagonist- and even antagonists- push towards something they believe to be positive? I wonder if we care, try to connect and do something good, but it is also selfish- that all of it is true. Does it diminish the act of showing up?  Maybe. But if we spend all of our energy trying to get to a perfect soul place about it, does it lead to paralysis and prevent people from engaging with and for other human beings? Which is the lesser of the evils?

In the end, real art explores the complexity of an issue without providing answers. But every story is about people learning about themselves- for better or worse- against any backdrop.

Some theorize we are either critics or creators- hard to be both. And in the end, my best guess is that its easier- or at least safer- to be a critic.  The creative process isn’t driven by left brain, pc questions about what stories the world needs, but rather a raw, honest exploration of human experience.  I don’t find that useless. Especially if one is painfully aware of one’s own bullshit in the process. I’m not sure how it all pans out in the big picture, but I know I’m happier when I’m less skeptical and emotionally paralyzed- even if it does come at the price of being flawed or exposed.

For sure it is deeply personal.

No plans for Kinshasa, but hope you have a wonderful time!

Lisa

Last night, Steve Jobs made his first public statement on conflict minerals, following a Sunday column by Nick Kristof in the New York Times, which heavily featured our recent campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27kristof.html

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/scrubbing-our-cell-phones-of-conflict-minerals/

A reader wrote Jobs:

Hi Steve,

I’d planned to buy a new iPhone tomorrow – my first upgrade since buying the very first version on the first day of its release – but I’m hesitant without knowing Apple’s position on sourcing the minerals in its products.

Are you currently making any effort to source conflict-free minerals? In particular, I’m concerned that Apple is getting tantalum, tungsten, tin, and gold from Eastern Congo through its suppliers.

Looking forward to your response,
Derick

Jobs’ replied:

Yes. We require all of our suppliers to certify in writing that they use conflict few materials. But honestly there is no way for them to be sure. Until someone invents a way to chemically trace minerals from the source mine, it’s a very difficult problem.

I had sent a private email to Steve 2 weeks ago, requesting a meeting. I have now emailed Steve once more:

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your first public comments on conflict minerals. While I applaud your honest acknowledgment that the present certification system is not adequate, there is no question that minerals are, in fact, traceable and guaranteed conflict-free Apple products are possible. Apple has both the resources and capacity for innovation to help solve this problem.

I wrote you a few weeks ago as a loyal Apple consumer and leader of the recent grassroots outcry on conflict minerals (prior to the DC protest and NY Times piece) offering an in-person briefing with experts to learn about the human cost of conflict minerals and most importantly, solutions.  Will you please meet with us?

I look forward to working together as allies on this critical issue.  The human stakes simply could not be higher

On behalf of thousands of Congolese women and children, thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Lisa Shannon

1. “Every step of the way in a 10 or 15 step process of a supply chain we back tracked and said, where do you get your material and how do you know that it’s clean…”
2. “it’s been a very painstaking effort”;
3. “At the end of the day if the political climate is such that that law gets past. [sic]  Our approach at least will get some sort of relief and we’ll be able to say to the smelters, that’s not from a conflict mine is it?  And they be able to say, no it’s not.” [sic]

The fact remains:  Intel, and all of the tech industry, need to be called to account here.  It cannot remain optional for them to continue to profit off the deadliest conflict since World War II and the worst sexual violence on the planet, particularly when HP itself put forward the estimated cost of implementation with full accountability measures in place at 1cent per product without a word of protest or argument from tech industry ranks.

When 45,000 people are dying every month, and up to 7 million have already died (5.4 million as of 2/2007, with 45,000 new deaths every month) as a result of the conflict mineral trade, more than a trivial effort, even some measure of difficulty and inconvenience, are warranted on behalf of importers.

As Malloy directly states, Intel’s goal is a system in which the importer need only to ask its smelters if the minerals used are clean. If the smelters say it’s clean, the importer is in the clear!  When no accountability or penalties are at stake, how effective will it be for smelters to be able say whatever serves their (and their importer’s) vested interest when ‘asked’ if their products contain conflict minerals?  Ummm… Let me guess…

10 or 15 steps? That is all that is involved?  How many steps and levels of complexity are involved in producing a computer or even a computer chip?  How many steps are involved in managing the development, manufacture, delivery, and marketing systems of any high quality line of computers and tech products?  What multi-billion dollar, multinational corporation is incapable of handling a 10 or 15 step process that costs 1cent per product?  And exactly how painstaking can those steps be if they only involve a 1cent per product cost?

The real question is why Intel and other tech companies are unwilling to undertake a 10 or 15 step process, even if every step actually were ‘painstaking’, when those steps are pivotal to reversing the tide of 7 million additional Congolese deaths in the decades to come if no accountability is put into place?

Intel’s and other tech industry brass, including Apple’s Steve Jobs, would do well to invest a day in eastern Congo, up-close-and-personal with conflict mineral trade victims.  It is an honor, one worth a little “painstaking” effort, for these companies (who have been profiting off of the unrelenting terror the Congolese have been subjected to for the past 14 years) to GUARANTEE CONFLICT FREE products.

Intel just never seems to learn. After creating a media furor over deleting the posts of Congo advocates on its Facebook Page last week, Intel opened a CSR blog dedicated to conflict mineral legislation inviting us to submit our questions and comments, promising that our questions would be answered.  It is censoring our comments, though. Below is my submission (submitted May 21 and resubmitted May 23 after it did not appear on the blog) examining Intel’s statement of May 19th, made by Suzanne Fellender, its Portland CSR person, on the blog. Lisa also submitted a piece on Friday which was never approved or posted)

Now Intel has buried the blog (Intel’s Statement on Conflict Minerals Issue) as No 22 in a long list of blogs available through a link on its Facebook page.  Scroll down long enough and you will find it (without Lisa’s or my most recent submissions).

—

Dear Suzanne,

You stated in your last post here: “we are genuinely working to find ways to move things forward and help improve supply chain responsibility around the sourcing of these minerals.”

I am tired of being argumentative with Intel…I really don’t like posing enemies. Fighting dragons is exhausting and, frankly, I am too old for it. I have other things I would rather be doing with my time. But the specific proposals that Intel has promoted in the ITIC behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts make your/Intel’s statement seem completely disingenuous and outright hypocritical. Every change it has sought to the legislation is obviously designed to circumvent any meaningful improvement in supply chain responsibility.

One case in point of the MANY ways Intel/HP/ITIC has sought to undermine an importer’s accountability for its supply chain:

1. Intel/HP/ITIC have sought to remove an importer’s responsibility to certify a Customs Declaration that the articles it is importing are “conflict mineral free” or “contain conflict minerals” as specified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States as having been identified in the Potential Conflict Goods List.

2. It then replaces that requirement with the far more general requirement that an importer declare to THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE every 180 days that: a) it has implemented a system to determine whether its suppliers that produce such articles use metals produced from facilities designated to ‘contain conflict minerals’ or are ‘conflict mineral free’; and b) based on that system, which articles it has imported in the last 180 days contain conflict minerals; AND c) evidence that an importer has imported articles containing conflict minerals in the prior 180 days shall not prevent the importer from claiming the reasonable care defense.

So basically, an importer has only to DECLARE it has implemented a system to determine whether articles it imported over the previous six months had conflict minerals.

But THERE ARE NO STANDARDS OR DEFINITIONS OF WHAT AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM WOULD ENTAIL, OR FOR THE IMPORTER’S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS OWN SYSTEM, NOR ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES OR PENALTIES FOR AN IMPORTER’S FAILURE TO ENFORCE ITS “SYSTEM”!  There is ZERO enforceability or accountability involved.

FURTHER, reducing the importer’s obligation to making one declaration every 180 days to the Department of Commerce concerning all that it has imported in the prior 180 days, rather than certifying a Customs Declaration as articles enter the country is a ridiculously vague and general requirement that it appears to mock the objectives of the legislation. It is so transparent as to be laughable, if it were not for the fact that Intel/HP/ITIC seriously proposed it while there are 45,000 lives at stake every month.

How could you or any Intel executive expect anyone genuinely concerned about those lives to take your professed good intentions at face value? How could Intel brass not expect the public to be choking on our rage at their hypocrisy? The evidence stands in clear and direct contradiction to Intel’s professed concerns about working toward “real change” on conflict minerals.

What kind of fools do they take us for? (I know you are just doing your job, Suzanne, …and can only feel for you at how embarrassing that must be for you.)  How much contempt does the CEO & Bd of Directors have for our intelligence and for the intelligence of the Senators and Representatives that are working toward meaningful legislation to stem the tide of the carnage in the DRC? I am speechless at the magnitude of your bosses’ arrogance, to think that they can continue spouting these platitudes while promoting such shameless amendments to this legislation.

There are too many other issues, serious and complicated issues, for me to go into at the moment. But believe me, I will get to them, and I will continue to plaster them all over the internet, and I will be sending them to others to send to our Representatives and Senators.

Intel cannot, and will not, get away with this.

Thanks for the heads up on your planned trip tomorrow – appreciate it. I am actually not based in Santa Clara, I am based in Arizona (as are a number of our supply chain teams and execs) and I did not have plans to be in Santa Clara tomorrow. To set expectations for your visit (since I know you are traveling a long way), I wanted to make sure that you knew that our interest in having a public meeting on this topic has not changed. While we do not plan on getting into a detailed discussion tomorrow, we respect your ability to voice your opinion on this very important issue. I appreciate you asking again about property guidelines and logistics information – will be same approach as in Oregon re: sidewalk location.  When you arrive, please call my colleague Grace Davis who manages Corporate Affairs for California at {XXX} and she will come down to say hello and take any additional statements/information you want to share back internally. If you have any trouble reaching Grace in the morning, please feel free to email or call me as well. Also, just so I can make sure that Grace is available when you arrive – do you have a general estimated time of arrival?

Regards and safe travels,

Suzanne

Thanks for the response Suzanne. I hear AZ is lovely.

We aim to arrive around 10 am and stay the day. We want to give Intel plenty of time to read the letter we are asking you to sign, discuss amongst yourselves, and get back to us with that signed letter! We’ll wait all day if we need to…
In terms of your position on a public meeting, as far as I am aware, you have not made a clear statement one way or the other. You offered to meet several times as the correct location- is that AZ? Or was that offer strictly for a private meeting. Just confused and want to clarify- you want a public meeting, or you are not open to a public meeting?
I understand and respect the goal of avoiding a detailed exchange out front. Will Grace listen to our statement?
Thanks so much!
Lisa

My apologies Lisa, for any confusion – I thought I was clear from the beginning when I first offered to set up a meeting and you said a few times that you were not interested in having a private meeting, only a public meeting.

To clarify, we are not interested in conducting this type of meeting in a public forum. On an issue this complex, we think it would be more productive to have a meeting where we pull in a number of people who have been working closely on this issue for the past year and sit down with you to have a discussion. I do understand why you want to only talk in a public forum – and I respect that. But we don’t believe that the public meeting of the kind that you suggest would lead to serious dialogue or improved understanding which would be our goal. Should you change your mind, our offer still stands for a private meeting at some point in the future. In terms of location, we could be flexible on this – we just would need some advance notice to plan around travel schedules on our end.

Suzanne