Thanks to the work of activist groups like the Enough Project and the Genocide Intervention Network, the term "conflict minerals" has begun to seep into the vernacular of those of us who follow foreign affairs.  Simply put, conflict minerals are the few minerals that are at the heart of the war in Eastern Congo.  These minerals --  which include Tin ore (cassiterite), tantalite (coltan), tungsten as well as gold— are used in electronic devices such as cell phones, laptops and MP3 players.  Profits from the export of these minerals have fueled the deadliest conflict since World War II. 

Well, today, U.S. Representative Jim McDermott pledged to do something about it.  He will introduce the Minerals Trade Act of 2009, which as Laura Heaton explains, "would help set up a system for auditing mineral ores or their derivatives, ultimately requiring that companies importing products containing these essential minerals declare whether their goods are 'conflict free.'" 

Some of the specific provisions of the House legislation include:

* development of a U.S. government strategy to address conflict minerals;

* support for further investigations by the U.N. Group of Experts;

* mapping of which armed groups control key mines in eastern Congo;

* inclusion of information on the negative impact of mineral exploitation and trade on human rights in Congo in the annual human rights reports;

* guidance for companies to exercise due diligence;

* expanded U.S. efforts to improve conditions and livelihoods for communities in eastern Congo who are dependent upon mining; and,

* review by Government Accountability Office to evaluate adherence and effectiveness of policies

This is clearly a worthy endevor.   For our American readers, the Enough Project offers a way in which you can reach out to your member of congress and urge them to support this initiative.  In the meantime, here is a quick primer on the issue.

For even more depth, check out this UN Plaza interview I conducted with David Sullivan of the Enough Project, who has conducted extensive research on conflict minerals.

Big news for the cause of international justice, human rights, and deterring war crimes:  the United States has agreed to participate, as an observer, in a meeting of state parties to the International Criminal Court.  The news emerged from a press conference in Nairobi, Kenya with the U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues, Stephen Rapp. Via Reuters:

"Our government has now made the decision that Americans will return to engagement at the ICC," Rapp told a news conference in Nairobi, adding that this was consistent with a shift towards greater engagement that started in 2005.

[SNIP]

"We are not a ratified state. The question of whether the United States would move forward on that is still, I think, many years away," Rapp told reporters in the Kenyan capital."But we certainly are looking to engage with the ICC to ensure that in places where there are no other avenues for accountability that it will be an effective instrument for ensuring that individuals are brought to justice," he said.

To be sure, simply participating as an observer to the Assembly of State Parties (which is sort of like a board meeting for the ICC) is something of a baby step. But the reason I am so enthused--and as I take it, other proponents of international justice are as well-- is because this move represents very tangible evidence of American engagement with the ICC.

This is a relief because for much of the past eight years, the United States treated the ICC as if it were some sort of international boogeyman. The Bush administration famously "unsigned" the United States from the treaty founding the ICC.  The Bush administration then waged an all out diplomatic campaign against the ICC, even threatening to withhold funding from American allies that supported it.  That said, during the second half of the Bush administration, there was less overt hostility to the ICC.  In 2005, for example, the administration abstained, rather than vetoed, a Security Council resolution giving the ICC jurisdiction in Sudan.  

Still, it refused to take that next step towards active engagement with the court that the Obama administration seems to be cautiously embracing.  There is really no reason, though, for the United States to remain on the outside.  The court, in its first six years, has launched four criminal investigations, including crimes in Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,  the Central African Republic and Sudan.  In each of these places, local authorities were unwilling or unable to prosecute serious war crimes (and in the case of Sudan, genocide) on their own.  And in those places, the ICC has been working as it was intended. 

The fact is,  the ICC has emerged as an important institution that in many ways compliments American foreign policy objectives.  The Obama administration seems to realize that the United States has more to gain from engaging with the ICC than pretending it does not exist.

This clip is a few days old, but worth passing along. 

You can watch the full interview at Charlie Rose.

It's Veterans' Day here in the United States, and Armistice Day in much of Europe. This is a day to remember the human toll of war on those who fight it even as, in the words of the UN charter, we seek to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind."

At this moment, it is worth noting that the United States has been at war in Afghanistan since October 2001, making it twice as long as the war for which Armistice day is remembered.  These vets deserve our support, and to that end Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is an important organization looking out for their interests.