TDLR
A seemingly well meaning researcher engages with the neocolonial violence of cobalt mining in Africa and, while providing some useful info, projects such a degree of tragic noble savagery on his subject that the text cannot escape the genre of liberal trauma pornography it nominally seeks to exceed, obscuring western economic and political imperialism in the name of focusing on African corruption and Chinese greed.
The author is a former banker at Merrill Lynch, and it shows.
This subject is important, but don't read this book. Find a good podcast or article and save yourself a few hours.
Full review
Holy mother of queen Nzinga, is this book annoying.
I has to listen to the audiobook on 3x speed but to get through it. Every single interview is an African person saying "things are horrible here, better we die" and the authors lacks a in-depth understanding of native culture, religion, and DRC history to add nuance or present a solution beyond "western companies..do better".
It never occurs to the author that the western companies know full well what is going on, and don't care, or can't care enough to change stuff because the need to appease shareholders is too great. It never occurs to them that capitalism, itself, might be what is causing this violence. For the author, it is only the lack of rigorous application of human rights law, NGO supervision, and fair wages. What is a fair wage for this backbreaking work? What are the human rights standards that can keep up with the scale of this suffering? How do we square the INCREASING need for cobalt amid green transitions and the suffering of the Congo being maybe necessary, in the eyes of the global liberal utilitarian, “pragmatic” capitalist calculus the book tacitly accepts, to save the world from catastrophic climate change? Are market-based transitions of green tech enough to address climate change? If we did a (actually enforced) global carbon tax (without the BS market based carbon credit loopholes) and cut the carbon emissions at the source? would that be better than a massive market-driven EV shift and the genocidal cobalt mining it necessitates being our best shot vs. climate change? Maybe if we redistribute economic wealth we no longer need a world of rapacious economic growth, which necessitates global violence through mining not just in the Congo, but worldwide (look at Jason Hickel's work for more on how even without climate change constant economic growth=ecological and social catastrophe)?
My critique is not that this text doesn't answer all these questions. No text can. My critique is that it appears the author has never even considered these concerns might be relevant to this text at all. It's not accident this book was long listed for book of the year by, of all people, the Financial Times. By focusing on individual instance of tragedy and framing the solution, not as increased global labor power, or socialism, or communism, or any political intervention other than voluntary price increases paid to miners and improving conditions, the text naturalizes global capitalism and the wester political order that produced it, while claiming to be a critique of its excesses.
This is not superfluous when the authors cites, superficially as it is, the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, whose death he chalks up to "the Americans, Belgians, french, and Congolese rivals". This obscures the dominate role played by the Americans and the CIA. The author says nothing of substance on the Cold War and seems completely ignorance of the nonaligned movement the attempt to leverage the soviets against the Americas as a tool to maintain maximum leverage to have self-determination and benefit from their own indigenous mineral wealth. The author notes the excesses of the separatist movements while footnoting that the DRC itself is an arbitrary political construction of colonialism with a natural heterogeneity of peoples, geographies, and cultures that western nations have exploited for years before now. There is a shady character who traffics in child labor whose pseudonym is “Iran”, an allusion to Lebanese interests using cobalt mining to launder money for Hezbollah (a bit on the nose, isn't it). There is no analysis of the coop against Mohammad Mosaddegh and the propping up of the Shah of Iran, the occupation of Palestine or the wars against Lebanon by Israel and the West creating context for this reality. Finally, the text gives a pass to and tacit cover for the World Bank, IMF and western institutions which benefited from propping up dictators and creating weak states during the Cold War and after.
The author literally says,"people in Congo say the NGOs are hustling, but in my experience they are nice people, so I don't think this is true". The complete ignorance of the critiques of the non-profit/white savior industrial complex are pretty stunning.
Mobutu and his successors didn't just fall out of a coconut tree. They were a manifestation of the very political order the author is calling upon to make a moral appeal to on behalf of the oppressed people of the Congo. Something about the oppressed making a moral appeal to the oppressor as an effective political methodology makes sense to the author, as the author seems to present a tacit argument that it was the human rights excess of Leopold that led to him losing sole control of the Congo state. This obscures not only indigenous resistance, but the larger system of colonial political machination and a desire to shield other state from the negative perception of colonialism Leopold's Congo was producing.
Moreover, by talking about corruption without this historical context, the author simply takes a combo "blame the victim" approach by solidifying notions of the “resource curse” creating corruption while adding a new spice to the old dish of "Africans simply cannot rule themselves well" by blaming the Chinese for this exploitation. There it no doubt blame to go around, but the author chooses to hate the player rather than hate the game of global neocolonial geopolitics, creating a notion of exceptional Chinese racism and greed rather than seeing it as a reflection of the larger system of global economic imperialism.
It never occurs to him that Africans have complex social and political lives he is not privy to. He even says "the people there do not smile". I would say "It is possiable they don't smile, though this would run counter to everything I know about African culture and African people worldwide. No matter how intense their opression is throughout history, I've never heard of African people not smiling. Is it at all possible they merely choose not to smile...around you?" The author refuses to see himself as a force shaping the reality he sees. Of course they will politic their brokenness to you, we know a mark when we see one, but we're not going to talk to you about indigenous healers, indigenous spiritual beliefs (see the work of Kimbwandende Kia Bunseki Fu-Kiau, an author I doubt Kara has even heard of, on this point) or political resistance that might be brewing, because we don't trust you. This also reminds me of the Fanon line "the smile of the other is always a gift", where African people know the choice so often presented is dour, angry darky or happy go lucky, carefree darky. By closing the former the author seems to genuinely think that this is accurate reflection of the internal life of people in the Congo rather than a reflection of them not trusting this parachute do-gooder academic. The levels of ignorance are frankly stunning.
It's wild to me that after a decade of BLM and checking people on their racist and political ignorance that a text this bad can be celebrated by the NPR liberals of the world. I shouldn't be surprised at this point, but this feels like an article that got stretched into a book. This is just objectively not a good book, and it's wild that mainstream, academic, and media gate keeping institutions are gaslighting folks into thinking it is.
This book seems tailor-made for liberal virtue signaling. I can just hear the readers impressing his/her friend group by saying "Did you know your iPhone kills Africans" and spit facts from this book at boring dinner parties with hummus and crudités. These friends can then retweet, or put on Bluesky or Mastodon or wherever good liberals post these days.
Finally, refer to the work of Siddiyah Hartman, Scenes of Subjection. As much as liberal imagination wants to believe these tales of suffering make change, there is a clear voyeurism and horror movie like titillation audience get from these depictions that often overrides the political value of these representations. Without explicit focus on the those who cause the violence and their autonomous political resistance, depiction of Black suffering more often serves to naturalize the notion the Black people are naturally cursed and destine to suffer in slavery. On this scale, this book is one of the worst offenders I have seen in a while. Violence in Congo is shown as trans-historic, unchanging, and all but inevitable, unless good people of the global north come and save them. Indigenous agency and the complex cultural and political action of these people, that would actually humanize them, is crowed out by these depictions of Blacks as broken, suffering slaves.
If you find Black suffering titillating, watch the NFL or boxing or MMA. Don't use the people of Africa to get your voyeuristic violence fix, mixed with a degree of smug moral catharsis.