In the case of the Congo, both of those actors you described have a shared interest in both of the topics you described. The west does see the economic potential of the Congo as something that's very important. You hear the term “strategic minerals” once in a while, given the importance that these minerals hold for the global economy. You mentioned cobalt and copper. Those are very important minerals for industry and electronics. Those are not in the conflict-affected regions of the Congo. They tend to be in the southeast in the Katanga province, or ex-Katanga. Now I believe they are called Tanganyika, and a few other names. The provinces have been cut up. The conflict is mostly affecting mining areas, but they are non-industrial, artisanal mining areas. People with very low-skilled technology take this out of the ground and it reaches the global markets. There we do see the impact that has on the security and humanitarian situation.
The other actor that you described in the east also has some humanitarian focus. They are contributing troops. They have troops that are part of MONUSCO, the UN peacekeeping force there. I would say that they do not have the same vision for the country and what that country means to them, but they're both invested in both topics.