When Doesn't It Count?

According to the De Beers website, this is the definition they give for conflict diamonds:

“Conflict diamonds are rough, uncut diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance armed conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments. In 1998 the Non-government Organisation (NGO) Global Witness brought to the world’s attention the fact that rebel groups were funding their war against the legitimate government in this way.”

This is all fine and dandy, but it implies that De Beers then had no involvement in dealing with rebel trading of diamonds from 1990 to 1998 in Angola.
Here, I’ll let Mr. Campbell explain in a exert from his Blood Diamonds book:

“According to that definition, De Beers didn’t buy rebel diamonds from Angola at all from 1990 to 1998 since a UN-brokered peace process was in effect and UNITA was technically part of the government as a recognized political party under the agreement, even though it engaged in diamond-funded combat almost the entire time” (pg 127).

I guess when De Beers was writing the definition, they conveniently left out the near ten year span of 1990-1998 when conflict diamond trading was in fact going on between the diamond giant and the UNITA of Angola. So De Beers, are you just not counting those years? And incase anyone in the De Beers organization forgot about buying from Angola during the year the RUF began on its amputation rampage and controlled along with UNITA about 70% of the country’s diamonds, let me refresh your memory:

In a 1996 annual report for De Beers published in the book Blood Diamonds, De Beers states that:

“’Purchases in 1996 reached record levels largely owning to the increased Angolan production. Angolan diamonds tend to be in the categories that are in demand, although in the main these buying activities are a mechanism to support the market.’”

Now that’s something to boast about -- Obtaining record levels of diamond purchases in an area where rebels controlled more than half of the diamond production. And I bet not one of the stones purchased from Angola during that time was a conflict diamond. Yeah right.

Morality is Bad for Business

Since 2003 and 2004, diamonds have been becoming linked with death, torture and all the rest of the non-glamorous images associated with conflict stones. I suppose it took that long for the knowledge about the death and havoc that was going on to filter into some diamond circles. Yet what bothers me is not only the fact that some diamond companies, namely De Beers, waited a good ten years before implementing any sort of strategy to combat the issue along with the bad press conflict diamonds would bring to their industry, but the fact that they saw the issue as just that; bad press that would hurt profits.

In Greg Campbell’s book, Blood Diamonds, he talks about De Beers’ attitude regarding the conflict diamond issue. Campbell wrote that De Beers “noted, the potential financial impacts were ‘enormous’ and therefore everyone involved was sincere about ending the trade” (pg 116). He goes on to add that “the potential commercial loss is ‘enormous’, but the moral dimension is merely ‘big’, as if it were an afterthought….Very little, if anything, has been done in the company’s lifetime that didn’t further its commercial potential, even if it meant funding warfare to do it” (pg 116).

So I guess as soon as it becomes an issue of bad press in conjuncture with the loss of monetary gain should De Beers worry about the implications of conflict diamonds. The immoral action of funding war and death doesn’t seam to be of great concern. The morality comes only second to the threat of a declining economic growth for De Beers. And this is the company that wants consumers to believe that the diamonds they sell are symbols of eternal love and devotion? Well De Beers’ devotion is obvious: money first and foremost. Not the welfare of human life.

Bling Over Life

When reading an article about blood diamonds on Amnesty.org, I came across this quote:

“A diamond trader in Antwerp, Belgium, admitted to Amnesty International in October 2000, more than three months after the UN Security Council banned the export of non-certified diamonds from Sierra Leone, that: ‘If someone offers me a diamond at 30 per cent discount, will I suspect something? Of course. It is probably a conflict diamond. Will I buy it? Of course. I'm here to do business. Have I done it? I can't tell you that.’ “

For Full Article: Amnesty Article

If this is the attitude of one diamond trader, it can’t be far off from others. Granted there has been the instillation of the Kimberly Process, which was put in place to stop the buying and trading of rough diamonds to sell to consumers, and the promises of many major diamond retailers that they abide by it, but that does not mean that the market is 100% clean from dirty diamonds. The consumer market is still being infiltrated with conflict diamonds.

“conflict diamonds from Côte d'Ivoire are finding their way through Ghana into the legitimate diamond market. As the brutal conflict in Sierra Leone has shown, even a small amount of conflict diamonds can wreak enormous havoc in a country.”

For Full Article: Amnesty Article

This attitude of money matters more than the lives and rights of human beings is not only repulsive, but it’s allowing the profit from blood diamonds to still exist.

Theme Song

Everyone has a theme song. So while searching for a video to try and convey the horror of this issue, I found this song that I would like to be my theme song for this blog. Haha yes yes I know, I can be a bit corny.... But, if you are so inclined, please watch it. The video is quite good, and the words are perfect for this issue.


THEME SONG

Here is the link again to the video I posted previously that I want to post once again for anyone who missed it. It’s a strong video that really gives an idea about the severity of this issue, much more than my mere words can convey.

WARNING: the link takes you to a video that while I think needs to be seen, is graphic and disturbing. So I need to say it: viewer discretion is advised.

Blood Diamonds

The Tainted Company

I came across this article on CNNmoney.com and it made me furious for several reasons. It dished a little more dirt on the diamond giant De Beers, adding to the distain I’m beginning to hold for the company. Here’s a snippet of what the article said about De Beers and its diamond-trading practices:

“For generations De Beers bought diamonds from virtually any supplier without asking many questions about their provenance. That policy, critics charge, helped fuel bloody conflicts in Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where millions have died in civil wars fought largely over diamonds and other mineral resources… More recently the company has drawn fire for allegedly driving Botswanan Bushmen off their ancestral homelands in the Kalahari Desert to make way for future diamond mining.”

I understand that De Beers isn’t single handedly fueling the conflict diamond industry. And I also take into account the opinions that I’ve heard from some people that fighting De Beers isn’t going to stop the killing in Africa. However, saying that we can’t hold De Beers, as well as all other diamond traders and retailers, responsible for ensuring that the diamonds consumers buy are conflict free is simply irresponsible as well as crass. Ignoring the FACT that buying dirty diamonds and not certifying to the consumers that a company’s diamonds are conflict free is to ignore the fact that people’s lives are being ripped apart and snuffed out. Granted De Beers has claimed to clean up their act and that they sell only conflict free diamonds, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have a dark history rooted deep in the finance of blood diamonds. Not to mention their attitude on the matter makes me wonder if the company has a soul.

Resource: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2006/04/01/8373093/index.htm

P.S. I received a suggestion that I should include ways in which consumers can certify that the diamonds they buy are conflict free....I will be addressing that as thoroughly as possible in upcoming blogs. Thanks!!

Better Late than Never?

The murder, mutilation, and displacement of millions of people in parts of Africa due to diamond fueled civil wars has been going on since the 1990’s. So I find it more than just a little disconcerting that only in 2000 did De Beers take a new stance against conflict diamonds.

According to Time.com, De Beers started in July of 2000 to "certify that its diamonds come from clean sources, forcing its suppliers to accept 'best practices' rules" (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,49841,00.html). And when asked about the pressures that are facing the diamond industry about being socially responsible in relation to dirty diamonds, De Beers spokesperson Andy Lamont in London responded with this comment, “Diamonds don’t kill people, people kill people.” So this is the stance that De Beers takes? I guess it never occurred to Mr. Lamont that yes, while people do kill people, people need money to buy the weapons that kill, and the money to purchase these weapons is coming from the sale of blood diamonds. Waiting until 2000 to take a greater concern about this issue and to “officially certify” that De Beers only sells clean diamonds seems to come a little late. Better late than never? Not when you are dealing with millions of people’s lives.

More Behind the RUF

1991 was when the RUF (Revolutionary United Front) invaded Kono, the diamond capital of Sierra Leone. War broke out between the RUF and The National Provisional Ruling Council (N.P.R.C.) who was trying to regain democratic control and restore stability. By 1999 the violence caused by the RUF only increased, and they held control of the diamond mines in Kono and Tongo Field. A man named Charles Taylor was the head force of the RUF and immersed himself along with the RUF in illegal diamond trade, using the funds from the diamonds to buy arms in order to strengthen the rebels. Half of Sierra Leone’s people were displaced while millions were slaughtered. Nothing was done about this war, this conflict until 2001, TEN YEARS after it all started. Only then did the UN begin to respond to the conflict in the region.

Ten years?!?! It took ten years for someone to intervene. Ten years of slaughter, torture, people being forced from their homes; half the population was displaced!! And no one in the UN thought it was important enough to step in? That is just appalling. And I use the term intervene loosely. The sanctions that were imposed by the UN were easily violated and difficult to enforce, according to Worldpress.org. Sanctions were all that were brought about by the UN until 2002 when real live forces were actually, and finally sent into the region. I guess the lives of people being taken and blood being shed for control of diamond mines and illegal diamond trade wasn’t reason enough to intervene in the conflict war….. Absolutely atrocious.

Resource: http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/2193.cfm

Life in Exchange for Diamonds….Just the Beginning

I read the rest of Greg Campbell’s article Blood Diamond on Amnesty USA’s Website, and I became sickened as well as outraged. In 1991, Sierra Leone’s RUF (Revolutionary United Front) started it’s slaughter and torture of the African people in the name of diamonds. In order to gain control of the diamond mines in Sierra Leone, “the RUF have carried out one of the most brutal military campaigns in recent history, to enrich themselves as well as the genteel captains of the diamond industry living far removed from the killing fields” (Greg Campbell, http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/diamonds.html).

In 1996, Sierra Leone’s President, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, begged for everyone to “join hands for peace.” To mock this, and to show and maintain their control over the diamond mines, the rebels decided that amputation would be their choice of mutilation and torment. Over 20,00 people including women, children and even babies, had their arms, legs, ears, lips, and legs sliced off while about 50,000 to 75,000 were murdered.

When I think about how I walked around oblivious to this sobering fact, it makes me utterly sick. Educating people about this issue is enormously important. And we must learn about it with blinders and sensors off. This is an issue where every gruesome, heart wrenching and horrific detail needs to be told. Filtering out the “bad news” about this issue only lessons and insults the severity of the ramifications of conflict diamonds.

Recource: (Greg Campbell, http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/diamonds.html).

The Children

Children are supposed to live carefree, imaginative lives with no threat of danger. The reality is however that in this world, that is not the case. And for some children, their fate heartbreakingly becomes one of torture, their lives drained of fairy tales, and learning how to murder their own people takes the place of playtime. This is the case for the over 300,000 child soldiers worldwide, and the 2 million that have died as a direct result of the conflict in areas in Africa. (http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_37219.html)

Greg Campbell, the author of the book Tracing the Deadly Path of the World’s Most Precious Stone, wrote an article published in the Amnesty International USA’s online magazine, Amnesty magazine. In summary, his article gave a name to one child solider who became a victim of the diamond-fueled conflict in Sierra Leone. The child’s name was 15-year-old Jusu Lahia. He lost one of his eyes and was slashed from the face down to his lower waist by a rocket-propelled grenade.
Here is the full article:
BLOOD DIAMOND ARTICLE

How someone can look at these photos, read this story, and not be crushed, enraged, and full of despair is beyond me. Children are stolen from their homes, their lives, and forced into killing, being killed, and stripped bare of their innocence all for the greed of diamonds. This is real. This is the reality for too many children. And if you think it is no longer occurring, you are sorely mistaken.