Introduction

Diamonds are forever, or are they. It might be more correct to say the impressions made from diamonds are forever. When a person thinks about diamonds, they might think of weddings or special occasions, but to the people of Africa diamonds mean war, turmoil and bloodshed

 Diamonds are one of the Earth’s most common elements; the price that the world has placed on them makes them not only a priceless commodity, but a dangerous one as well. Diamonds have been a treasure used throughout all time, whether it is for wealth, beauty or even science. Diamonds have made a lasting impression on many people for their beauty and usefulness.

Unfortunately the impression left upon the people of Africa will be a far uglier one.

                This blog analyzes the movie “Blood Diamond” starring Leonardo DiCaprio. As a team we have analyzed the truth from the movie and the fiction. Also we researched the struggle between those illegally smuggling diamonds and the governments trying to stop this horrendous situation from becoming even more awful.

Blood Diamond Trailer

"Using"

"What If I Wanted To Talk About Diamond"

"You've Taken Everything"

The World Wants What We Have

Finding the Blood Diamond

The Kimberley Process

http://blooddiamonds.org/the-kimberley-process/
In the 1990′s the UN coined the term bloods or conflict diamonds. Blood diamonds are considered those diamonds used as a currency by rebels to finance their wars against the legitimate government. Because these rebels forced unarmed people to work day and night in those mines the diamonds got their name as blood diamonds.



The Kimberley Process is a ratified agreement by members of the United Nations that calls for an international certification standard for all rough diamonds. The Kimberley Process gave birth to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) – this document sets out the requirements for controlling rough diamond production and trade. The Kimberely Process is open to any member country that wants to partake, so long as they agree and are willing to implement the requirements of the KPCS. As of 2009 there were 49 members which totaled 75 countries. The participating members of the Kimberley Process account for 99.8% of all diamondproducing nations in the world.

The UN began taking severe actions against these countries by restricting or banning their export of money and imposing severe actions against them. In 2006 the Blood Diamond movie presented the tragic lives of those forced to work in diamond mines. From that moment everyone turned their attention to the harsh realty of conflict diamonds and started to question the true value and origin of a diamond.

The Kimberley Process has done more than just curtail the flow of conflict diamonds, it has also helped stabilize fragile countries and supported their development. As the Kimberley Process has made life harder for criminals, it has brought large volumes of diamonds onto the legal market that would not otherwise have made it there. This has increased the revenues of poor governments, and helped them to address their countries’ development challenges. For instance, some $125 million worth of diamonds were legally exported from Sierra Leone in 2006, compared to almost none at the end of the 1990s.

Sierra LeoneWritten by admin Diamonds

Diamonds from Sierra Leone are well-known amongst those in the jewelry industry as some of the best quality diamonds available today. However, this prized natural resource has also been wreaking havoc in Sierra Leone today and the diamond trade there is extremely perilous. Diamonds from Sierra Leone have been synonymous with brutality, violence, and conflict. This problem escalated in 1968 when Siaka Stevens became prime minister of Sierra Leone and recognized how lucrative the diamond trade industry was. Stevens made a very large profit out of illegal diamond mining and trading, and in the following years most diamond trade in Sierra Leone was illegal.

In 1991, Sierra Leone became an extremely volatile region as the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) started attacking the governments. While their “official” goal was to end crime and corruption, it became apparent that their interests lay in controlling the diamond mines. With RUF controlling all the diamond mines, labor conditions were extremely poor with very harsh punishment for slight mistakes. These diamonds from Sierra Leone as well as certain other African countries became known as blood diamonds or conflict diamonds. In the 1990s, approximately $125 million worth of rough diamonds were bought by just Europe. This means that this staggering amount of money went to fund the RUF who killed thousands of people during the civil war in Sierra Leone.

After almost a decade of fighting and the issue of conflict diamonds becoming an increasing problem, the United Nations sent a mission to Sierra Leone in 1999. Since 1999, the United Nations has implemented programs to curb illegal diamond trading activities in Sierra Leone. One program put into place was the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme which “requires a paper trail that certifies the origin of rough diamonds.” This will ultimately reduce the flow of blood or conflict diamonds from countries such as Sierra Leone. However, an industry as lucrative as the diamond trade industry still has a place for corruption and illegal trade activities. There will always be a market for this and it is quite simple to forge a certificate, and blood diamond can still be smuggled into a “clean” country.

While the problem has definitely been curtailed, it is still a problem as corruption still exists and in an industry this lucrative people will always try to find a way around any legal processes. There are certain retailers that claim to sell only “clean” diamonds, as far as we know it may or may not be true but if you are in the market for a diamond do some research to see which retailers do not carry conflict diamonds. It is a starting point, and many diamond retailers take the UN definition of conflict free one step further and ensure there are also no human rights abuses involved. This situation has improved greatly over the past decade and soon more and more diamonds will have legitimate certificates and corruption will hopefully be on the decrease.

Capitalism

   Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Capitalism is also something that most of the world sees as a valid and effective way of running business, but is it?

   Capitalism operates on producing a good or a service for a price but that price isn't always monetary. Sometimes that price is cheap labor, bad wages and blood. When speaking about the diamond industry it's rarely missed that many diamonds have been funding insurgencies and rebel groups in attacking legitimate governments. These wars have plagued West Africa for many, many years, governments have failed to step in and attempt to stop these wars because of capitalism. Many countries ignored the problems in Sierra Leone and other African countries because of the thoughts of negatively impacting the diamond industry and capitalism. 

"As cold as the company's response to publicity about conflict diamonds sounds-- the potential commercial loss is "enormous but the moral dimension is merely "big",as if it were an afterthought-- De Beers is at least consistent in it's thinking.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. Before the conflict-diamond issue gathered steam, it made economic sense to continue to trade with killers since no one was paying attention and it didn't threaten the demand for the goods after the issue began attracting the attention of the human-rights organizations and the people started whispering the dreaded "B" word(boycott), it made economic sense for the industry to wash its hands for good. Since De Beers is the world's largest dealer in rough diamonds, not only was a great deal of responsibility placed at its feet in early 2000, but so were many expectations that the company would act swiftly to end the practice."

                                                                                                              Greg Campbell, Author of Blood Diamond

Although capitalism has worked for many countries as an effective way of handling business, when it comes to the African people and the diamond industry it has been a destructive and bloody institution. 

 So in conclusion, the diamond market and capitalism hasn't been helpful when it comes to 

saving lives in Africa.  

Diamonds and Hollywood

“A diamond needs more than an individual myth to be considered valuable. It also requires a collective myth−one that all of society can buy into and understand. In America that’s a job for Hollywood.”-The Heartless stone

In my research I wanted to try and understand why diamonds are viewed the way that they are. I wanted to discover when these rocks became such an iconic part of society. What I came to find out was that in the age when Hollywood was everything, priceless diamonds were loaned out to the movies stars of the ages and intentionally draped all over them on the big screen. On top of this, screenwriters were also encouraged to write plots about diamonds movies such as To Catch a Thief (1955). From the very beginning of the big screen to the present day, countless movies have been made glamorizing and idolizing diamonds. In my opinion two movies trump all others in the free advertising that was given to diamonds on the big screen. These movies are: Breakfast at Tiffany’s whose main character has an obsession with the Tiffany’s store and who spends a great deal of time there. And Gentlemen Prefer Blondes whose main character is Marilyn Monroe wearing a 26 carat canary around her neck who sings Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend need I say more. Perhaps this infatuation for diamonds stemmed from these two iconic women of the ages.

Should people stop buying diamonds? “It’s a rare opportunity to actually have an effect,” said Zwick, “because it was awareness that helped bring this process about, and it will be heightened awareness that will help it. And that’s not always the case in the world. But in this particular case, if that awareness is increased than things will get better. So, it’s an individual choice, but it has to be an informed choice.”

"Director Edward Zwick Discusses "Blood Diamond""
-Rebecca Murray

RAPAPORT... Edward Zwick is an American film producer, director and writer whose career in Hollywood has spanned across four decades. In addition to this year’s “Blood Diamond,” some of his other notable films include: “The Last Samurai,” 2003; “Traffic,” 2000; “Shakespeare in Love,” 1998; “Courage Under Fire,” 1996; “Legends of the Fall,” 1994; and “Glory,” 1989. Zwick runs The Bedford Falls Company, a film production company, with partner Marshall Herskovitz.

Martin Rapaport: Why did you make the “Blood Diamond” movie?

Ed Zwick: The more I learned about what happened in Sierra Leone during the war, the more I was appalled by what I and other people did not know. I realized that in this tiny country [that many could not even find on a map], there existed very big issues that needed to be addressed — issues that would capture the imagination and increase awareness in the world.

MR: Did the NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] get you to do the movie?

EZ: Oh no. I didn’t even meet any of the NGOs until we were well into the preproduction process. The movie came about, as all the things I have done, through detailed research and homework. I looked to NGOs as a source of information just as I looked to members of the diamond industry, ex-mercenaries, victims and journalists. The NGOs were one resource among many.

MR: Is your film entertainment or education?

EZ: I don’t think those things need to be mutually exclusive. There is a very important Hollywood tradition of movies that have a social conscience. If a movie can teach as well as delight, then that enhances the experience of going to the movies.

MR: In the movie, Danny accuses Maddy of being a journalist who is exploiting suffering to get a good story. Are you exploiting the people of Sierra Leone by making money on this movie?

EZ: Any time that you tell a story about the suffering of someone else, you risk exploitation. This is a question about which all of us thought long and hard. I think that at the end of the day, all that one has is one’s intentions. As I began to talk to people in Sierra Leone, it became clear that they had a great desire and need for this story to be told. Sorious Samura, who made the film “Cry Freetown,” told me that he believed the people of Sierra Leone have never forgiven the children for their role as RUF [Revolutionary United Front] terrorists. He felt that by telling the story of this boy and the terrible things that happened to him, those seeing the movie might come to understand — and perhaps reach forgiveness. That goes for an entire country. The whole principle of truth and reconciliation in South Africa suggests that only by being desperately honest about even the most painful things is there any hope of reconciliation.

MR: Did you make this movie for the money or are you a new Hollywood NGO?

EZ: It would have been infinitely easier for me to have made a truly commercial romantic comedy in some sound station in Burbank or in some lovely comfortable circumstance in America. I think that, over time, I have become fortunate enough that the economics of my career are not the driving concern of my career. There are certain stories that need to be told and this was one of them. I think that, increasingly in America, we have to reckon with the implications of what we do, how we use our resources and how we spend our money.

The film is really about the responsibilities of a consumer society and the fact that the purchase of something in one place has implications somewhere else. This place and that place are, in fact, interconnected. By buying something, you’re essentially endorsing the practices that are involved in getting and producing it. That is something that I felt that I could, in the concept of this story, talk about.

MR: Knowing what you do now, would you buy your wife a diamond?

EZ: Martin, I don’t think you want me to answer that question.

MR: Yes, I do.

EZ: I have been married for 25 years and that marriage has existed without benefit of needing diamonds to confer upon it some false notion of eternity. Although to my wife, perhaps, the marriage may have at times felt like an eternity, I find it hard to “empiricise” [put a monetary value on] love and equate an object with a relationship. So that particular kind of purchase has never been of great interest to me. But that’s not new; it’s a personal sensibility that long predates this movie. In any case, I — and the movie — do not suggest that people should stop buying diamonds. The diamond trade is vital to the economies of many African countries.

I do have an idea that might be good for diamonds. It occurs to me that the diamond industry has labored brilliantly and long to equate the eternity of a diamond with a relationship. I think they can do just as well by suggesting that a relationship, by virtue of a diamond, could become conflict free.

MR: Will your movie have an impact on the diamond industry and consumers?

EZ: Yes. It was only with an increase of public awareness that the Kimberley Process came into being and I think the next steps for taking greater responsibility for what happens in Africa will only come with further awareness. If my film can help raise that awareness, then it will not have been in vain. That being said, I am not Pollyannaish enough to believe that a single film changes everything. The most that a film can do is present a set of iconic images to the culture and precipitate thought, debate and conversation that add to a collective consciousness about a problem. Change happens when a rising tide of voices apply themselves and the aggregate of all those voices and concerns reach a tipping point. So this movie is only one very small part of what I hope is a very large concern.

MR: What do you think the diamond industry should do about the problems of Sierra Leone?

EZ: It’s very important to say that I first approached this as a historian, journalist and storyteller. That is to say, I was describing events that happened. I don’t presume to be an industry insider, economist or expert of any kind. The best that I can do is rely on those who have devoted their lives to trying to understand these issues.

Of course, I began to assemble my own point of view. What is clear is that Sierra Leone is a tragedy and that there is complicity in that tragedy on the part of the entire diamond industry. I believe that it is the responsibility of the diamond industry to now act in ways that provide some restitution for that tragedy. It’s obvious that the only hope for countries such as Sierra Leone is some kind of sustainable development.

MR: Were you personally moved by what you learned, saw and experienced?

EZ: To have seen what I have seen over the course of these past two years has to be called life changing. I think that you cannot spend that amount of time confronting the sights, people and circumstances that we have seen and not be moved and not come to understand some implicit connection between what we do here and what is happening there.

MR: There seem to be a lot of movies about Africa. Is African social consciousness the new cool?

EZ: It’s important to realize that a filmmaker is in his own universe. This process began over two years ago. It may be more accurate to suggest that Africa is inescapably in the artistic conscientiousness and the fact that I or others might be drawn to want to write about it is not a coincidence. But it has nothing to do with cool. There is nothing cool about spending six months in downtown Maputo, as compared to other opportunities that exist for filmmakers, actors and crew. You have to be motivated by more than being cool to go to the lengths that we went to.

MR: Would you like to say anything to the diamond industry?

EZ: I believe that, along with the privileges of being a filmmaker, come certain responsibilities about holding up a mirror to the world and, at times, that mirror is unattractive. I have been the beneficiary of extraordinary privilege and bounty by virtue of what I do for a living. So, too, the diamond industry has reaped extraordinary bounty from Africa. Yet Africa has not shared in that bounty. Somehow that situation needs to be addressed.

http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=16457

FACT/FICTION

-Samuel Warburton

Here’s a synopsis of the fact and fiction of the movie. I found this on the website http://www.factbehindfiction.com/index_files/Blood_Diamond.htm

Blood Diamond: Introduction

A blood or conflict diamond is one whose sale has financed war or conflict. Diamonds mined in Africa are prone to being traded in exchange for arms which are used in civil wars, coups and cruel military dictatorships in volatile African states. Of course Africa with its rich and varied mineral wealth is also a target of ‘colonizing’ corporations which are backed up by governments of several developed economies and plundering African politicians. Since the atrocities of wars financed by illegal diamond trade have been publicized the diamond trade has become a heavily albeit imperfectly regulated business.

Synopsis

The movie is set in 1999 in Sierra Leone in West Africa.

Danny Archer is an ex-mercenary from Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), and an independent contractor trading in conflict diamonds. Danny’s former mentor - Colonel Coetzee employs the street smart but recalcitrant ex-mercenary to deliver arms to rebel groups, and to cross over borders into Liberia with contraband diamonds. Like all other fortune hunters - Danny is trying for a big score to escape away from the troubles of Africa and into a life of comfort. In the beginning of the story Danny is caught trying to smuggle diamonds, which are confiscated by the authorities. It becomes his responsibility to repay his principal for the lost diamonds.

Solomon Vandy is a proud father of two and a fisherman in Sierra Leone. His world is turned upside down when his village in attacked by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) militia and he is separated from his family and taken to mine for diamonds. He doesn't know that his captors have recruited his young son into their army. Theft is rampart in the diamond mines despite punishment upon discovery being fatal. However Solomon manages to hide a rare pink diamond. Before he can think about what to do about it, government forces raid the mine and throw the RUF along with their slave miners into a prison in Freetown (the capital of Sierra Leone), the same prison in which Danny Archer is also cooling his heels. But Captain Poison of the RUF knows Solomon’s secret and lets it out in the prison.

Once out of prison Archer tracks down Solomon and offers a deal but Solomon is only interested in reuniting with his family. After a tough sell he agrees to show Archer where the diamond is but only after he has his family with him.

Archer’s attempts at locating Solomon’s family fail and he has to end up recruiting journalist Maddy Bowen who until recently he tried hard to avoid. He agrees to give her inside scoop on the illegal diamond trade that she is researching if she helps track down Solomon’s family. Maddy is initially unaware of the diamond factor in the deal.

Solomon is quickly reunited with his wife and daughter at a refugee camp, but is driven to rage and depression when he learns of his son’s fate. Determined not to lose his son, he tries all desperate means available to him along the route to the diamond that he must now show Archer. This journey turns out to be an adventure for all as they encounter local tribes, the RUF and Colonel Coetzee - each with a singular objective.

In the end Solomon is reunited with his brainwashed son, whose experiences and actions in battle have left him scarred. And with the help of Archer, Maddy gets her inside scoop on the blood diamond trade, leading to the incrimination of a top businessman.

Fact Behind Fiction

The movie is set against the backdrop of civil war in Sierra Leone which lasted from 1991 up to 2000 between the government and the RUF over control of the nation’s diamond mines. Conflict with the RUF arose because multinational organizations operating in Sierra Leone were not ploughing their profits into the local economy, thereby starving it of development. However subsequently the RUF came to terrorize the local population, especially in rural areas. The RUF were notorious for amputating villagers and recruiting young boys as soldiers.

For a view contrarian to the film’s check out http://www.theempireinafrica.com. The site is the home page for Philippe Diaz’ documentary by the same name of the exploitation of Sierra Leone and Africa.

The story reflects all the problems associated with illegal diamond mining and the proceeds which finance insurgencies against governments and harm civilian population.

The issue is magnified in poor African nations which are unable to enforce the law because of ineffective administration, corruption, poorly paid officials who are susceptible to bribery etc. This situation coupled with the presence of significant national mineral wealth gives opportunity to war-profiteers, who easily access arms from an underground black market.

The method somewhat adopted is as follows. Diamond mines are located and the area around in occupied by insurgents. The insurgents get access to the area because:

1. Remoteness of location

2. Widespread poverty among the local population, making them vulnerable to employment in high risk jobs.

3. Untrained and unskilled labor can be employed to mine for diamonds, as no particular equipment or learning is required.

4. Absence of any real ‘law’ because of poorly paid civil servants who are easily bribed.

Diamonds that are mined are sold to middlemen (diamond merchants, mercenaries, smugglers, any one desperate enough). Ultimately the diamond ends up on a lady. But the money paid for the diamond ends up financing the war (buying guns and ammo, recruiting soldiers, the good life for top government officials etc). This war is waged for control over more mineral and natural wealth - either diamonds themselves or rare resources like gold, oil and timber. The money doesn't reach the local population who the warlords claim to represent. Instead the money lines the pockets of corrupt officials and ends up in unaccounted bank accounts hidden from official sight.

This plundering of natural mineral wealth leaves the nation poor and bereft of benefits it would otherwise enjoy. This type of conflict against the governments of African states like Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone have kept the nations in poverty.

Why are diamonds used by insurgents?

1. Diamonds are small in size but command a high commercial value

2. Their origin cannot be easily ascertained.

3. The worldwide market for diamonds is massive. ($56 billion, 1999)

This trade in blood diamonds has given rebel groups immense financial clout. They are able to keep in reserve cash earned in foreign currencies along with diamonds which can be sold when the need for finances arises. In effect they are able to establish a parallel economy and government in their country or operation.

Professional mercenaries provide an essential service in the politics of Africa, bringing a degree of sophistication to the conflict. Like Danny Archer, they originate from crack guerrilla units trained and armed by colonizing nations. A wealth of military knowledge and experience coupled with technologically advanced arms give these soldiers an edge over local troops, whose superstitions and fears have given them a bad name.

Mercenaries are better paid than native soldiers and professional military or mercenary firms like Executive Outcomes and Sand line emerged as powerhouses in Africa.

Executive Outcomes is a South African mercenary firm which was employed by the Sierra Leone government under Captain Valentine Strasser in 1995 to push back the RUF rebels who were coming dangerously close to the capital city of Freetown. The RUF were effectively pushed back into hiding in the interiors and Executive Outcomes was paid in diamond mining concessions.

President Kabbah of Sierra Leone (in exile since 1997) negotiated with a Thai businessman to finance a coup d'état to restore him to power, in exchange for diamond mining rights. The military operation was carried out bySandline.

A Contrarian View

Philippe Diaz and his documentary The Empire in Africa acknowledge the plight of the people in Sierra Leone, but blame the makers of the movie Blood Diamond of following the official view on the conflict. The RUF that came into existence in 1991 was born out of anger at their natural resources and wealth being used by western multinational companies. The profits made out of these commercial operations were exported and not put into local communities or for the welfare of the people of Sierra Leone, leaving the locals in poverty and starving. The motto of the RUF was ‘No more slaves, no more masters. Power and wealth to the people.’

The RUF turned their attention to the diamond mines to finance their rebellion because the international community was certainly not going to finance them. Philippe Diaz who visited Sierra Leone said ‘the one thing we never saw was rich rebels’. As for the amputations of soldiers carried out by the rebels, the strategy was adopted against the regular army’s practice of simply killing captured rebels. The cutting off of limbs was a message to the community at large - ‘You don't hold your weapon against your brother’. This act was tactically employed by the regular army who would of course blame the rebels. In this manner more villagers were maimed, more outrage against the rebels was developed and more international aid was raised.

http://www.factbehindfiction.com/index_files/Blood_Diamond.htm

Solving the Problem

By: Matt Skabelund

Conflict diamonds have been a problem in West Africa for some time. Diamonds in West Africa come very easily; the countries are permeated with diamonds that have been both a blessing and a curse. More so a curse in recent years, with wars between different factions and groups ravishing the country and governments of the countries not doing much to stop the conflict diamonds but more to control the conflict diamonds for themselves. Though each situation is different and implications due to involvement have kept some countries from doing anything to help these war-ridden countries, steps have been taken to create a conflict-free diamond market.

The United Nations Security Council began attempting to stop the flow of conflict diamonds in the early 1990’s by imposing sanctions and embargoes on country of Angola and more specifically the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola(UNITA). The main embargo was on the imports of arms, in hope that it would end conflict in Angola. This was just the first of many resolutions established by the Security Council. After many embargoes and resolutions the Security Council established what is called a Monitoring Mechanism because of UNITA’s failure to comply with any of the resolutions the Council had set up. The Mechanism was a panel of experts that kept a close eye on the actions of the UNITA. As of today the UNITA has been reduced from a rebel group to a political party.

The United Nations Security Council also initiated similar embargoes and sanctions on the countries of Sierra Leone and eventually Liberia. Over the course of a decade the Security Council had placed sanctions and embargoes on three countries associated with conflict diamonds. This helped with the diamond trade but hasn’t eliminated them from the legitimate diamond market.

Although these embargoes were better than nothing, after a report from Global Witness about conflict diamonds, meetings began being held in Kimberley, South Africa about stopping the flow of conflict diamonds. In January of 2003, the Kimberley Process was launched. The Kimberley Process is an import-export documentation scheme in which participating governments to certify the origin of rough diamonds and put in place effective controls to prevent conflict stones from entering the supply chain. Although the Kimberley Process was thought to be able to stop the flow of conflict diamonds, diamonds supporting rebel groups are still getting into the market.

The smuggling of illegal diamonds is an issue that spans across many nations and governments; it affects different areas covering from Human Rights to effects of the global economy. Innocent people have cried and pleaded for help from the local government, their nation’s government and global leaders throughout the world. Unfortunately the response from most was indifferent at best. In a war claiming thousands and thousands of lives, it makes a person wonder why governments from other countries haven’t stepped in to help these ravished countries. The United Nations Security Council did step in, but many wonder if their sanctions and embargoes have done much. With the adoption of the Kimberley process many hoped that this would end the trade of illegal diamonds, though it has helped, corruption with government officials who have helped to initiate the Kimberley process continues to aid the trade of conflict diamonds. Only when the ethics and morals of people enforcing that process change will the end of conflict diamonds come. Until then African countries will continue to war-ridden with little help from outside countries mainly because of their interest in the diamond market. A sad thing when the worth of one diamond outweighs a human life.

CNN News about Liberia Diamond Trade Part 2

CNN News about Liberia Diamond Trade Part 1

Diamond Cutter on Conflict Diamonds

Fake De Beers Diamond Commercial

"As cold as the company's response to publicity about conflict diamonds sounds-- the potential commercial loss is "enormous but the moral dimension is merely "big",as if it were an afterthought-- De Beers is at least consistent in it's thinking.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. Before the conflict-diamond issue gathered steam, it made economic sense to continue to trade with killers since no one was paying attention and it didn't threaten the demand for the goods after the issue began attracting the attention of the human-rights organizations and the people started whispering the dreaded "B" word(boycott), it made economic sense for the industry to wash its hands for good. Since De Beers is the world's largest dealer in rough diamonds, not only was a great deal of responsibility placed at its feet in early 2000, but so were many expectations that the company would act swiftly to end the practice."

                                                                                                   Greg Campbell, Author of Blood Diamond

Global Witness on Blood Diamond

National Geographic Blood Diamond Documenatary

Blood Diamonds by National Geographic by hushhush112