“The fellow who gives a diamond ring to a lover should know that probably because of that diamond a girl of 10 has been raped, a boy of 2 has has lost a limb.”
Ever seen that shiny ring on someone’s finger? Pretty, right? Well that small stone has a history- and chances are, it’s bloody.
Yes, it is that serious. Diamonds cause wars, cost lives, and encourage violence on an international level. And all because diamonds are “portable, easily concealed, and untraceable”; perfect for a trap of smuggling and corruption.
The story starts in Africa. Specifically, diamond conflicts have taken root in several undeveloped African nations including Angola, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, the Central African Republic, and the Republic of the Congo. Too many people believe the conflict was ended in 2003 with the establishment of the Kimberley Process, which “places a ban on diamonds that finance rebel militias in war-torn countries”. And while it’s true, progress has certainly been made, conflict still rages. The wars in Angola and Sierra Leone are now over, and fighting in the DRC has decreased, but the problem is far from over. In fact, when you start taking a look at the recent activities of these nations, it’s easy to see diamond conflict is far from over.
Sierra Leone in particular was one of the worst in diamond violence. The war that took place in this nation “transformed Sierra Leone into one of the poorest countries in Africa… ironic since its diamond mines are among the richest on the continent”. So, to try and make diamonds work for prosperity in this nation rather than despair, the diamond industry and the government are working together to mark packages of diamonds that were mined legally. The problem is that these diamonds account for “only 10 to 20 percent of the diamonds which are dug up every year”. Part of the issue is that it’s way too easy for diamonds to find their way into the international market or be sold on the market under phony licenses.
The Kimberley Process was a step in the right direction, but many of these countries, to this day, have continued violence due to the ‘loopholes’ of this initiative. The statement only bans diamonds that finance rebel militias, so diamond miners who are harmed or killed by governments or security guards aren’t protected. In these cases, the Kimberley Process rarely ever takes action, and in the process “certifies these diamonds as conflict free and allows them to be shipped to consumers worldwide”. So, not only is it hard to distinguish between the ‘conflict free’ diamonds and the ‘blood’ diamonds; but as it turns out, many of those ‘conflict free‘ diamonds were obtained through violence. And this is no minor violence. Diamond conflict produces civil wars, violence, worker exploitation, child labor, environmental degradation, and unspeakable human suffering. The diamond wars have cost an estimated 3.7 million lives. During the war in Sierra Leone, there was a camp for amputees as a result of the rebels signature method of violence; “cutting off limbs to terrorize the population”.
Just in 2013, the Central African republic broke into a civil war, both sides fighting over the country’s diamond resources. In rival group fights like this, we see bloodshed, loss of life, and shocking human rights abuses- from rape to the use of child soldiers. This was just four years ago. How much is going on that we don’t know about? The Kimberley Process’ loopholes are many.
In the Central African Republic, where war recently broke out, “the country’s diamonds are easily smuggled across its borders and sold to international consumers” and this is despite the Kimberly Process’ ban on diamond exports from the Central African Republic.
In Zimbabwe, there’s private companies in charge of mining. And even though “community members are still being beaten and killed, relocated families live in poverty, [and] corruption continues”, nobody is held accountable since the initiative specifies the ban for rebel militias, not companies or governments. Additionally, the Kimberley Process did have a ban on Zimbabwean diamonds in 2009, but the ban was lifted in 2011, despite the revelations that the army was running a torture camp for diamond miners.
In Angola, “Soldiers routinely demand bribes, beating and killing miners who do not cooperate.” On top of this, the soldiers have been “rounding up tens of thousands of migrants each year and expelling them across the border, raping many of the women first”; and despite this, the Kimberley Process chose Angola to serve as its leader in 2015.
In Côte d’Ivoire, the ban on diamonds was lifted, and the country has a chance to “use its diamond wealth for peaceful economic development”; however, the tension in this country as well as countless others remains high due to diamond conflicts of the past and present.
It’s obvious there’s still issues in the mining of diamonds, but the consumer’s biggest defense comes with the words “conflict free”. This may be the biggest issue of all. The problem is that “Diamonds with violent histories are still being mined and allowed to enter the diamond supply, where they become indistinguishable from the other gems.” Dr. Dennis Bright, on the Council for Peace and Reconciliation, has seen the horrors of the small expensive rock that sits on fingers everyday. And his piece of mind? – “The fellow who gives a diamond ring to a lover should know that probably because of that diamond a girl of 10 has been raped, a boy of 2 has lost a limb.”
Documentaries about these gems and movies like Oscar nominated “Blood Diamond”, do a better job of portraying the true tale better than I ever can. And yes, it’s true there are things that can be done to raise awareness on an international level. But, in all honesty, a large chunk of the control is in the consumer’s hands. Rodney Micheal, a local diamond dealers’ association chairman says, “…it’s going to be very difficult to identify a rebel diamond from a legitimate diamond.” And if he can’t really tell the difference, what are the chances that the consumer will be able to? It’s a challenge of morals, and it’s up to the consumer to decide which side of the story they’ll prioritize. Whether they choose to see the potential violence of the rocks past, or a shiny future on a finger is up to the individual. But either way, the consumer should know the risk their taking when it comes to buying these jewels; and the blood that they’ll have on their hand, even if it’s in the form of a diamond.
