News Archive: February 2006
Conflict Diamonds February 20, 2006
Diamonds.net
The following are a selection of important articles that relate to the topic of conflict diamonds. Additional Newsbriefs and Articles are available in the News section under the topic 'Conflict'. If you are aware of an article that should be listed here please email news@diamonds.net. You are also encouraged to share your views in the DiamondTrade Forum.
http://www.diamonds.net/selectednews.asp?list=1
Amnesty USA Flash Presentation February 19, 2006
Amnesty USA Flash Presentation
http://www.amnestyusa.org/diamonds/d4.html
Conflict Diamonds: Amnesty International's Human Rights Concerns February 18, 2006
Conflict Diamonds
Did Someone Die for That Diamond?
In many African countries, including Angola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) diamonds have been, and continue to be linked to terrible human rights abuses either by insurgent groups to fuel conflict and carry out atrocities against innocent civilians or by unscrupulous government who are equally brutal.
In addition concerns have mounted over links between conflict diamonds and money laundering by groups like Al-Qaeda. While the Kimberley Process marks a positive step towards protecting the legitimate diamond industry and consumers from purchasing tainted stones, much reform is needed. KP's narrow definition of conflict diamonds does not include polished stones and jewelry and could exclude diamonds originating from recognized governments such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/diamonds/index.do
Q & A about Conflict Diamonds February 16, 2006
Questions and Answers about Conflict Diamonds and
the "Clean Diamonds Act"
Why are human rights activists concerned about diamonds?
Diamonds in Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have fueled and funded civil war and gross abuses against the civilian population. Sierra Leone is of particular concern because of the extraordinary abusiveness of the rebel forces that control most of the country's diamond production. Since 1991, the RUF has fought to control Sierra Leon's rich diamond-producing areas. Those diamonds, transshipped through Liberia, Burkina Faso, and other countries, have provided the RUF with millions of dollars to buy sophisticated weapons. The RUF has forced millions of Sierra Leoneans from their homes and committed tens of thousands of abuses, including raping, recruitment of child soldiers, and the amputation of hands of thousands of children, men, and women. Despite the presence of over 10,000 UN peacekeepers, the RUF currently controls approximately three-fourths of Sierra Leone, and has spread the war over diamonds to neighboring Guinea. The link between diamonds and abuses in both Sierra Leone and Angola is so strong that the United Nations has imposed an embargo against diamonds from rebel-controlled areas of both countries.
Why should American jewelers care about conflict diamonds?
Diamonds derive their unique value from consumers' association of the gem with love and commitment. However, the international trade in diamonds from Sierra Leone and Angola have enriched and empowered some of the cruelest fighting forces in the world. Increasingly, diamonds are associated not with love but with rape and amputation by the RUF in Sierra Leone. It is vitally important that the trade in diamonds be reformed quickly so that their image is not irreparably damaged. Otherwise legitimate producers like South Africa will be seen as peddlers of war spoils rather than symbols of love, and value of all diamonds will be forever tarnished.
What has the diamond industry done about conflict diamonds?
Last spring, reformers in the international diamond industry, working with important diamond producing countries such as South Africa and Botswana, proposed an international system to protect legitimate diamonds and isolate "blood diamonds" from the legitimate world market. The system they proposed is called "rough controls."
What are "Rough Controls"?
Rough controls are basically a chain of warranties that diamonds are mined in legitimate producing countries. A legitimate government licenses miners, diamond traders export their goods in sealed, tamper-proof containers, and interlocking computer databases in exporting and importing countries catch discrepancies. Every country in the world will eventually have to enact the customs regulations, penalties, packaging, and inspection that are part of the rough controls regimen so that no country is importing from pariah states and mixing blood diamonds with clean. Thus once Belgium, India, or Israel (countries where the bulk of cutting and finishing occurs) enact the rough controls, they will no longer accept rough stones from any country that does not itself have the rough controls in place. And importers of cut diamonds and jewelry, like the U.S., will only accept imports from those cutting and finishing centers that are based in countries that have the rough controls in place. In this way, a "clean stream" of diamonds is protected from blood diamonds. It is not 100% fool proof, but it is a very good international effort to get at this very difficult problem. The non-governmental human rights community, which has been highly critical of the diamond industry for trading in bloodstones, strongly supports the rough controls proposal and seeks to work with the diamond industry to encourage its adoption in every country, including the US.
What does the "Clean Diamonds Act" do?
The bipartisan "Clean Diamonds Act," (HR 918) if enacted, would require that all countries exporting diamonds (rough, cut, and jewelry) to the United States have in place the internationally-recognized system of "rough controls" that was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in December. The "rough controls" regimen is a system of packaging, registration, inspection, and monitoring that reformers within the diamond industry itself developed, in collaboration with the Government of South Africa and other producing countries. The diamond industry announced its support for the "rough controls" regimen last July. But since then the pace of progress in enacting the regimen has slowed considerably. The "Clean Diamonds Act," by putting in place US import controls six months after enactment would start a clock on the diplomatic process and encourage countries to move forward quickly to adopt the international system.
Will the "Clean Diamonds Act" hurt legitimate diamond producing countries?
No. The "Clean Diamonds Act" is aimed at protecting the legitimate diamond industry. South Africa, Botswana and other legitimate producers will have no difficulty putting in place the customs regulations, computer registry, and standardized packaging that is required. Once the "Clean Diamonds Act" has passed into law and takes effect, only clean diamonds will be permitted into the US market. That will help South Africa and Botswana, whose clean product is welcome in this country.
Will the "Clean Diamonds Act" affect the supply of diamonds to American jewelers and storeowners?
The only supply of diamonds that the "Clean Diamonds Act" will disrupt is the supply of blood diamonds from rebel-controlled Sierra Leone and Angola. The only countries that will have difficulties are those where governments are dragging their feet, resisting international standardization and monitoring, or that are complicit in the laundering and transshipment of blood diamonds. Every country of good will that erects barriers against "blood diamonds" by putting in place the rough controls regimen will be able to ship diamonds and diamond jewelry to the US.
How will the "Clean Diamonds Act" help restore consumer confidence in diamonds?
When the "Clean Diamonds Act" is enacted, American jewelers and jewelry store executives will be able to tell their consumers that the diamonds in their store are clean diamonds. Currently, no jeweler knows where their diamonds come from, and they cannot assure their customers that their diamond purchases is not unwittingly subsidizing a cruel and abusive rebel force in Sierra Leone or Angola. Once the "Clean Diamonds Act" is passed, jewelers will at last have a "clean stream" of diamonds to sell. They can tell their customers that the US government is evaluating every diamond supplying country and excluding those that fail to conform to internal standards.
What are the differences between the "Clean Diamonds Act" and legislation proposed by the World Diamond Council?
The World Diamond Council released a draft bill last January. As of April 18, the bill had not been introduced in Congress, but it is expected to be introduced soon. The WDC draft, like the "Clean Diamonds Act," calls upon the Treasury Department to create a list of countries whose diamonds can be admitted into the US market. The major difference between the two bills is what those "clean" countries are required to do before they are permitted to export diamonds to the US The "Clean Diamonds Act" requires that within six months of enactment, exporting countries must have in place the rough controls regimen that was proposed last July. The World Diamond Council's proposed legislation only requires that diamond exporting countries "cooperate" with the international process. The stronger standard in the "Clean Diamonds Act" will encourage much faster action by diamond producing, cutting, and exporting countries to put in place the rough controls.
Another major difference between the two bills is that the World Diamond Congress draft exempts diamond jewelry. The "Clean Diamond Act" requires that all diamonds and jewelry must come from countries that have enacted the rough controls. If jewelry is exempt, blood diamonds could be glued to cheap fittings or earring studs and thus circumvent US import controls. If countries are fully complying with the rough controls regimen, jewelry will only be made with diamonds from a "clean stream." Such jewelry will be permitted into the American market. Only jewelry from countries that do not have the rough controls in place will be affected by the "Clean Diamonds Act."
There are other differences between the two bills. The "Clean Diamonds Act" has stiffer penalties for law-breakers, and it gives the money from fines and seized contraband to a US government fund for victims of war.
What can jewelers do to support the "Clean Diamonds Act"?
The "Clean Diamonds Act," (HR 918) currently has 109 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is expected to be introduced in the Senate in early May. American jewelers should write to their Member of Congress and urge them to cosponsor HR 918, or thank them for doing so already. For a list of sponsors, and to find out how to contact your own member of Congress, click here.
http://www.phrusa.org/campaigns/sierra_leone/diam_q&a.html
De Beers Embarks on Diamond Hunt February 10, 2006
De Beers Embarks on Diamond Hunt
South African diamond giant De Beers has recorded a 15% rise in sales for 2005, but its production has fallen short of expectations.
The firm sold $6.5bn worth of rough diamonds in 2005, and estimated that diamond jewellery sales rose by 6-7%.
Its output of rough diamonds reached a record 49 million carats - but the growth of 4% fell short of its 7-8% target.
The firm will spend $100m this year searching for new diamond deposits.
Black empowerment
De Beers said that sales around the world grew in every region except Europe during 2005.
Its outlook for 2006 was "positive", it said, with growth seen similar to 2005 "in line with expectations for global economic growth".
The company controls about half of the world's diamond supply and is 45% owned by mining giant Anglo American.
The firm's marketing arm, the Diamond Trading Corporation (DTC), ships gems to London to be mixed with stones from elsewhere for onward sale.
De Beers is in the process of selling 26% of its mining operations to a black empowerment firm, Ponahalo, which is 50% owned by De Beers employees and pensioners.
The deal is part of the South African government's strategy of giving greater economic power to the country's black majority.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/4700062.stm
Published: 2006/02/10 10:59:57 GMT
© BBC MMVI