Blood Diamonds

Imples Paynter

Prof. P.M. Roach

Politics & Cultures of Africa

Ever since British geologists first discovered diamonds in Sierra Leone's jungles in the 1930's, diamonds have been a key factor in the bloody conflict that has ravaged this small West African country. In his novel, Blood Diamonds, Greg Campbell captures the heart wrenching story of one man's encounter with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a rebel group in Sierra Leone, infamous for their brutal tactics of mass rape, torture, looting, and excruciations. But their signature and most documented form of persecution -- amputation:

Ismael Dalramy lost his hands in 1999 with two quick blows of an ax. He didn't--or couldn't--recall the pain of the blows. But he remembers being ordered at gunpoint to place his wrists on wooden stumps dripping with the blood of his neighbors who were writhing on the ground around him trying to stem the flow of blood from their arms or staggering away. (xiii)

Diamonds have been an important catalyst for the economic growth and development in many African countries. Unfortunately, diamonds have also been the source of extreme devastation for millions of people like Dalramy who live in places that are abundant in the mineral, similar to the village town of Koidu. Dalramy and millions of others in Sierra Leone have paid for this precious luxury with their own flesh. Only to have these stone fund their aggressors such as the RUF in ammunition and supplies. Since the RUF's Operation Clean Sweep --the very same operation that took Dalramy's hands. The rebels have sold millions of dollars worth of diamonds in the world's marketing channels. "...It is believed the RUF grossed between $25 million and $125 million per year by delivering rough gem quality diamonds into the insatiable maw of the world's diamond market" (xxii).

Most people know little about the devastation that's caused in the effort to secure the precious gems. As news circulated around the world with "images of civilians whose arms have been crudely hacked off with rusty blades didn't mesh well with commercials featuring hand-shadows proudly displaying expensive jewelry." (115) As concerned mounted international representatives embarked on a mission for "clean" diamonds and in January 2003. The United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a system, known as the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS). The system developed away in which diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance armed conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments the certification of the source of uncut diamonds to prevent there trade, otherwise known as "conflict diamonds".

Initially the various governments, civil society organizations and the diamond trade were all for the KPCS, what's happened? Why has this initiative that seemed to be the answer to the diamond conflict losing

steam? Well there's a little glitch with the Kimberly Process, the diamond industry agreed to adopt, it is a system of pledges which are only effective if every sector of the diamond industry has effectively implemented their pelage. While some progress has been made in order to insure the full effectiveness of the Kimberly Process, the self-regulation should not be voluntary but a heavily scrutinized system of checks and balances.

The main problem with conflict diamonds is the structure of the diamond industry. "The international diamond trade is remarkably centralized, with the De Beers group of South Africa controlling nearly 65% of the world's mining and marketing capacity"(http://web.amnesty.org). "De Beers is still operating off the contracts that were made at the end of the nineteenth century with governments that for the most part do not exist anymore. Many of the contracts were made when these African countries were still colonies of European nations" (Johnson). Since, De Beers controls the majority of the market; they lack real incentive to address the problem of conflict diamonds due to the fact that conflict diamonds are such a small portion of the worldwide diamond sales. "Making up about 4 to 5 percent of the global output." (xxiii)

"The world's biggest diamond mining and marketing company, De Beers Consolidated Mines of South Africa, announced in February 2000, that it will no longer buy any diamonds sourced from a region controlled by an armed group opposed to the legitimate authority in a country"(http://web.amnesty.org). According to a report by Partnership Africa Canada (P.A.C.), "upwards of 50,000 [have been] killed, half the population displaced, and more than two-thirds of its already severely limited infrastructure destroyed. Meanwhile, the underground trade of illicit diamonds is booming. Conflict diamonds are valued "between 4 percent and 15 percent of the world total" and generate annual trade revenues of $7.5 billion" (Johnson).

"According to De Beers's, conflict diamonds are "minded or stolen by rebels who are in opposition to the legitimate

government of a country" (Campbell 127). "With this definition of "conflict diamonds", DeBeers has no only proved itself with linguistic maneuverability but trade maneuverability as well. It is no secret that "the industry, after all, is bigger than the company alone and in fact is critical to the economies of at least four nations." (Campbell 127) DeBeers has taken steps to ensure that some of their diamonds were conflict