Conflict Diamonds

People worry about “conflict diamonds” without always knowing what the term describes. It is worth being precise. A conflict diamond is not defined by where it was found or how it was cut, but by what it paid for — and the diamond community has spent two decades building the machinery to keep such stones out of the legitimate trade.

What they are

Conflict diamonds, also known as “blood” diamonds, are rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance armed conflicts aimed at undermining legitimate governments. — The Kimberley Process

The first time the United Nations named “conflict” diamonds and banned their purchase was in 1998, in Angola. Angola had been independent since 1975, but several factions refused to accept the government in place, and a civil war ran from 1974 to 2001. The National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) sold an estimated US$3.72 billion worth of diamonds to fund its campaign. That same year, Global Witness — among the first organisations to expose the trade — released a report, A Rough Trade, revealing the role diamonds played in financing the rebels. It was the first real step toward stopping them.

Angola’s situation has since normalised, and its diamonds have been reintegrated into the international market. By the Kimberley Process figures for 2009, Angola ranked as the world’s fifth largest producer by volume and fourth by value.

The names that come to mind most readily, though, are Sierra Leone and Liberia. Liberia was torn by civil war from 1989 to 2001, and its president, Charles Taylor, was accused by the UN of arming and training the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) insurgency in neighbouring Sierra Leone in exchange for diamonds. In 2001 the UN sanctioned the Liberian diamond trade. Taylor was arrested in Nigeria in March 2009, attempting to cross into Cameroon, and was tried in The Hague for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Both Liberia and Sierra Leone have since regained peace and set about building legitimate, regulated mining industries; the UN lifted its sanctions, and Liberia is now a member of the Kimberley Process.

The questions that remain

The certification scheme that grew out of these wars — see The Kimberley Process — transformed the trade. It has also reminded the world of how little it tends to know about the developing countries it depends on. But its mission is narrow by design: to ensure diamonds are not used to finance wars.

That leaves harder questions open. The recent events in Zimbabwe are the clearest case. Zimbabwe is not at war; no rebel force is trying to seize its mines; and it has met the scheme’s requirements, even making real efforts to develop its industry. Yet when government soldiers use extreme violence against illegal miners and ignore their basic rights, the limits of the system’s authority become obvious. These are not failings unique to diamonds — they belong to every industry drawing natural resources from places with weak human-rights and environmental protection. The diamond trade keeps searching for further means of action, but only a genuine collaboration across industries will change the picture.