|
Companies mount campaign against blood diamonds movie { December 10 2006 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/10/BUGIDMQG7390.DTLhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/10/BUGIDMQG7390.DTL
Sometimes diamonds can cut up a country
They have fueled civil wars, but industry says situation has changed
Ilana DeBare, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Elisa Camahort has been a vegetarian since 1989. She buys Fair Trade bulk coffee and seeks out organic, locally grown produce. So it made sense that when Camahort became engaged this autumn, she and her fiance bought a ring from a company that specializes in what are called "conflict-free diamonds."
"I was concerned about the monopolistic practices, the violence and the funding of civil wars by the diamond industry," said Camahort, a San Jose resident who co-founded the Internet business BlogHer. "If I'm going to wear something for the rest of my life, I don't want to feel a little bad every time I look at it."
Until now, relatively few American consumers shared Camahort's concerns about the source of the glistening gems in their rings and necklaces.
But that may change because of the Hollywood film "Blood Diamond," which opened Friday.
The thriller, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, depicts the diamond industry fueling civil war and brutal violence in Sierra Leone in the 1990s.
Human-rights groups are celebrating the film as an opportunity to enlist the public in demanding more ethical accountability from the $60 billion global diamond trade.
Diamond producers and wholesalers, on the other hand, say they have cleaned up their act since the bloody African civil wars of the '90s. Worried that negative images could decimate their sales, they've mounted a public relations campaign that observers have estimated at $15 million.
"This movie is certainly one of the worst things to come along for the diamond industry in the last 30 to 40 years," said Tom Zoellner, a former Chronicle reporter who wrote a recent book, "The Heartless Stone," about the world diamond trade. "It hits at the heart of the image of diamonds. The only reason diamonds have value is their fantastic mythology as a symbol of love. Yet this movie creates an image where they're associated with child soldiers, dismemberment and people being burned out of their villages."
Major 1990s wars
The current debate over the ethics of diamond production goes back to the 1990s, when several diamond-producing countries such as Sierra Leone and Angola were engulfed in civil wars.
Diamond mines were hotly contested. Rebel groups like Jonas Savimbi's UNITA in Angola sold the gems on the black market in exchange for weapons that were then used against civilians. Money from diamond sales also reportedly made its way to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.
While any natural resource can be used to bankroll violence, diamonds played a key role in these African conflicts because their small size and high worth made them well-suited for black market deals.
Human-rights groups estimate that 15 percent of the diamonds on the market during the 1990s were so-called blood diamonds or conflict diamonds -- the terms used for gems from a region involved in civil war.
"The real insidious thing about diamonds is they are so small, so valuable and so easy to conceal," Zoellner said. "That's an ideal nexus for the financing of armed conflict."
Amnesty International and Global Witness, a human rights group based in Britain, began a campaign to halt the sale of diamonds from war zones in the late 1990s. In 2002, diamond manufacturers agreed to a set of self-policing guidelines called the Kimberley Process, after the South African mining city of Kimberley.
Under the Kimberley Process, diamond-producing countries pledge not to export any gems that come from areas of conflict. Wholesalers sign written statements attesting that their gems are "purchased from legitimate sources not involved in funding conflict."
Industry officials say the Kimberley Process has worked, and now 99.8 percent of diamonds come from conflict-free sources.
"If you go to a reputable jeweler, you can be assured you are getting a conflict-free diamond," said Carson Glover, spokesman for the World Diamond Council.
"We can trace the source of every single diamond we carry, and they don't come from any zones of conflict," said Richard Harris, president of Shreve & Co., a 154-year-old jewelry retailer with stores in San Francisco's Union Square and the Stanford Shopping Center. "I can pretty much vouch for all of our diamonds, down to the littlest, tiniest diamond."
Industry officials complain that the "Blood Diamond" movie gives viewers a misleading picture of abuses that ended several years ago.
"That is not what is going on in the country today," Glover said. "Sierra Leone is at peace, an emerging democracy. The vast majority of diamonds come from countries with stable governments that use the revenues to build roads, schools and health care facilities."
Fewer from conflicted areas
Human-rights activists agree that the number of diamonds coming from regions of conflict has dropped dramatically since the '90s.
Alex Yearsley, a Global Witness organizer, said that as few as 1 percent of diamonds today come from conflict zones, while Zoellner estimates that 2 to 3 percent are conflict-related.
But activists claim that drop is mostly due to the end of several long wars -- Angola, for example, signed a cease-fire six weeks after the death of UNITA's Savimbi in 2002 -- rather than to the Kimberley Process.
Activists also say that the Kimberley Process continues to have significant loopholes. For instance, Cote d'Ivoire is a relatively small producer of diamonds that can't sell its gems through the Kimberley Process because it's enmeshed in a civil war, with rebels holding the diamond mines. But Cote d'Ivoirian diamonds are allegedly being smuggled into Ghana and sold on the world market as conflict-free products of Ghana.
"Suppose UNITA were to take over the diamond mines in Angola again," said Yearsley. "Would the Kimberley Process stop their use of diamonds? On the basis of what we're seeing in Ghana, I have serious doubts."
In addition, the Kimberley Process does not regulate working conditions within the mining industry -- only whether diamonds come from a region at war.
"The Kimberley Process addresses only nations in a technical state of civil conflict," Zoellner said. "It says nothing about diamonds mined in all kinds of miserable circumstances like Angola, where there is an incredibly violent and chaotic situation in the diamond fields and miners are robbed and killed for the diamonds they find."
Niche businesses
As rights activists wrangled with the industry over the past several years, entrepreneurs began selling diamonds that they claim are completely above ethical reproach -- because they're mined in Canada.
Camahort got her engagement ring from one such firm, a San Francisco company called Brilliant Earth that sells jewelry online and by appointment. Retailers such as Brilliant Earth and their Canadian suppliers are likely to end up as beneficiaries of the "Blood Diamond" movie buzz, at least in the short term.
In the longer run, it remains unclear how the film will affect Americans' demand for diamonds. A year or two from now, when today's moviegoers are shopping for an engagement ring or anniversary gift, will they think twice about buying a diamond? Will they ask retailers questions about where and how their diamonds were produced? Or will they just look for the best price, the cleanest cut, the friendliest service?
Movies' impact
Hollywood has released other movies that indict an industry or institution while telling an action-packed story, from "The China Syndrome" (nuclear power) to "The Da Vinci Code" (the Catholic Church). Some may have changed public opinion incrementally, but others amounted to little more than an evening's entertainment.
"It's a mixed bag," said Sam Singer, a San Francisco publicist who specializes in defusing corporate public-relations crises but is not representing anyone involved in the diamond debate. "Often a belief or trend starts through popular movies, because movies and sports are two of the last communal things that Americans do. But beliefs don't necessarily translate into actions. This is not going to make Americans want diamonds any less, but it may make them wonder how it got on their finger."
Human-rights activists credit the movie with already spurring changes in the industry. Last month, diamond producers met for their annual review of the Kimberley Process. The industry agreed to several additional measures sought by activists, such as giving Ghana a three-month deadline to show that it is not exporting illicit conflict diamonds from Cote d'Ivoire.
"Without the film, I strongly believe they wouldn't have taken these actions," Yearsley said. "We are unashamedly using this movie."
Diamond details
World Diamond Council: www.diamondfacts.com
Global Witness: www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/diamonds
Amnesty International: www.amnestyusa.org/diamonds/index.do
"The Heartless Stone": www.theheartlessstone.com
E-mail Ilana DeBare at idebare@sfchronicle.com.
Page F - 1
|
|
