Ernest
Blom, the president of the World Federation of Diamond Bourses, said in a 2006
article I read recently (in an airline magazine on my way to South Africa), that
conflict diamonds are now all but "an historical fact."
Blom
noted that "In 2000, it came to our attention that trade in conflict diamonds
(stones minded in countries at war and sold to fund the war or efforts of an invading
army. Key culprits included Angola and Sierra Leone) accounted for as much as
4% of global turnover in rough diamonds." Blom said the industry was quick
to react and formed the World Diamond Council. So successful has this system been
that, trade in conflict diamonds has been reduced to less than .5% of total global
turnover.
Diamonds
are a huge commodity and the De Beers Group (that has a near de facto monopoly
on the world's diamond trade and rules the industry by creating an artificial
scarcity) doesn't like these rebel-mined diamonds, that support death and civil
war, sullying their pristine PR campaign.
Does
the consumer care?
I
read an article on CNN.com that "in 2005 diamond engagement ring sales totaled
$4.5 billion. For the first quarter ended in April, 2005, the New York-based luxury
jeweler Tiffany's said profit was up 8.8 percent from the year earlier. In 2004,
U.S. retail sales jumped 14 percent, helped by sales of big rocks. Tiffany said
sales of diamond rings over three carats, called "statement" rings,
are running strong as are sales of diamond-encrusted "celebration" rings
that run from $5,000 to $12,000 a piece."
Apparently,
not many people are concerned that their coveted "bling-bling" status
symbol might be a "blood diamond" (tagged by humanitarian groups to
garner a negative association), or, a "conflict" diamond (the diamond
industry's more gentle term). Buyers of diamonds don't care.
I'm
surprised de Beers didn't go with the term "squabble diamonds."
Imagine
how more psychically charged your diamond is (according to statistics, the sale
of higher carat stones has increased dramatically) if it was mined using forced
labor and people lost their lives, or an arm, for you to celebrate your engagement?
"Blood
Diamond" is set in 1999 in Sierra Leone, a country in the throes of civil
war. The rebels are mining diamonds and selling them to fund their purchase of
guns. These diamonds might be for sale at your mall.
Last
week, I was in Botswana. One year after gaining their independence, Botswana serendipitously
found diamonds! The government is in 50-50 partnership with de Beers and the economy
is thriving.
Survival
International, the UK-based indigenous peoples' advocates, said Botswana had forcibly
evicted communities of Bushmen from their homelands in the Central Kalahari Game
Reserve to make way for diamond prospecting.
Zimbabwean
Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a diamond middleman. Solomon Vandy (Djimon
Hounsou) is a good man. He is a poor fisherman with a wife and three children.
Caught up in the bloody civil war, rebels take Solomon's young son. His wife and
children are sent to a refugee camp. He is forced into slave labor mining diamonds.
His life collides with Archer's when he finds a rare, 100-carat pink diamond and,
risking death, buries it. When Archer hears about the rough stone, he joins up
with Solomon – who only wants his family back. Archer wants to get out of
the nasty business by selling the diamond. Let's face the facts: How is Solomon
going to sell the stone without Archer's help?
Solomon
knows that his son Dia's fate is to become a child soldier and he uses his knowledge
of where he buried the stone as leverage with Archer. They join forces to find
Dia, the stone, and secure Solomon's family release from the refugee camp.
Archer
meets Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), an American journalist reporting on conflict
diamonds. Maddy is quick to size up Archer as a major player in transporting diamonds
from the rebels to Amsterdam. Only with Maddy's status as a journalist can Archer
and Solomon navigate the dangerous rebel-held territory. Being on a Time magazine
cover or on CNN seduces even the most cruel rebel leader.
There
is enough Message here to make Mother Theresa weep from the grave. There is the
real brutality of child soldier-killers that might frighten off the now-peaceful
Sierra Leone tourism. There is also high-stakes action, danger, tough talk, and
the beauty of Africa.
What
is really compelling about "Blood Diamond" is DiCaprio's outstanding
performance and skillful African accent. He is not afraid to commit to a character
that is ruthless, selfish and with a one-goal agenda. His Archer is an un-redemptive,
experienced killer slogging through death for a small piece of rock with a big
payoff. Hounsou knows he is playing a one-dimensional character of a good man
searching for his son. Connelly wisely keeps her flirting to a minimum. While
director Edward Zwick can direct epics of this scope, he has yet to find a screenplay
that will galvanize an audience.
What
is missing from "Blood Diamond" is the consumer. Where were the scenes
of movie stars on the Red Carpet and rap stars in their videos decked out in millions
of dollars of diamonds?
