Diamonds Are a Warlords Best Friend

- Meghan Lenchyshyn

Leonardo DiCaprio’s 2006 blockbuster hit “Blood Diamond,” like many films of its ilk, has raised the awareness of the general population to a fading memory in the international community, in this case, that of conflict diamonds. The term “blood” or “conflict” diamond is used to describe diamonds that are mined in war zones and sold typically to finance the war effort of an insurgent army. These clashes cause much insecurity in diamond-rich African countries and though much of the international community believes the problem to be under control, current statistics prove otherwise.

The mining of conflict diamonds has occurred predominantly in the nations of Angola, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It has occurred both during times of war, and has been a chief contributor and aggravator of violence.

In Angola, diamonds were used during civil war as a means of funding the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola. Sierra Leone, is perhaps the most publicized example of atrocities committed in regards to this illicit trade, and it tells a similar story to that of Angola, with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) funded in part by the diamond trade in their attempts to overthrow the government. Children and adults alike had their hands chopped off by RUF rebels and were often taken prisoner and forced to work as slaves in the mining camps. Another disturbing trend that became publicized in this conflict is that of child soldiers that were trained to kill and forced to become RUF soldiers.

Civil war in both Angola and Sierra Leone has since ceased, and both countries are said to be legitimate members of the diamond trade, however problems continue to persist in the Ivory Coast, where civil war is still occurring. The Ivory Coast is used and seen as a valuable route for exporting rough diamonds from Liberia to Sierra Leone.

Rebel forces take advantage of the high demand for diamonds by traders and consumers in the United States, United Kingdom, and Western Europe. Insurgent forces require money in order to purchase weapons and ammunition to further their cause, and the illicit trading of diamonds provides these factions with the revenue to finance their operations. Indeed, chief arms suppliers, such as the Germans, Russian and Chinese, are complicit with this trade, most notably the latter.

This same trade has also been used to fund organizations outside of Africa, and alleged links with Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda persist. Hezbollah has reportedly used Lebanese presence in western and central Africa in order to finance its operations. As well, there is much speculation that money laundered from diamond trading helped al-Qaeda fund the 9/11 attacks after many of their assets were frozen. It is alleged that Osama Bin laden focused Al-Qaeda’s activities in Liberia, and bought diamonds and other gems from Liberia and RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Global Witness reports that Al-Qaeda laundered an estimated twenty million dollars through the purchase of African diamonds - both the Liberian government and Al-Qaeda unswervingly deny these allegations.

There have been procedures implemented to prevent the perpetuation of conflict through diamond trading, and in 2002, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) had forty-five signatories attach themselves to the program. The KPCS states that all diamonds must have an authentic certificate of origin, in order to be able to distinguish legitimate diamonds from conflict diamonds. This certification also assures diamond purchasers that they have not contributed to the violence. There is also legislation in place outlining penalties such as criminal charges for countries violating the KPCS.

While the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is indeed a step in the right direction in eliminating conflict diamonds from entering the international market, the question of how successful and therefore effective it has been remains very much up for debate. The KPCS has reduced though in no way eliminated the trade in conflict diamonds. Global Witness states that the diamond industry is falsely claiming the problem has been solved with the KPCS however, once a diamond is on the market, it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace its origin. A report released by the United Nations in September 2006 exhibits the ways in which weak government controls have allowed twenty-three million US dollars in conflict diamonds to enter trade through Ghana annually.

While many African countries that were formerly problematic have since entered the realm of legitimate diamond trading and production, there is still a large portion of trading being done illicitly by rebel forces in both the DRC and the Ivory Coast. Many of these diamonds, like much legal trade, find their way into the market through traditional colonial trade routes and networks, and perhaps it is these avenues that need to be concentrated on to further stfle the industry.

Consumers can do their part by ensuring the place they get their diamonds from has a set, clear policy on conflict diamonds. As well, purchasing conflict-free diamonds that have been domestically produced (as in Canada) is another way of helping to ensure that unwitting buyers are not contributing to the problem. Governments, non-governmental organizations, diamond traders, and civil society must all play a role in efforts to help end the trading of conflict diamonds.