
Men mine for diamonds in Sierra Leone. (Photo by L. Lartigue via USAID)
Cross-posted from In These Times.
The holiday season is a time of material pleasures, but it’s also a time to take stock of how our social values tend to be at odds with the objects we most prize.
While countless American shoppers splurge this month–probably to delude ourselves momentarily that we can still afford to indulge—the social cost of one luxury item has exposed a global crisis. The human rights group Global Witness has abandoned the Kimberly Process, the international regulatory framework aimed at restricting trafficking in “conflict diamonds.” The group argues that the process, which it helped create, is broken and ridden with loopholes.
Global Witness’ withdrawal points to a problem that can’t be regulated away by corporate pledges. It’s not the diamonds, but the global economic role of the mining industries, enslaving poor nations to mineral monoculture. Aside from funneling money into conflicts in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, diamonds reflect an economic tragedy that puts Global South communities at the mercy of both local despots and a global lust for beauty.
The catch phrase “blood diamond” doesn’t tell the whole story of injustices embedded in the world’s mines, which systematically devalue the lives of the the men, women and children in the pursuit of the earth’s riches.
Children have historically made up a large portion of the conflict diamond workforce, under a system that makes full use of their small bodies. In Sierra Leone, according to a report by Harvard’s International Human Rights Clinic, “Beginning as early as ten years of age, child miners perform backbreaking labour under poor conditions where they receive little compensation for their efforts.” In addition to lost access to education and poverty, children interviewed for the study:
complained of body and headaches, worms, malaria and other disease; adult diggers described the dangers posed to child miners from collapsing mining pits. These conditions constitute hazardous work and violate prohibitions on child labour.
Since the industry also employs many traumatized young survivors of the civil war, labor abuses hinder Sierra Leone’s ongoing struggle for “the rehabilitation and social reintegration of children affected by armed conflict.”
The labor hazards are aggravated by the prevalence of irregular “artisanal” diggers, who mine on their own without oversight and sell the goods to middlemen for relatively tiny amounts of money. Lacking formal labor protections, they’re the prospectors in a “casino economy” that thrives in areas that offer no other viable jobs. Diamond fever mires communities in a cycle of pauperization, environmental devastation, and willful ignorance among corporations and politicians.
In the case of Zimbabwe, a recent BBC investigation revealed that the military has actually forced local adults and children into mine work, coercing them through systematic violence, torture and rape.
In its announcement of its withdrawal, Global Witness stated, “Nearly nine years after the Kimberley Process was launched, the sad truth is that most consumers still cannot be sure where their diamonds come from, nor whether they are financing armed violence or abusive regimes.”
Yet conflict diamonds barely scratch the surface of a monstrous regime of extraction. Activists also pointed to other industries that commodify suffering: logging operations that threaten to ravage Malaysia’s forests (despite oversight mechanisms promoted by the World Wildlife Fund); atrocious labor abuses, especially directed against women, in the mining of precious minerals used to produce mobile phones and other electronics.
Diamonds aren’t just symbols of material indulgence, they’re emblems of a universe of cruelty, one that burrows deep into the poorest places on earth and reaches the highest echelons of corporate power. The failure of “voluntary” regulation of the trade reveals injustice beneath the surface, writes Ian Smillie, an activist who helped develop the Kimberly Process:
In the end, the Kimberley Process and the efforts to regulate the extraction of, and trade in other minerals in Africa is about people–the hundreds of thousands who have died as a direct result of mineral-fuelled wars, the millions of people who have died from indirect results of these wars, and the many more millions who might have had better lives if minerals had contributed more to development than to underdevelopment.
Rather than searching for a better diamond, consumers, policymakers and advocates should be searching for a better way to embrace the earth’s beauty, without resorting to the ugliest forms of human exploitation.



28 Comments

Thanks, Michelle, for writing about this. Zimbabwe’s exception was just the final straw for Global Witness. But there are deals made that are outside of the process that are brutal, and are unconstrained.
DRC just had an election that if it weren’t for the outright corruption, we could see the fact that they couldn’t have made it right for the inability to get through to communities on the roads. Roads that the Chinese were supposed to rebuild in return for sucking minerals out of the country in incredibly low wage mines with questionable working conditions. Madagascar and Mozambique are being hacked and starved for precious woods. So it doesn’t stop with shiny things.
Ok so there is no ethical Diamonds out there? If so then the Diamond industry risks losing diamond rings being a symbol of marriage.
It is well known (I presume!) that the diamond is artificially priced, with severe penalties for any transgression of these practices, like gathering remnants, chips and such to sell on your own. I believe NOVA explored this aspect a number of years ago.
If diamonds were price according to their true value with respect to rarity, they would be far more available at reasonable prices.
And, if we truly practiced purchasing based on human rights considerations, we most likely would still be in the analog days, if not back when spark transmitters were used for communication. We would not be having this conversation except within our own neighborhoods.
So you think the only way to get technological change is thru brutal treatment of humans. Interesting model.
There may be no better symbol than a diamond to show the human irrationality of consumerism.
Boycott diamonds: love you mate and the human race.
No I don’t but others do.
Don’t get me wrong. I am a long time electronics engineer, at the front end of the measurements industry. I know about these materials and how they are so dearly coveted for their unique properties. But, I also know that much of the same results can be accomplished without such dependencies. Not all, and much of the cutting edge would not be possible without rare minerals. My point is that the rush to increased performance with it’s attendant built-in obsolescence is driven by the availability of these minerals, and like drugs, have their human costs, sadly, as a by product.
The reference to spark gap transmitters was a bit tongue in cheek, because even then, rare earth played it’s part. like tungsten and germanium.
@Starbuck
Or maybe we would have used other materials and methods, or decided on other economic models. The mechanics of working out a different history for scientific or technological progress based on such a change are far too complex to use for this kind of stupid backward threat.
I would recast your technological explanation in economics and political terms. It’s greed and the ownership of pols by the corps involved that allow these practices to continue, not technology.
It’s not a backwards treat, and I am surprised you see it that way. I’m looking at it straight in the eye, using a technological device resulting from the use of these materials. So are you.
Doesn’t that give you pause? We isolate diamonds: “Don’t buy diamonds: as a mantra then have feel good feelings about it.
The backwards element, not a threat, is to re-examine, as humanly as possible, the entire supply line that gets us where we are today. At critical junctures we stop and ask: How can we do this different?” Unfortunately, this would require a world wide co-operation, across all nations,and realizing that things like fossil fuels and rare earth elements will not distribute equally, wars over these products will result.
So, ultimately the question is: Is it worth it?
Be that as it is, we collude in that process by buying and using the product.
This mini-colloqoy reminds me of the story Bill Maher tells about trying to educate a woman about blood diamonds by emphasizing to her the fact that children’s arms get cut off, and her response was, “Both arms?” I guess the point can pertain more widely than to just diamonds.
Starbuck,
I avoid buying such products, insofar as possible. I hate smartphones, and use my cell (only phone) rarely, and get rid of it only when I am told that it is too old for battery to hold charge, or whatever. Ditto computer.
Tech obsolesce is part of the greed. It’s planned by the corps to keep sales growing. It’s like in the 1950s, 60s, when car styles changed dramatically every, to entice people into buying a new car more often. And grotesque though those designs were, it worked for awhile.
I view customers’ participation in the tech stupidity more as victims than participants. They have little choice, either bc in cases like mine, the product I want to buy (a cell phone that lasts as long as my parents’ bakelite dial telephone) is not made, or thru brainwashing that one MUST have the latest gizmo and wizbang.
Quite unlike diamonds that are a purely discretionary purchase.
It’s well when one can be so succinct!
Please note that I include myself in the mix of those who use our modern devices without much of a backwards thought, and when I do reflect on it, I see I am in a serious catch-22 situation. Then I realize how much of my time and life has been devoted to perpetuating this.
It’s very uncomfortable, yet…..
Sure, none of us are saints. My way is to try and minimize, and to stay concerned about the general absence of justice and compassion in the world. I surrender my purity, but maintain my relative purity. It’s still somewhat discomfiting, though.
Thanks Michelle, you’re a great writer.
It’s really a great trick that the De Beers diamond merchants locked up their monopoly through int’l law enforcement with the kimberly process. It’s a protectionist scam.
There were still guns pointed at the miners, and poaching those that dare to mine on their own. From what I understand it was only about forcing the raw product through the official end points, dressing it up with concern about human suffering.
I’ve read that through the UN the US was trying to set these kind of market controls on other minerals in Africa too recently.
@palli I agree. The best thing we could do is to expose that we were subjected to a massive PR campaign to put diamonds on wedding rings and have the size/value symbolize the quantity and quality of love.
Let’s see: we can live 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food.
The rest is discretionary.
Yep, it’s harsh. But I have to start somewhere. So, add to that: what do we need to thrive? What is needed and what is preference? I prefer a computer, but do I need it? Do I need a multi-threaded multiple core version if in fact I do need the computer? And so on.
So far as being a victim, I also eschew that idea. I have never been a victim, only a participant. Sounds weird, I suppose, but being a victim is part of role playing, the other part is the perp. Both are caught up in a loop which enslaves them both. I prefer not either role. All one needs to see that is to look at people like Gandhi or Mandela or Socrates.
Act, not react.
Lucky you. Never a victim. Hope your life continues to be so blessed.
Yes, that’s what the NOVA program outlined.
….never mind.
World Wildlife Fund..
lol… green washers and big game hunters.
There is probably some serious money that could be made by salvaging and recycling electronics- not exactly diamonds but minerals.
This keeps me from throwing away electronics because there still is not (that I know of) a recycler here in the US that doesn’t ship our junk to china.
Starbuck,
First, get more information into your system. Neither Tungsten nor germanium are rare earths. Tungsten is a product of the Congo, and is mined there under agreements that are currently subject to scrutiny for conflict minerals as well. Hence my comment about the Chinese, who have a mining agreement for it with the Congolese government that has abysmal terms, but is not considered a violation, somehow.
That wasn’t a Kimberley violation, like the Zimbabwe diamond exception that caused the Global Witness pull out. Different framework entirely.
And I am not communicating to you on a system that compromises all of the minerals in question, whether you are or not, nor do I own all the latest gadgets that do. Speak for yourself.
And as I said in my comment, there are materials that do some of the tasks that do not require many of those minerals, and have been developed later, and at a slower rate of speed with much less investment. Would they have been developed differently if the rules of the game were different? Carbon nanotubes have acetylene as the raw material. Are you saying that’s a conflict mineral, or are you saying that it couldn’t have been developed in any other order because you can’t envision the world with human rights? OLEDs, similarly, have organic substrates, interlinked benzene rings. Active membrane fuel cells have organic substrates. None depend on conflict minerals. Sony deliberately developed Lithium-ion batteries because they required no mining and contained no lead, it was an environmentally developed product in a country where the incentives were high to develop such things (Japan). Get out of your thinking box.
You can’t envision speaking to us on a conflict free device because you lack vision, not because it isn’t possible.
http://www.freegeek.org/about/recycle
Points taken.
On the other hand, as Herr Peachum asks,
“Wovon lebt der Mensch?”
For once you must try not to shirk the facts:
Mankind is kept alive by bestial acts.
Point also taken!
Now as to the rarity or lack thereof for germanium and tungsten:
Germanium- Germanium was discovered by the German chemist Clemens Winkler in the mineral argyrodite (Ag8GeS6) in 1886.
Argyrodite is considered a rare earth.
Tungsten is classed as a rare metal, and both, around the time of Marconi, would have been difficult to obtain. Galena, which also possesses semi-conductor properties was the material of choice for radio detectors. It is quite common.
So while not technically correct in all respects, I stand by my perspective.
It is harsh, as I have said.
Rare earths are elements in the periodic table in the Lanthanide and Actinide series. Not the same as rare metals. Argyrodyte, by your formula, contains Silver (Ag), Germanium (Ge) and Sulfer (S). None are rare earths. Tungsten (W) is a heavy metal, in the transition series, not a rare earth. Galena is lead sulfide, also not a rare earth.
For quite a spell, the mineral of dispute in South Central Africa was actually tin, because of environmental concerns about lead in solder. That’s also not a rare earth.
WELL, I agree, but somehow I see these classified as rare in any case. So I went with it.
Germanium is listed as around 55 in the rarity scale. Not so rare, but certainly not silicon! Germanium, however is so active that it isn’t found in it’s natural state. But I am not a chemist, or metallurgist, so I won’t go any farther!
So maybe “in dispute” for one reason or another is more to the point. I’ll settle for that.
Enjoy your Sunday.