De Beers denies improperly exported gems

September 15, 2005 03:31 AM ET
De Beers denies improperly exported gems

All Reuters NewsJOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - The world's biggest diamond producer De Beers denied on Thursday it had improperly exported large quantities of gems in 1994 that were exempt from South African export duties.

Last week a South African parliamentary committee passed a resolution demanding a legal probe into De Beers shipments, saying there were sudden high volumes of exports during the period leading up to transfer of the country to black rule.
(snip)

"I want to refute upfront and categorically the slurs that have been made on De Beers' reputation," De Beers Managing Director Gary Ralfe told SAFM radio.
(snip)

The firm, 45 percent owned by Anglo American , also had records of the exemptions from duty it received from the South African Diamond Board, Ralfe said.
(snip/...)

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=OBR&Date=20050915&ID=5114370

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:Diamond market fuels war, terror
By Eric Dorf

.....While Sankoh's army was cutting off the arms and hands of the people in Sierra Leone, reportedly, diamond companies, such as DeBeers, were "lax."

In other words, DeBeers did not care where the gems came from since they purchased diamonds directly from rebel factions. Countless civilians in Sierra Leone do not have arms to hold their current or future children because of the terrorist actions from the rebel forces.

These types of business practices only perpetuate atrocities against civilians in Africa.
(snip/...)

http://www.newsrecord.org/media/paper693/news/2003/05/12/Opinion/Diamond.Market.Fuels.War.Terror-701982.shtml?page=2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You will be surprised to learn about DeBeers' legacy if you take the time to look around for more info. on this company.

Still the fact is there are now new international laws regulating and banning the sale of conflict diamonds so it is a bit lame to dig up stuff from 11 years ago when corrective action has already been taken. It still sucks but look around to every civil war in Africa's history (and there have been crap loads since independence) and you'll find both sides financed their war effort by selling raw materials. Most of those sides also commited war crimes. Why just single out diamonds when people who bought oil or bananas or cocoa or palm oil or boxite or are all equally guilty of buying goods from bad people?

slave labor.

Sorry but De Beers has a long history of being "lax" on slave labor.

Nestle Chocolate has also gotten in trouble for slave labor.

De Beers and the slave labor trade is why I would never want to own a natural diamond. There is just no way for me to know if my pretty ring has blood all over it. I couldn't live with myself, so now, if I get the money to get a diamond, I will get one of those engineered diamonds. Chemically they are no different from natural diamonds, they cut glass and all the cool stuff, the only difference in their appearence is that the geometry of the cut stone is so mathmatically perfect that it could not be natural. They are completely gorgeous and if Wired magazine is to believed diamand chips may replace sillicon chips in the computer world someday.

Why get a blood diamond, when you can get an engineered diamond?

PS I love Kanye West's song Diamonds from Sierra Leon, it rules.

They have zillions of diamonds, but have a virtual monopoly. Plus, the way they have treated their SLAVES is disgusting....

People shouldn't wear fur, nor should they wear diamonds. They are both wrought with the blood and lives of innocent beings....

between fur and diamonds on the "evil" scale.

Fur is intrinsically wrong. In this day and age, it is not needed to kill creatures for their pelts to keep warm. Fur is in-your-face cruelty. A five year old can see the morality there.

Diamonds are a lot tougher, on many levels. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wearing diamonds. In a perfect world, diamond miners would be paid fair wages, benefits, etc. and all would be well.

Plus, as De Beers likes to tell you, diamonds are almost literally "forever". The diamonds in my engagement ring are over 100 years old, and the diamonds in my wedding band are over 200 years old. De Beers had nothing to do with them. If there was exploitation involved in their mining, the parties involved are long dead and gone. I don't feel guilty for wearing them, any more than I would feel guilty for wearing CZ.

It is hard getting the word out to people about the CURRENT diamond trade, without shaming people who had no idea they were buying "bloody" diamonds. Diamonds are much more pervasive in society than fur was. Every girl's dream is to have the diamond engagement ring, not so much the mink stole. So there is going to be a lot more resistance.

So yes, educate as many as you can. But do it gently. It can be done.

I have a friend who wanted a Tanzanite ring, but after she saw the child labor involved told her husband no way. So people will be sympathetic if given the information. But diamonds should not be given the "red paint" treatment that fur got. It just won't work that way.

That is DeBeers advertising at work.

I've been a girl ever since I was born, and I couldn't care less about diamonds.

It's a bad industry with little real purpose. The value we put diamonds, at least as far as jewelry goes, is completely artificial. Sort of like the dollar, but that's a whole different issue.

(p.s. Hey Maple, it's nice to agree with you on something. You may remember me from threads involving GMOs :hi: )

remember you. :hi:

I never wanted an engagement ring...don't even know why women have them but men don't. Aren't they engaged too?

I also find diamonds colorless...and they're very common and would be cheap if DeBeers didn't control the supply and hype them to people.

A lot of money for nada. I'd rather use the bucks for something more useful. Like a downpayment or first and last months rent...or some other type of investment for the future.

best friend"...

<>


;-)

I never said it wasn't a "manufactured" need.

But if you get in people's faces and scream at them for something that to them represents their love and devotion between them and their spouse you are not going to convert people, you are just going to alienate them.

Apologies if you took it that way. And, no one was saying anything about you and your spouse. btw, I'm 40, work in the education field, and most people I know between 25-45 don't even have diamond rings, mainly because of the money. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you and your husband having done that, I'm just saying that I think it may not be as prevalent as it was even 20 years ago.

Which is a good thing.

And I am sorry if I came off as overly defensive.

I've seen the "diamond flame wars" on DU before, so I was probably somewhat referring to that by my "screaming" comment.

I agree with all the concerns people have about the diamond trade. I just see it as a more pernicious problem to address than fur is.
People have a lot more emotions invested in the "family jewels" than they do their fur coats.
Have they bought into the De Beers mystique? Sure.
But I'll bet the hardcore anti-diamond people support cruelty in a lot of ways that maybe THEY don't realize.
It's always easy to point fingers.

Diamonds literally litter the earth in some areas, but De Beers makes them rare. Diamonds AREN'T rare. And industrial diamonds are as hard as jewel diamonds. Crazy.

The gem itself is not evil, but since De Beers owns a virtual monopoly on them, the trade itself is intrinsically evil. IMO, they are as bad to own because of the way people are exploited. Hobbling, beating, virtual slavery, etc. I understand you have heirloom diamonds, so I'm not slagging you. I'm just saying most people know about fur, but not diamonds. There are quite a few clothing lines I won't wear because of labor issues, too. It sucks!

And, diamonds are more special than other gems because De beers has made them that way. Pure marketing. And, I don't agree with destroying anyone's property by throwing red paint on it -- furs, etc.

They are one of the most evil cartels in existance, and every diamond you buy supports them.

My significant other and I will soon be shopping for an engagement ring, and we most certainly DO NOT want to patronize DeBeers or its ilk.

We prefer estate/vintage jewelry, but is there any way to determine whether those older diamonds are of shady origins?

Many thanks!

here's a link to a company that makes them:
http://www.gemesis.com/home.htm

We'll definitely look int it.

:yourock: (pun intended!)

stones:

http://diamondnexuslabs.com/jewelry/Information/science1.htm

Good luck finding a ring and congratulations on your engagement.

And thank you for providing another great alternative to blood-money gems!

:yourock:

doesn't know me well enough to marry me.

Fuck diamonds. The only way I would possibly wear one is if if was passed through the family or something...

Yeah, maybe some of them are mined in ways that don't destroy the environment or create war and terror and kids getting their hands chopped off, but AFAIC it isn't worth taking the chance.

There are all sorts of pretty rocks in the world that you don't have to hurt anything or anyone to get. When I need a pretty rock I'll get one of those.

by American RadioWorks from November 2001 called "With this ring: the international diamond trail" available here:

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/diamonds/

Southeast Asia--there too they run dictators and death squads and ethnic warfare and terrorism and mutilation and slaughters of whole villages. And don't forget the arms merchants. From Guinea-Bissau to Namibia, Nigeria to Myanmar, Sudan to Angola--Satan's chorus line.
Note how the Right has its fingers in all THREE industries--four, if pharmaceuticals are counted, like in "The Constant Gardner" (four and a half, they also steal 8,000-year-old genes and beat Inca farmers using them).