Blood Diamonds

Global Witness was amongst the first organizations to bring the world’s attention to the problem of conflict diamonds, also known as ‘blood diamonds’.

Global Witness’ ground breaking report, A Rough Trade, released in 1998, exposed the role of diamonds in funding the civil war in Angola.

This thrust the secretive practices of the global diamond industry into the spotlight for the first time.
Sixteen years on, the problem of conflict diamonds persists.

Research carried out by Global Witness in Zimbabwe reveals that off-budget revenues from diamond mining companies operating in the Marange area have funded abusive security forces loyal to the ruling Zanu-PF party.

Global Witness is working with companies, governments and civil society organizations to address concerns about responsible sourcing in the diamond and precious stones sectors.

Companies buying or trading rough and polished diamonds should take steps–known as due diligence–to find out whether their purchases have funded conflict or human rights abuses at any point in the supply chain.

Conflict diamonds are diamonds that are used to fuel violent conflict and human rights abuses.

In addition to Angola, diamonds have funded brutal wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo and Côte d’Ivoire that have resulted in the death and displacement of millions of people.

Diamonds have also been used by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda to finance their activities and for money-laundering purposes.

Growing international pressure from Global Witness and other organizations played a crucial role in forcing governments and the diamond industry to take action to eliminate conflict diamonds from the international trade.

In 2003, following several years of campaigning, and negotiations between diamond producing and trading countries, industry and civil society, the international diamond certification scheme known as the Kimberley Process (KP) was established.

However problems with the scheme, such as a narrow definition of conflict and failure to address major issues such as violence in Zimbabwe’s Marange area, undermined the Kimberley Process’ credibility and effectiveness.

Eleven years on, and despite intensive efforts by a coalition of NGOs including Global Witness, the scheme’s major flaws and loopholes have not been addressed and many of the scheme’s member governments show little interest in reform.

Weak industry self-regulation all along the diamond pipeline means that diamonds from Marange which are associated with human rights abuses, are contaminating global markets.

Removal of EU sanctions on the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation in September 2013 has facilitated increased circulation of Marange diamonds.

Although US sanctions remain in place, concerns persist that Marange diamonds may be entering US markets via secondary countries.

The Dred Scott Decision
Dred Scott was the name of an African-American slave.

He was taken by his master, an officer in the U.S. Army, from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and then to the free territory of Wisconsin.

He lived on free soil for a long period of time.

When the Army ordered his master to go back to Missouri, he took Scott with him back to that slave state, where his master died.

In 1846, Scott was helped by Abolitionist (anti-slavery) lawyers to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free since he had lived on free soil for a long time.

The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, was a former slave owner from Maryland.

In March of 1857, Scott lost the decision as seven out of nine Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or ever had been a U.S. citizen.

As a non-citizen, the court stated, Scott had no rights and could not sue in a Federal Court and must remain a slave.

At that time there were nearly 4 million slaves in America.

The court's ruling affected the status of every enslaved and free African-American in the United States.

The ruling served to turn back the clock concerning the rights of African-Americans, ignoring the fact that black men in five of the original States had been full voting citizens dating back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional.

The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery north of the parallel 36°30´ in the Louisiana Purchase.

 The Court declared it violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law.

Anti-slavery leaders in the North cited the controversial Supreme Court decision as evidence that Southerners wanted to extend slavery throughout the nation and ultimately rule the nation itself.

Southerners approved the Dred Scott decision believing Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories.

Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it.

Overall, the Dred Scott decision had the effect of widening the political and social gap between North and South and took the nation closer to the brink of Civil War.

*********************************************

I have not failed.

I've just found 10,000 ways that

won't work.

 Thomas A. Edison

*********************************************