Link This |
Email this |
Blog This |
Comments (0)
New "Blood Diamond" Site Launches
November 14, 2006
Blooddiamondaction.org, a new site set up by NGOs Amnesty International and Global Witness and apparently the Blood Diamond movie, just launched. According to this blog, it will soon be plugged on Oprah. (Be great to have confirmation on that.)
I haven’t read through everything on the site, but the information generally looks pretty solid – if not particularly flattering to the industry. I can’t argue with anything in the site’s “Buyer’s Guide,” and most of its points about improvements needed to the Kimberley Process are valid, if presented typically shrilly.(By the way, every jeweler reading this should read that “Buyers Guide,” and know how to answer its questions.) Still, with so much conflict diamond-related misinformation on the Internet -- mostly from people trying to hustle Canadian diamonds -- it is good to hear from people who actually know what they are talking about.
One part amused me, though. Its “Truth About Diamonds” section lists a couple of questions, including “What percentage of diamonds are conflict diamonds?” I think we all agree that the number is very small – well under 1%. (Here is how that is figured, by the way… According to the site’s home page, there are up to $23 million in conflict gems. So $23 million out of more than $8 billion in rough gems a year … that’s well under 1%.)
That number is also beneficial to the industry. So what does the site say? “It is extremely difficult to estimate the current percentage of conflict diamonds” (true) and “even a small number of conflict diamonds can wreak tremendous havoc” (true as well.) But basically, it doesn’t answer the question. Then the site goes on to ask: “How much of a problem were conflict diamonds in the past?” And suddenly the numbers come. Ten percent! Fifteen percent! Those numbers are also very tenuous estimates, but suddenly, it seems, the provisos are gone.
Come on, guys. If you want to criticize the industry, there are ways to do it, but at least have some intellectual honesty about it. Still overall, it’s a decent site, and I'd be interested in your thoughts ...
Posted by Rob Bates on November 14, 2006 | Comments (0)
