Sierra Leone’s First Lady Joins Diamond Protest

The first lady of Sierra Leone has joined protests against owners of the Koidu diamond mine, supporting strike action and demanding pay rises and improved working conditions.

Fatima Maada Bio, wife of president Julius Maada Bio, publicly highlighted the demands of workers and posted a message on her official X (formerly Twitter) account.

“As a proud daughter of the soil, I joined my brothers and sisters working at the Koidu Limited Mining Company in Kono Town to peacefully protest,” she wrote.

“Our collective action aimed to urge Koidu Limited to enhance working conditions and provide better services for all employees.”

She said among the key demands were recognition of the union, living allowances, a 30 per cent salary increment, overtime compensation, the provision of incentives, access to safe drinking water, and freedom of financial choice.

“This protest is a call to action for the company to improve the working conditions and provide better services. We believe that these demands are reasonable and essential for maintaining the well-being and dignity of workers.”

Workers at the mine have long complained about low wages, poor working conditions, and alleged racism, and protests have, in the past, turned violent.

Koidu, a subsidiary of the Octea Diamond Group, was the first to begin commercial diamond operations after the country’s 11-year civil war in 2003.

In a statement on what it described as the “illegal strike action” last week, Koidu Limited said: “Our absolute priority remains the safety and wellbeing of our employees and the community. We maintain our position of zero tolerance to any violence, intimidation or incitement thereof. The government of Sierra Leone has offered the full support of its security forces.”

The company said it wanted to engage in direct negotiations as soon as possible to address all of these concerns, but could only do so if the industrial action is called off immediately.

“Failure to work within the laws of Sierra Leone, as well as the continuing of incitement of actions to obstruct workers from returning to work (particularly violence), is likely to result in the withdrawal of all staff from the mine on the grounds of safety.

“This will result in the ceasing of all operations; an existential threat to the mine itself.”

Source: IDEX

PS: Sierra Leone: The Original Blood Diamonds

Sierra Leone, a West African nation blessed with abundant natural resources, is synonymous with the term “blood diamonds”—a phrase that evokes images of conflict, human suffering, and illicit trade. These diamonds, also known as conflict diamonds, played a devastating role in the country’s brutal civil war from 1991 to 2002, financing rebel groups and fueling atrocities. Understanding Sierra Leone’s blood diamond history is essential to appreciating the industry’s evolution and the ongoing efforts to prevent such tragedies from recurring.

The Rise of Blood Diamonds

Sierra Leone’s diamond wealth has long attracted fortune seekers and corporations, but it also became a curse. Diamonds were first discovered in the country in the 1930s, and by the 1950s, Sierra Leone had established itself as a significant diamond producer. However, much of the mining was conducted informally, leading to smuggling and corruption.

The real tragedy began in 1991 when the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a rebel group, launched a war against the government. The RUF quickly realized that controlling diamond mines meant securing a near-endless source of funding for weapons and operations. The group forced civilians, including children, into grueling labor in the mines, extracting diamonds that were then smuggled through neighboring countries and sold on international markets. These diamonds were used to purchase arms, prolonging the conflict and leading to widespread atrocities, including mutilations, mass killings, and child soldier recruitment.

International Response and the Kimberley Process

By the late 1990s, reports detailing the horrors of Sierra Leone’s blood diamonds gained global attention. The international community, led by the United Nations, took action to curb the trade of conflict diamonds. The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) was introduced in 2003 to prevent blood diamonds from entering the legitimate market. The initiative requires diamond-producing nations to certify that their exports are conflict-free, aiming to eliminate the link between diamonds and violence.

While the Kimberley Process has reduced the trade of conflict diamonds, criticisms remain regarding its effectiveness. Loopholes, weak enforcement, and the continued smuggling of diamonds in war-torn regions highlight the need for ongoing reforms.

The Present and Future of Sierra Leone’s Diamond Industry

Since the end of the civil war in 2002, Sierra Leone has made significant strides in stabilizing its diamond sector. The government has implemented stricter regulations, and international oversight has increased. Today, diamonds remain a crucial part of Sierra Leone’s economy, providing jobs and revenue. However, challenges such as illegal mining, corruption, and poor working conditions persist.

Ethical sourcing initiatives, including Fair Trade diamonds and blockchain technology for traceability, are helping to ensure that diamonds from Sierra Leone and other regions are mined responsibly. Companies and consumers are increasingly demanding conflict-free diamonds, putting pressure on the industry to maintain transparency and ethical practices.

Sierra Leone’s tragic history with blood diamonds serves as a stark reminder of the potential dark side of the diamond trade. While progress has been made, the industry must remain vigilant to prevent history from repeating itself. For consumers, choosing diamonds certified as conflict-free and supporting ethical mining initiatives can contribute to a future where diamonds symbolize love and commitment, rather than conflict and suffering.

The legacy of blood diamonds in Sierra Leone is a painful one, but it also highlights the resilience of its people and the ongoing global efforts to ensure that diamonds never again finance war and human suffering.

Kimberley Process to Hold Hybrid Plenary Meeting

Kimberley Process Rough diamonds. 

The annual Kimberley Process (KP) plenary will take place online and in person from November 8 to 12, with the digitization of certificates featuring at the top of the agenda.

The hybrid format enables the KP to continue its activities despite the restrictions resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s Finance Ministry, which is chairing the organization this year, said last week. Those eligible to visit Moscow under Covid-19 rules will be able to attend the physical event.

The meeting will focus on modernizing the KP export and import documents for rough diamonds. The ministry is currently finalizing a pilot program involving an information exchange with one of Russia’s key trading partners and plans to present its findings soon, it said.

The KP will also consider the applications of new countries wishing to join the group, having paused this due to travel difficulties. Since the easing of the situation, the KP has organized missions to Qatar and Kyrgyz Republic, and plans to do the same in Mozambique. The chairmanship and the committee that handles applications for participation in the KP will consider the reports emanating from those visits.

The Central African Republic (CAR) will also be on the agenda, with the KP planning to send an expert mission to the country to evaluate its compliance with rules aimed at preventing the export of conflict diamonds. In addition, the KP will select a new vice chair for 2022, with that country taking over as chair in 2023 from Botswana, which is slated to take the helm next year.

Meanwhile, Russia will work with KP partners to reach a consensus on the location of a future permanent KP secretariat to help streamline the organization’s work.

The KP canceled the 2020 plenary and intersessional meetings because of the pandemic. However, the 2021 intersessional took place in June, focusing on topics including digitization and human rights.

Source: diamonds.net

Tensions Rise over Definition of Conflict Diamonds

large rough diamond

A recent global meeting of the Kimberley Process (KP) ended in controversy as Chinese delegates allegedly clashed with a representative of nonprofit organizations on the issue of conflict diamonds.

Attendees from China interrupted a closing statement by Shamiso Mtisi, the coordinator of the Civil Society Coalition, after he criticized the country’s approach to the matter, Mtisi claimed this week. Part of the Chinese delegation left the Zoom meeting in protest, according to another participant.

Speaking at last month’s intersessional, Mtisi singled out China, India and Angola for failing to make progress on the KP’s definition of conflict stones, a central point of debate within the KP.

Proposals to update the definition have been under discussion for many years. The current language limits the term to rough goods used by a rebel group to finance conflict but excludes violence by ruling authorities.

The topic was on the agenda at the intersessional meeting from June 21 to 25, which took place online for the first time because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

However, China, India, Angola and other countries argued that the KP was not a forum for discussing human rights because the organization was for “trade issues,” Mtisi reported. Some governments also pointed out that the KP lacked a mandate to make the change, he said. Under KP rules, a revamp of the wording can only happen when all participating governments give their approval.

Potential motives

The reasons for the trio’s reluctance are murky, leading to speculation about possible factors.

China has invested in diamond mining in Zimbabwe, a producing nation with a contentious history of violence at its deposits, Mtisi explained to Rapaport News. He also alleged that India — the world’s largest rough importer — benefited from cheap diamonds originating in countries affected by human-rights violations. It is not clear why Angola, a mining nation, would oppose an updated definition, given its history of conflict, he said.

The question over the definition of conflict diamonds “is a sensitive issue that needs consensus at the level of all participants and observers,” a spokesperson for Angola’s Ministry of Mineral Resources, Petroleum and Gas said last week. “It is the role of [KP] participants and observers to discuss and reach consensus [on] when the definition of conflict diamonds should be changed.”

Mtisi also alleged that authorities in Angola’s Lunda Norte diamond-mining province were “violently” suppressing community protests against the “destruction of villages and livelihoods.” The Angolan government denied this.

The governments of China and India did not respond to requests for comment by press time. The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC), India’s main trade body for the sector, said it had never opposed rewriting the key definition if it helped create a more sustainable industry free of human-rights violations.

Zoom protest

At one point of his virtual speech, Mtisi — deputy director of the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association, which leads the Civil Society Coalition — named the three countries that, he claimed, had been dragging their feet for years.

“[The China delegates] unmuted their mic and they started shouting,” he alleged in an interview with Rapaport News. “I didn’t hear exactly what they were protesting about, but they were protesting about my speech and the mention of China as having blocked any discussions on [conflict-diamond] definitions.”

Russia, as chair, offered the protesting governments the opportunity to respond at the end of the speech, said Edward Asscher, president of the World Diamond Council (WDC), which represents the trade at the KP. The US, Canada, the European Union and the WDC all stated their views.

“We pointed out the importance of freedom of speech, and [the] KP meetings should not be an exception,” Asscher stated.

While there was progress at the intersessional, there was still no widespread agreement, Asscher said. He acknowledged that some governments wanted to delay the discussions to a later time.

“Even though consensus was not reached, the discussions allowed participants — governments, civil society and industry — to express their positions,” the president continued. “It is only through discussion and hearing everyone’s concerns that we will make progress towards a wider definition.”

This is not the first incident of this type. At the welcome ceremony of the 2017 intersessional meeting, Chinese delegates reportedly shouted in protest against the involvement of Taiwan, which it did not consider to be a state eligible to take part in such events.

“All delegations at the KP meetings have both a right to be heard and a right to respond to any representations made, which is absolutely fundamental,” a spokesperson for Russia’s KP operation said this week. “Yes, sometimes listening to each other and trying to reach consensus is not an easy task and requires commitment and engagement from all parties around the very large and diverse KP table, and yes, sometimes people do get emotional. But we are confident that this cannot serve as an excuse for disarray.”

Source: diamonds.net

Posted on

Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond

A blood diamond (also known as a conflict diamond) refers to a diamond that is mined in war zones and sold to finance armed conflict against governments. The term gained prominence in the late 1990s due to the civil wars in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and other parts of West Africa, where diamonds were used to fund brutal wars, exploitation, and human rights abuses.

Key Characteristics of Blood Diamonds:
Source of Conflict:

Blood diamonds are often mined in regions where armed groups take control of diamond-rich areas and use the sale of diamonds to finance their military campaigns, including the purchase of weapons and equipment.
These diamonds are typically mined under inhumane conditions, with workers, often including children, subjected to forced labour, violence, and abuse.
Impact on Local Communities:

The mining of blood diamonds often involves severe exploitation of workers. They may be forced to work in dangerous conditions without adequate safety measures, receive little or no compensation, and suffer physical violence.
In some cases, communities are displaced from their homes, and the profits from the diamonds are controlled by rebel groups, rather than benefiting local communities or contributing to economic development.
Global Response and the Kimberley Process:

The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), launched in 2003, aims to prevent the trade of blood diamonds by requiring countries to certify that diamonds are sourced from conflict-free areas. The initiative was designed to create a global standard for diamond certification and ensure that diamonds sold on the international market are not financing conflict.
While the Kimberley Process has made progress in reducing the trade in blood diamonds, loopholes and weak enforcement still allow some conflict diamonds to enter the market.
Ethical Concerns:

The sale of blood diamonds raises significant ethical concerns in the jewellery industry. Consumers and advocacy groups have called for more transparency in the diamond supply chain to ensure that diamonds are ethically sourced.
Many jewellers and diamond retailers have pledged to sell only conflict-free diamonds, and some offer guarantees or certificates of origin to confirm that their diamonds were not sourced from conflict zones.
Impact on the Diamond Industry:

The term “blood diamond” has had a lasting impact on the reputation of the diamond industry, highlighting the need for ethical sourcing and responsible business practices.
Public awareness and consumer demand for ethically sourced diamonds have led to the rise of sustainable and conflict-free options, such as lab-grown diamonds and diamonds certified by organisations like the Responsible Jewellery Council.
Alternatives to Blood Diamonds:

Many consumers choose to buy ethically sourced diamonds or lab-grown diamonds as alternatives to blood diamonds. Fairmined and Fairtrade gold are also options for buyers seeking to ensure their jewellery is ethically produced.
Some jewellers also offer diamonds that have been certified as conflict-free through reputable certification schemes such as the Kimberley Process or RJC certification.
Cultural and Legal Implications:

The issue of blood diamonds has drawn attention to the human rights violations that can accompany the extraction of natural resources. The global trade in these diamonds has also led to legal challenges in various countries, with some governments and organisations advocating for stricter regulations and more robust certification systems.
The term “blood diamond” has become synonymous with the broader humanitarian crisis that can occur when natural resources are exploited for profit in conflict regions.