According to the BBC "There are no more blood diamonds in Sierra Leone".
Interesting statement.
Their extraction in Sierra Leone may comply with the Kimberley Process in terms of the local African situation, but can their journey and impact beyond that country really justify such a statement?
The company that owns the operation, which naturally makes massive profits for itself and its owners, is Beny Steinmetz Group Investments (BSG). It owns BSG Resources, the operations arm for mineral extraction, which in turn operates Koidu Holdings - referenced by the BBC article - who extract the rough diamonds. BSG Investments also owns the Steinmetz Diamond Group. There is undoubtedly a direct line between the diamonds drawn from the earth in Sierra Leone, and the high-end products of Steinmetz, as worn by many celebrities (Steinmetz are proud to lend their products to the BAFTA awards organisers for stars to wear).
As with most companies, the profits inevitably go in various directions. Some is probably kept in reserve, some is perhaps invested in making processes more profitable, maybe investment in new ventures and opportunities, exploring new territories to extract minerals, and so on. Some goes in tax to the nation in which the company is registered, in this case Switzerland. Some likely goes to good causes either for altruistic or tax reasons, and some to the shareholders of the company. In this case the most significant individual beneficiary will be the eponymous multi-billionaire owner, Beny Steinmetz.
Beny does some good works, too, and thus a portion of money goes, either from him or the company or perhaps both, to the Agnes and Beny Steinmetz Foundation (also linked from the SDG web site)- an Israeli charitable organisation.
ABSF, however, alongside work supporting underprivileged youth in Israel, has "adopted" a brigade in the Israeli Defence Force - Givati Brigade - providing them with complementary equipment. Givati Brigade were primary boots on the ground during operations Hot Winter and Cast Lead, operations condemned by the UN as using excessive and illegal force in the subjugation of civilians, and akin to their enemies in Hamas, committing war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity during these operations. The same brigade included soldiers later convicted of forcing a 9 year old boy to open bags they feared to contain explosives, in order to protect their own lives from danger, during these operations.
It is a reasonably safe assumption to make that, as an Israeli citizen, a share of Beny's wealth is paid in taxes to the Israeli government led by Netanyahu, a government which some argue is effectively operating a system of apartheid, and which illegally occupies Palestinian territory.
As a consequence ABSF, Beny, BSG, and thus SDG have direct financial links to the killing of civilians in illegally occupied lands, where collective punishment is perpetuated daily. Perhaps it is time for the Kimberley Process to be brought up to date in order to take into account not only the countries in which rough diamonds are extracted, but those through which they later pass for processing or to which their capacity to generate wealth gives benefit.
If the vast wealth from many diamond producers, and the trade as a whole, generates significant income for a state such as Israel, this surely leaves the diamonds as tainted by blood as they are by being dug from the ground at the point of a militiaman's rifle.
So, are there really "no more blood diamonds in Sierra Leone"?
Posts
It is highly probable that these diamonds, sourced in Sierra Leone, are being cut and polished in Israel where revenue from the diamond industry is the single largest source of funding for a regime guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
ReplyDeleteThe Kimberley Process is being used by the vested interests in the diamond industry to convince the public that the trade in diamonds that fund human rights violations has ended whereas the reality it entirely different. Cut and polished blood diamond flood the market masquerading, with the aid of the bogus “System of Warranties”, as conflict-free diamonds.
The refusal of the KP to broaden the definition of a “conflict diamond” to include all diamonds that fund gross human rights violations demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of those in the diamond industry who purport to be championing human rights and the welfare of underdeveloped nations in Africa. Partnership Africa Canada and the other NGOs, who only a few months ago said they would only remain inside the KP if there was significant reforms including the broadening of its remit to cover the cutting and polishing industry, have indicated that they will support the US proposal to restrict the remit of the KP to rough diamond only which will ensure the trade in cut and polished blood diamonds continues unchecked.
Jewellers who profit from the trade in Israeli blood diamonds must be held to account for lying to their customers when they deceitfully claim their diamonds are conflict free. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, both of which have documented Israeli war crimes, also need to be questioned about their failure to speak out about the trade in cut and polished blood diamonds.
For a lot more information about the global trade in Israeli blood diamonds - https://www.facebook.com/Israelblooddiamonds
Why not combat the diamond blood trade in your own countries - unless you are an anti-Semitic hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteDon't profits from US diamond companies go to support the illegal war in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Don't profits from Irish diamond companies go to support terrorist leaderships such as the Real IRA?
People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones at others.
Tell me, why is it impossible to be a harsh critic of the Israeli government without being accused of anti-Semitism? Strange as it may seem, it is actually possible to hold a Jewish person or Jewish people in the same regard as the rest of humanity, as inherently equal, and to despise the regime which forms the leadership of a given nation.
DeleteI hate the Saudi regime, but I am not accused of being anti-Arab. I detest what China does in numerous regions but I am not accused of being anti-east-Asian. I am appalled by particular excesses of the Bush (43) era White House, but I am not accused of being anti-American. So why is the first port of call for critics of the Israeli state that of anti-Semitism? Is it to silence critics with the fear of being labelled such, because of the shadow such an accusation can cast? It's a powerful term and should not be used so frivolously to silence people who have an opinion that does not support a particularly damaging political regime.
Nuakhti, we do exactly that - we frequently have information stalls on the high streets of many cities here in Ireland and in the UK to alert people to the trade in Israeli blood diamonds.
ReplyDeleteWhile diamond revenue, like all other revenue sources, contibutes to US military expenditure it is so small as to be insignificant in the overall context. By contrast though, revenue from the Israeli diamond industry is a major source of funding for the nuclear-armed Israeli regime that stands accused of "serious war crimes" by the UN HRC.
As far as I know, no Irish diamond companies contribute in any way to "terroriss leaderships such as the Real IRA" but if you have evidence to that effect then please do share it with us.