Diamonds Are for Never?

Published by MAC on 2006-12-14
Source: NEW YORK TIMES

Diamonds Are for Never?

By MIREYA NAVARRO, NEW YORK TIMES

14th December 2006

MONICA GIBSON says she is not particularly political, but when she heard about conflict diamonds on an episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" last week featuring the cast and director of the new movie "Blood Diamond," she looked down at her engagement ring and thought not of love but of wars and violence.

Her fiancé gave her the ring last summer, she said, and she may never find out where its 24 diamonds came from. But as the couple now shops for diamond wedding bands, Ms. Gibson said she won't buy unless the jeweler can vouch not just for the stone's cut, clarity and color, but also for its origin.

"So many times you feel helpless when it comes to these major issues," said Ms. Gibson, 36, an administrator with a telephone carrier in Pittsburgh. "I will feel I had some small little piece in helping people somewhere."

With interest in the origin of diamonds fueled by a new Hollywood movie that denounces the practices of the diamond industry, and an advertising counterattack by that industry, customers like Ms. Gibson are asking more questions about the iconic symbol of eternal love.

The terms "conflict diamonds" or "blood diamonds" refer to gems that have been used by rebel groups to pay for wars that have killed and displaced millions of people in Africa, the source of an estimated 65 percent of the world's diamonds. The diamond industry maintains it has safeguards to guarantee most rough diamonds come from areas free of violent conflict through the Kimberley Process, a tracking system implemented in 2003.

But critics say there's no independent oversight of the industry's monitoring and that conflict diamonds still make their way to the marketplace. The issue is trickling down to stores and bridal Web sites as the news media, Hollywood stars and rap songs delve into the subject.

"It's unconscionable for us for the sake of vanity to contribute to the destruction of a country," said a bling-free Jennifer Connelly late last month at the New York premiere of "Blood Diamond," which also stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou. "So I think trying to make more effective the system of warranties is a pretty clear choice."

More people are tuning in, said Carley Roney, editor in chief of theknot.com, a wedding Web site. "There's extensive discussion going on our message boards," she said. "Many women are saying, 'This is supposed to be a symbol of all things good and I don't want to look down on my finger and think of women and children being killed.' It undermines the entire meaning of that ring."

There is no evidence yet of consumer flight from diamonds. Sales of diamond jewelry in the United States have been rising, by 7 percent last year to $33.7 billion. American purchasers account for half the world's $60 billion in annual retail sales. A pop quiz among theknot.com users over the last week found a majority of respondents unaware of the term "conflict-free diamond."

Shane Dunleavy, 23, was among the customers last week in the jewelry district in downtown Los Angeles, where engagement-ring holiday shopping was in full swing. Mr. Dunleavy, accompanied by his parents, was seeking a princess-cut diamond. He had not heard of the debate, but his father had. "It's like oil," Jim Dunleavy, 57, said with a shrug. "You're still going to buy oil."

But other consumers are doing research and reacting accordingly. Some jewelers said people have made it clear they want only conflict-free diamonds and have asked where the stones sold at retail were mined.

Abigail Levine, 27, a program director with nonprofit organizations in Columbus, Ohio, said that while shopping for a ring last September, she and her fiancé agreed they could do better with their money than to spend it on a diamond.

"We know diamond companies have marketed this concept of a diamond engagement ring," Ms. Levine said . "We didn't want to buy into that concept. It's a huge manipulation, really."

But in the end, even Ms. Levine could not resist, and two small diamonds flank her blue sapphire. "We're not purists about it," she said. "We just didn't want to support the diamond industry in such a big way."

Bridal experts say the preference for diamonds will surely endure because of aesthetic and cultural factors. But at the same time, many brides have been emphasizing individuality by forgoing the traditional for the unique or cool, experts said, and some have ditched the diamond altogether for a colored gem like a pink or blue sapphire. Other customers shun diamonds from Africa in favor of diamonds from Canada, antique diamonds or synthetic stones.

Also, many of today's couples are expressing social consciousness in the way they plan their weddings by, for example, asking for donations to a charity in lieu of presents. These same couples, the experts note, are likely to care about the provenance of their diamonds.

"In general, more people have a greater sense of the world around them and how their actions affect that world," said Millie Martini Bratten, the editor in chief of Brides magazine. She said there's an attitude "not to have a wedding that's all about me."

"Blood Diamond" depicts how diamond companies ignored atrocities committed in the 1990's by rebels in Sierra Leone who sold rough diamonds to buy arms. The World Diamond Council, which represents producers and dealers, has responded with ads and a Web site, diamondfacts.org. The council stresses that more than 99 percent of diamonds now come from conflict-free sources, and that diamond revenue today is mostly used in African countries for health care, education and other benefits.

"You're looking at a very, very small percentage of the world supply that can be considered to be from a conflict zone," said Carson Glover, a spokesman for the World Diamond Council. "Consumers can feel very confident in their diamond purchase." But international human rights groups like Amnesty International and Global Witness, which first publicized the issue of conflict diamonds in 1998, say dirty diamonds still reach the market because of smuggling and weak controls by some producing countries, and that consumers have no surefire way of telling if a diamond is clean.

A spokeswoman for Global Witness noted diamonds are still coming from conflict areas like the Ivory Coast, and that a recent General Accounting Office report found fault with the way the United States was enforcing the tracking system. (The organization's Web site is blooddiamondaction.org.)

Tom Zoellner, who researched the industry for his book "The Heartless Stone" (St. Martin's Press, 2006), said the Kimberley Process doesn't concern itself with objectionable practices like the use of child labor in India, where most diamonds are polished. But he said because many Africans depend on them for their livelihood, a boycott is not the answer. The best defense against dirty diamonds, he said, is to ask questions.

Rights groups suggest going to retailers who can show a guarantee that the diamonds are conflict free.

Most stores don't have a policy, a survey by the human rights groups showed. Some jewelers don't consider it their job to know the origin of their stones. "I'm not here to save the world," said Raymond Moutran, a jeweler for 27 years in the Los Angeles jewelry district. "I'm here to make life beautiful."

"One guy wanted to know if the diamond was from Africa and whether it was from an area where people are tortured," Mr. Moutran said. "I said, 'I don't know.' He didn't buy. I don't need to lie to make a living."

Another longtime jeweler, Russ Varon, the chief financial officer of Morgan's Jewelers in Torrance and Palos Verdes, Calif., said most of the stores' diamonds come from African mines through cutters in Israel, and that about two years ago invoices from his suppliers started showing up with a statement saying they are conflict free.

But Mr. Varon acknowledged that this document is no guarantee. "I truly don't know the story of what's going on over there," he said.

Last Sunday, Mary Alice Borello, 53, walked into the Morgan's in Torrance looking for a 25th wedding anniversary present. She and her husband, David, left with a gold band with two carats' worth of channel-set diamond baguettes. She didn't ask questions about global conflicts.

"The question is, should we be concerned as consumers," Mrs. Borello, a playground supervisor from Redondo Beach, Calif., said later. "You'd hope that people who are in the jewelry business would only purchase their diamonds in a legitimate way. That's what I would expect from them."

More education is needed all around, Ms. Roney of theknot.com said. Even among those who care about diamond origin, some assume, incorrectly, that any diamond from Africa is dirty.

Knowledge sometimes come in funny ways. Lorne Walker and Laurel Greenidge of Seattle, both 26, said they heard of conflict diamonds in 2004 from a comedy-club routine by Bill Maher. Ms. Greenidge, who works for a publishing company, researched the issue and was horrified by accounts of diamonds being used to pay for wars.

When Mr. Walker, a medical student, went ring shopping, he knew it would be "a conscience issue" for his fiancée, he said. He bought a Canadian diamond with a certificate.

The couple married in August. "I didn't want to look down at my ring every day and wonder did it support the death of somebody faraway or was it mined by someone who's underage and should be in school," Ms. Greenidge said. "When I look at it, I think of our relationship and love and happiness and ever after."