"When someone goes in to buy a diamond on the finger of a loved one, they should feel confident a child in Sierra Leone, Angola or the Congo has not lost an arm or hand for it to be there." -British Foreign Office Minister for Africa Peter Hain

In Sierra Leone, a rebel movement has routinely chopped off the hands and feet of children. In Angola, the failed UNITA movement continues to wreak havoc upon a nation and people who have not experienced peace for decades. And we are still learning of the tragic human cost of the regional war in the Congo.

How do we in the United States respond? Yes, we can call on our government to be a strong voice for fair settlements of conflicts around the world, and we can urge the Bush Administration to cooperate with multinational partners in finding solutions to intractable wars.

But sometimes it is tough, linking our vision of peaceful and just societies with actions that might actually move toward that vision. Sometimes we have to be satisfied by the need to do something, though doubtful of any meaningful impact.

The issue of conflict diamonds is different. Some years ago, in another context entirely, the slogan was: "Follow the money." That is what some of us, concerned especially about Sierra Leone, have done. How does the brutal Revolutionary United Front (RUF) get money to buy arms and to sustain itself? Are there possibilities for cutting off that source of money?

The answers-in Sierra Leone and in Angola (and to some extent in the Congo)-are diamonds, and yes, we can stop that source of money. The RUF and UNITA control major sources of diamonds, and they have found ways to get those diamonds out of their countries and into the international market. The effort to stop this financing of brutal rebel move- ments is called the conflict diamond initiative.

These rebel groups have managed to launder their diamonds through such countries as Liberia, Togo, Congo (DRC), Cote d'Ivoire, and Burkina Faso. The diamonds then reach the major cutting and export centers (Antwerp, Tel Aviv, Bombay, London and New York) with few questions asked.

Smuggled and illicit conflict diamonds may amount to as much as 10 to 15 percent of the $50 billion worth of diamond jewelry sold internationally every year. Moreover, the U.S. consumes 65 percent of the diamond market.

For some time the diamond industry simply said there was nothing they could do, arguing that once the diamonds reached a cutting center, they vanished into the market. But as the debate continued, the industry reconsidered, and De Beers, the Diamond High Council, the Israeli Diamond Exchange, and India threatened to ban any member from the World Diamond Congress that knowingly traded in diamonds obtained from Africa's rebel groups.

Internationally, the United Nations has intervened by imposing an embargo on trade in rebel-controlled diamonds in Angola and Sierra Leone. In Europe, the British and Belgian governments seek to make trade in conflict diamonds a criminal offence throughout the European Union.

In mid-2000 a number of U.S. organizations, under the leadership of Physicians for Human Rights, and including the ecumenical Washington Office on Africa (which the Presbyterian Church (USA) supports) appealed to the World Diamond Congress to cease dealing in conflict diamonds. The coalition urged immediate action by the diamond industry to identify diamonds or packets of diamonds and provide certificates of origin and legitimacy, without which no stone (or packet of stones) could be cut, exported, or sold.

There was an encouraging response. A South African-led and industry-supported Working Group on African Diamonds-known as the Kimberley process-announced that they were establishing a comprehensive international system of "rough controls" last year, setting up a forgery-proof delivery system and computer database for the tracking of shipments of uncut stones. Once inside cutting centers the stones would all be certified as legitimate, and traded and sold.

Regrettably, the diamond industry now seems more preoccupied with statements of concern and piecemeal action rather than with a comprehensive scheme to address the issue.

Those advocating an end to the sale of conflict diamonds believe that until a major importer of diamonds (such as the United States) prohibits the direct or indirect importation of all diamonds and diamond jewelry from any country that does not have the rough controls in place, progress in establishing the international system will proceed slowly.

The diamond industry's bill before Congress, called the Conflict Diamonds Act, exempts jewelry from the requirement of what is called a clean stream of diamonds. This loophole would allow any country to attach an earring back to a rough stone, call it jewelry and avoid the international rough diamond controls. Further, to be truly effective, the international controls need the weight of U.S. law behind them, but the bill fails to require the rough controls regimen as a condition of exporting diamonds to the U.S. Instead, it merely links the regimen to negotiations of an international treaty. It also sets weak penalties for smuggling illegal diamonds into the United States.

In contrast, the Clean Diamond Act, introduced by Reps. Tony Hall (D-Ohio), Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), and Frank Wolf (R-Va.), includes:

• Diamond jewelry,
  
• Requires that all diamonds exported to the U.S. be subject to the international rough diamond standards, and
  
• Sets strong penalties for smuggling illegal diamonds into the U.S.

Note carefully that there are legitimate producers of diamonds. We are not talking about a boycott of diamonds, which would threaten the legitimate diamond industry that is crucial to the economies of South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia.

The Clean Diamond Act would assure American diamond retailers and consumers of a clean stream of diamonds and put serious pressure on countries that fail to support the Kimberley process of rough controls agreement. Moreover, it would hasten the day that the functioning rough controls would be adopted; if not universally, then by the principal exporters of diamonds and diamond jewelry.

Suggested actions:

Visit local diamond jewelers or retailers; ask if they know about conflict diamonds and provide them with information. Ask them to appeal to the U.S. diamond industry for a "clean stream" of diamonds. Let them know that you consider the industry's Conflict Diamonds Act to be inadequate. Be very clear that no jeweler can guarantee that the diamonds they are selling you has not come from a conflict zone.

Write to your Members of Congress asking that they support the Clean Diamond Act (and oppose the industry's Conflict Diamonds Act).

Send a letter or postcard to one or more of the following major diamond dealers in the United States, urging these key retailers to publicly signal their support for the international system of controls and for the Clean Diamond Act.

Matthew Runci, President and CEO, Jewelers of America, Inc., 1185 Avenue of the America's, 30th Floor, NY, NY 10036; Tel: (212)768-8777 ext. 8012; fax: (212)768-8087.

Beryl B. Raff, Chairman and CEO Zale Corporation 901 W.; Walnut Hill Ln., Irving, TX 75038-1003; fax: (972)580-5523 (www.zalecorp.com).

Michael J. Kowalski, President and CEO, Tiffany & Co., 727 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022; fax: (212)605-4465 (www.tiffany.com).

Lee Scott CEO, Walmart Stores, Inc.; 702 Southwest 8th Street, Bentonville, AK 72716 (www.walmart.com).

Send information to your local newspapers urging them to cover the issue of conflict diamonds and the legislation.

Get your Mayor or City Council to pass a resolution or declare a Day Without Diamonds in solidarity with the people of Sierra Leone who have lost their lives or limbs.

General Assembly Guidance

Civil wars currently rage in numerous African nations, including Angola, the Congo/Zaire, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Sierra Leone, and Sudan, and have escalated to a point of destabilizing entire regions and uprooting entire populations, with children and adults being taken into slavery.

These conditions in Africa receive inadequate attention in the media, as well as inadequate attention and response by our elected officials and members of [our denomination].

These wars and resulting human rights abuses rage on a continent where the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has given the lifeblood of mission workers and invested resources over generations, even as our members' commitment to love and care for sisters and brothers on the continent of Africa has diminished.

The 211th General Assembly (1999) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) focuses heightened attention, advocacy, and compassionate response appropriate to the gravity and magnitude of the situation in Africa. These efforts will include resources of intercessory prayer, study and education, publicity, public policy advocacy, pastoral care, and generous dedicated giving. (from Church & Society, July/August 1999)

Military forces inflicted shocking atrocities on civilians as Sierra Leone's civil war moved into its eighth year. In January, the rebel Revolutionary United Front (RUF) launched a major offensive to gain control of the capital, Freetown. The RUF forces unleashed a wave of terror against civilians, systemically killing and mutilating hundreds.

Hope for an end to the violence flourished when the government and rebels signed a July 7 peace accord. Incidents of abuse declined briefly, but a pattern of terror and intimidation soon reemerged. During November, rebels looted at least twenty northern villages, raping, torturing, and murdering civilians and forcing some 12,000 people to flee their homes. A large number of noncombatants-including more than 2,000 children abducted during the January offensive-remain captive. (from Human Rights Update, 1999-2000)