t intervention in 2003 by the international diamond producers under the auspices of the United Nations, created several unforeseen negative externalities for African countries that have become dependent upon revenues from diamond production to support their domestic programs.
The paper concludes that the Kimberley Accord process has not been effective in preventing the production and distribution of blood diamonds. In fact, it has spawned an entirely new illicit diamond distribution network through countries such as Lebanon, Guinea and Venezuela.
The author posits that the civil wars funded through the sale of blood diamonds will continue in Africa. Conflict between rival factions has been a part of the continent’s culture for centuries. First it was ivory that was sold on the black markets of Europe and North Africa. Then wars over the gold deposits in South Africa killed thousands of innocent people. Today, the culprit is blood diamonds. Unfortunately, the political and economic realities of the region dictate that the future will mirror the activities and events of the past.
The name “blood diamonds” is derived from the fact that these diamonds are mined and sold by rebel armies, terrorist groups and local warlords to fund their purchase of weapons. These insurgent groups then use the weapons to attack government forces or individuals loyal to the government. Blood diamond revenues (also called conflict diamonds) have grown significantly since the early 1990s. Examples of conflicts funded through this revenue source include wars in Sierra Leone, Angola, Cote d’Ivoire and Democratic Republic of Congo.
The blood diamond trade and the human rights atrocities associated with it, received international attention through the 2006 film “Blood Diamond” starring Leonardo diCaprio. The movie created such a public outcry, that De Beers and The World Diamond Council were forced to respond with a public relations campaign that claimed that ninety-nine