Conflict Diamonds? At 0.2% I Like My Chances, Okay?
Intrepid and completely non-gullible reader Wendy B. from Canada wrote to me a while back about a topic that continues to chafe at me like a sand-filled diaper would on a beach-bound toddler.
She attached an article from Diamonds.net (which you absolutely MUST read) for my amusement consideration with this thoughtful letter:
Susie...
Help me, I'm confused! So you donate your potentially but really not likely to be conflict diamond* (*I have read estimates from .2% to a high of 15%) to a charity that will auction it (so someone else can wear it for what in all likelihood will be less than its value) and Use the Proceeds for Good? I understand people not wanting to finance brutal wars in Africa. Why not make a charitable donation of 15% of the cost of your diamond (the maximum figure I've read for percentage of conflict diamond rough in the total rough traded)? That would be, if you choose/chose a diamond at all...Sign me, Bewildered
In 1999, conflict diamonds (rough diamonds that are used by rebel movements in parts of Africa to finance wars against legitimate governments) represented 4 percent of the world’s rough diamond output. To stop this illegal trade, the diamond industry worked with the United Nations, over 45 countries, and several NGOs, to help stamp out the atrocities and violence.
On January 29, 2003, the United Nations adopted Resolution 1459, the Kimberley Process, endorsing a method of verification intended to stop the sale of conflict diamonds. The effort has been remarkably effective. Today, the number of conflict diamonds has dropped to a fifth of one percent (0.2 percent).
Seriously, sign me bewildered, too, Wendy. There are so, so many things in that first article that get me flustered. But let's just stick with the facts, ma'am. And you've already very conveniently illuminated them and sourced them for me so I won't have to.
So let's get to the part that is the variable part. Obviously if this gentleman thinks that a diamond (a diamond that you've demonstrated might have a 0.2% chance of being a conflict diamond) is in any way a representation of his relationship to his wife, he is certainly entitled to think so. And he is certainly entitled to give it away to a charity. That will sell it. To someone else who doesn't give a rip about/know about conflict diamonds and/or likes his 99.8% odds that he's being a decent citizen by buying a diamond for his sweetie.
And Austin? No mistake that charity is based in Austin. The newspaper there, technically The Austin American-Statesman, is known to most folks in Texas as The Austin American-Spaceman. Enough said.
Thanks again, Wendy. You rock. But not like a diamond. Or at least not a conflict diamond. A nice, friendly Canadian diamond!
Comments