De Beers' efforts to find solutions to the issue of conflict diamonds are far from cynical attempts to occupy any moral high ground in order to create a "marketing virtue" from humanitarian disaster. It is also erroneous and irresponsible to suggest that De Beers is seeking to distance itself from the rest of the industry by becoming a "clearinghouse" for untainted diamonds. The issue has been, and must continue to be, addressed by all members of the industry. However, it is the company's duty to ensure our own house is in order by adhering to best practice principles in all areas. Not to do so would be to fail not only the consumer and the industry but also those affected by the conflicts in Sierra Leone and Angola.

Contrary to Emerling's claims, closest substantiated quantification of conflict diamonds (U.N., industry and independent sources) puts them at no more than four percent of world rough diamond supply -- not 15 percent. The value of these diamonds in terms of world production is largely insignificant, a fact that would seem to undermine her misguided assumption that De Beers would seek to prevent these diamonds from arriving on the open market in order to protect its market share. In fact it is De Beers' hope that the measures currently being implemented will allow the legitimate governments of Sierra Leone and Angola to be able to access their abundant natural resources for the benefit of their respective populations. In responsible hands, the revenue generated from diamond sales has the potential to be a major driving force for prosperity and development in both countries.

On the subject of De Beers' relationship with certain producer nations, Emerling is inaccurate and somewhat behind the times. De Beers only has a contract with one Russian producer (Alrosa). This relationship dates back to July 1990 and is currently in a very good state of health. In Australia, Argyle began marketing its stones through its own system over four years ago and not, as might be inferred from the article, as a recent result of being emboldened by some "weakness in De Beers' fagade."

Finally, it is unfortunate that this article was used to cast doubts on the moral virtue of the late Harry Oppenheimer. H.F.O.'s commitment to a non-racial democracy in South Africa has been well documented as have his progressive, liberal politics. H.F.O. was a tremendous businessman but above all a businessman who was true to his belief that business should not only be profitable but should provide real benefits for the countries in which they operate. As Nelson Mandela said in an eloquent tribute: "His support for democratic and philanthropic causes was in my experience always without hesitation and reserve. His contribution to building a partnership between Big Business and the new democratic government in that first period of democratic rule can never be appreciated too much."

De Beers is committed to achieving standards of excellence throughout its business and also to ensuring that this excellence is translated into tangible benefits in the countries in which it operates. Yours faithfully,

-- Tim Weekes, De Beers

The writer responds:

I contacted De Beers' publicly listed U.S. public relations representative and they refused to confirm or deny that De Beers was their client or to give me any information or an alternate contact.

-- Susan Emerling

Recent Stories