<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="2" > the origin of this article</h1>
The origin of writing this article was because I saw a recent memorandum published by John Jeffay. In the memo, Jaffe highlighted the public opinion incident of "Beyoncé wearing a blood diamond" and believed that this was "a brainless public opinion dispute set off by the media".
I said this in the previous article (see end of the article):
Review -
Beyoncé and her husband Jay-Z gave Tiffany an advertisement, but soon the media pointed out that the 128.54 ct "Tiffany Diamond" worn by Beyoncé was dug out of the Kimberley Mine in South Africa around 1877. At that time, South Africa was in an era of rampant colonialism and the employment of black workers everywhere. As a result, a large number of media quickly took the pace, denouncing the diamond as a "blood diamond" and even believing that Beyoncé and Tiffany's propaganda was too immoral.
I still adhere to the previous view: the reason why the "Beyoncé Blood Diamond Incident" has suddenly become popular mainly shows the people's disgusted attitude towards blood diamonds, which is of positive significance. As for whether the media over-interpreted the incident, it is also entirely possible.
As Jaffe pointed out at the beginning of his memorandum, the media now generally has two characteristics:
1) Will only say part of the truth in their favor;
2) Like to expand small things to win traffic and attention, triggering conflicts of public opinion.
These two features will persist for a long time, because there is no shortage of keyboard men in either country. Keyboard warriors are "fertile soil", cultivating wave after wave of necessary or non-essential public opinion.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="68" > another shocking piece of news</h1>
At about the same time, another piece of news also attracted a lot of attention: Farai Maguwu, founder of the Centre for Natural Resource Governance in Zimbabwe, published an article publicly accusing the well-known "blood diamond control group", the Kimberley Process (KP), of "whitewashing" conflict diamonds in Zimbabwe's Marange mining area.
Tips:
Zimbabwe is one of the world's most important diamond producers, and Marangi is one of the poorest regions in Zimbabwe, producing about 1/7 of Zimbabwe's total diamonds.
Maguu believes that violent clashes are widespread in Marangi's mining areas and that there is a lack of transparency in the system, and even its state-owned diamond company, ZCDC, is involved in diamond smuggling. However, according to KP's definition of "blood diamonds" (i.e. "conflict diamonds"), Marange's diamonds still belong to the ranks of "non-conflict".
This creates a "ridiculous phenomenon": KP claims to have achieved a global "conflict diamond" ratio of less than 1%, but places like Marange are still trembling in the midst of a violent normal.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="69" > international response</h1>
Maguwu's article caused an international uproar. Edward Asscher, president of the World Diamond Association (WDC), immediately published a blog post in response. If you patiently read the two-page article he wrote, you can feel that Asche actually partially agrees with Maguu.
Why is it "partial consent"? Because Asche has always felt (see also many of his previous articles), the Kimberley Process needs to expand the definition of "blood diamond"/"conflict diamond" beyond the previous phrase "rough diamond used to finance war against legitimate governments". After all, times are different, and many things have to keep pace with the times.
In fact, the WDC has been urging this goal to be achieved, but it has been arguing for a long time or without results, at least the KP official has not changed anything. There are many reasons for this, but I personally think the need for a balance of interests is the first to bear the brunt.
But KP is not a fool after all, and they certainly understand Marangi's condition, so why do they still define it as a "conflict-free diamond source"?
There are probably two reasons for this:
1) The violent clashes in Zimbabwe do not fall under the category of "rebel groups against the legitimate government", so KP currently has no reason (and power) to regulate;
2) A considerable part of the violent clashes in the mining areas are aimed at "ragtag people" who like to steal diamonds.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="70" > rabble</h1>
Regarding the matter of stealing diamonds, I have checked some information, and the situation is probably like this:
After obtaining government approval, mining companies will demarcate a mining area according to the authorization and set up a sign (some will use barbed wire) at the boundaries of the area. But driven by profits, some local people (commonly known as "artisanal miners") secretly cross the mining boundaries set by mining companies (such as violently destroying barbed wire) to mine diamonds privately.
At the same time, security in mining areas is generally entrusted to a third party (that is, those charging security companies), because such management costs are most reasonable for mining companies. After all, all mining companies cannot be required to have their own security teams, otherwise only those giants can do it - and at this time, the media will play a "monopoly".
What measures will security companies take against these unregulated stealers? Will bitter persuasion be effective? The ignorance and greed of the rabble are terrible, and sometimes it is they themselves who provoke violent conflict. In another case, some people in the security company will also be bribed, so eventually the mining company will directly implement the "takeover".
Remember Petra's "Williamson Mine Violence" in Tanzania earlier this year? This is the case. I said in the article on May 16 that this event can be seen by interested friends.
In short, the above situations are "open secrets" that can be found.
So the whole situation becomes somewhat ridiculous: violent conflicts occur, but the composition of the conflicts is very complex.
It's just that the media is unwilling to see or explain these things clearly, but likes to use a general "violent conflict" to stimulate public opinion and cause hatred.
So, who are the real rabble-rousers? The crowd of stealers? Media that meets the "Jaffe Standard"? Or are they "people of insight" who only like to read titles and hide behind screens and type on keyboards?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="71" > eliminate blood drills is a long-term project</h1>
If you have the patience to see this, you can basically draw the following conclusions:
1) Blood diamonds must be eliminated, which is an undeniable trend for the industry and society.
2) KP's definition of blood diamonds needs to be expanded, covering labor rights, violent conflict control and many other contents.
3) The media needs to face the problem of blood drilling more objectively, rather than blindly taking the rhythm and triggering brainless public opinion.
4) The public should study hard, go up every day, cover the keyboard, read the article to the end, and don't think that after reading a title, there is a heaven and a earth in their hearts.
In short, everyone sinks down and looks at the problem of blood diamonds objectively, so that it is really good for the industry and society.
Recommended in previous periods
Beyoncé was scolded for wearing a blood diamond, is this a social progress or a carnival of barberries?
Petra's huge indemnity is a wake-up call to the diamond industry
—
Independent observation, timely sharing
Diamond observation
Diamond Spectator
