If you have recently followed the news the case of former Liberian leader Charles Taylor and the blood diamonds he allegedly gave to supermodel Naomi Campbell in 1997 at a dinner hosted by South African President Nelson Mandela must have grabbed your attention.
Naomi gave a much publicised testimony at the court case in The Hague earlier this month. She was reluctantly there and reportedly "inconvenienced" by having been summoned.
This woman has achieved notorierty for her bad temper and anger management issues. She is deemed to be self centred and callous and this involvement with Taylor's blood diamonds is not doing any good to her reputation. But let's try and look at this in perspective.
Then there is the issue of blood diamonds. By admitting that she received them this will add proof that Charles Taylor was involved in trading rough diamonds for arms and personal enrichment, something he denies.
Naomi was initially not keen on admitting she had received the diamonds which apparently she gave almost immediately to Mandela's aide Jeremy Radcliffe. Radcliffe denied at first receiving the diamonds though later admitted he had. What a complete shambles. Granted, Naomi Campbell's reluctance to testify does not compare well with Mia Farrow's eagerness - this is a celebrity stud trial - but if you had been given rough diamonds and naively accepted them you would probably not be so keen to admit making such a terrible faux pas.
Charles Taylor's crimes are appalling. The trade in rough diamonds has sustained his intervention in Sierra Leome and the war crimes committed by his men during the conflict - there are even accounts of cannibalism being perpetrated. Thousands of people have died and many more have horrendously suffered.
Blood diamonds or conflict diamonds are a problem that has not been resolved. The Kimberly Process Certification scheme adopted in 2002 to end this illegal trade has actually been flaunted a few times, the last instance of which was seen in 2008 in Zimbabwe. Yet Zimbabwe is not war torn.
You will read everywhere accounts having a go at Naomi, the media circus etc. What strikes me is the hypocrisy surrounding this whole affair. How many questionable diamond dealers boarded Sabena and KLM flights to Freetown in the midst of the civil war? Where did all the diamonds processed in Belgium and Holland prior to 2002 come from and are they not still being traded?
" If comfortable people didn’t want to wave their diamond-laden fingers, the less fortunate wouldn't have been mutilated and enslaved to mine the raw materials, and warlords would have a harder time of it." writes journalist Patricia Lee Sharpe.
So let's not be hypocritical. The real problem is the diamond hype. We do not need furs, do we really need diamonds? Are diamonds truly forever?
This woman has achieved notorierty for her bad temper and anger management issues. She is deemed to be self centred and callous and this involvement with Taylor's blood diamonds is not doing any good to her reputation. But let's try and look at this in perspective.
Photographer: Mark Varley
First there is Naomi. She will always be known as "that foul tempered BLACK model", there is a strong element of racism in the way the media and the fashion industry have treated her. Don't get me wrong , Ms Campbell has done extraordinarily well for herself, coming as she does from a one parent family in Streatham, not exactly one of the poshest London suburbs. But somehow the fact she is not Caucasian has always been something to remark upon and her ascent to the stardom of supermodelling was not always a smooth path, devoid of prejudice. So to inveigh against her and declare her whole performance at the trial in The Hague 'boring' is itself boring and beside the point.
Photographer: Schwanberg
For one thing, in a swoop, Naomi Campbell's presence brought attention to the trial and has reminded millions of people of the urgency of dealing with criminals such as Charles Taylor and their atrocities. This is far from boring.Then there is the issue of blood diamonds. By admitting that she received them this will add proof that Charles Taylor was involved in trading rough diamonds for arms and personal enrichment, something he denies.
Charles Taylor's crimes are appalling. The trade in rough diamonds has sustained his intervention in Sierra Leome and the war crimes committed by his men during the conflict - there are even accounts of cannibalism being perpetrated. Thousands of people have died and many more have horrendously suffered.
You will read everywhere accounts having a go at Naomi, the media circus etc. What strikes me is the hypocrisy surrounding this whole affair. How many questionable diamond dealers boarded Sabena and KLM flights to Freetown in the midst of the civil war? Where did all the diamonds processed in Belgium and Holland prior to 2002 come from and are they not still being traded?
So let's not be hypocritical. The real problem is the diamond hype. We do not need furs, do we really need diamonds? Are diamonds truly forever?
I hate diamonds, period. If I ever get engaged, my fiance is getting any jewel but a diamond.
ReplyDeleteThe hype over them is even worse now than it was a few hundred years ago. I'm looking at you, DeBeers. That corporation not only promoted the idea that engagements require a diamond (dowrys are an old idea, but the diamond engagement ring didn't exist until the late 19th century), but they have since promoted the idea that people should be buried with their diamonds for the sole purpose of decreasing the supply.
The decreased supply increases a demand in blood diamonds.
So the whole diamond industry is just as bad as the black market.
If people only knew that their thirst for a chunk of carbon led to things like possibly cannibalism . . .
I am so glad that I got at least one comment here. I dont believe in the superiority of diamonds. I love stones and they are all beautiful. The diamond industry makes me sick to the core. I love clothes, I love jewellery, I am to an extent fashion conscious but I would never wear anything that has been made through exploiting another human being and children and women at that. In the UK we have a store chain called Primark where you can buy the cheapest possible clothes, all duplicating the latest catwalk trends. Cheap stuff that is not even worth repairing if it tears because you can buy a new dress for even less than the cost of mending. I have never set foot in one of its stores because this is all stuff made in UK sweatshops where illegal workers are paid a pittance - there was a BBC documentary that exposed them, but it was a well known fact that before this came to light Primark had been involved with Asian sweatshops.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to buy clothes in second hand stores, I believe in recycling.
If people knew that their thirst...People do know, they just prefer to turn their head away and not think about it or say "well, I cannot change the status quo just on my own"
Are there ANY stones or minerals that don't involve blood in some way? The only ones I can think of are the ones that people can simply pluck from the mud at Hot Springs, Arkansas. For the rest, well, I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that EVERY major jewel corporation uses violence to hold their share of the market and keep prices "reasonable."
ReplyDeleteBut to me, neither diamonds, gold, nor any kind of jewelry makes a woman more beautiful. They can't disguise ugliness (if it really exists, which I doubt), nor can they really enhance beauty, which to me, now, is something that glows from inside a person.
I'd like to see all the diamond mines closed, and the blood diamonds that are now in circulation gathered into a Holocaust-style museum. "Never Again."