Sir, - I am writing in response to the article "Blood On Our Fingers" (Weekend, October 7th). While Declan Walsh's piece was in general well researched and objective, there are several elements which warrant further comment.
The issue of "conflict diamonds" is one which De Beers and the diamond industry have been addressing since the promulgation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1173 in June 1998. Working in partnership with the UN and governments, the industry has already implemented measures which are aimed at putting an end to the trade in diamonds by rebel movements. De Beers does not "claim", as the article suggests, that none of its diamonds are from conflict zones. We give an absolute guarantee that this is the case.
Although "conflict diamonds" have been quantified as accounting for only 4 per cent of world rough diamond production (a figure accepted by the United Nations, the State Department and the FCO as the most accurate estimate), this is 4 per cent too much. The measures being put in place by the industry are sophisticated and far-reaching. Chief among these is the introduction of an internationally recognised system of rough diamond import and export controls aimed at putting a stranglehold on the movement and sale of diamonds from areas of conflict. Mr Walsh's description of industry action to date as "scrambling" does little justice to the detailed and considered work that has been carried out to date. Indeed, Ian Smillie, of Partnership Africa Canada, said at the World Diamond Congress in July that he had never seen an industry react so swiftly to an issue of this magnitude.
Far-reaching as the industry's actions have been, they provide only limited guarantees without the backup of robust national and international legislation. These industry measures, on their own, can deal only with regulations within the legitimate diamond industry itself. In combination with strong laws on the trade and movement of diamonds, they will ensure that rebel movements are no longer able to use diamonds as a means of funding their activities and that those who seek to profit illegally from the sale of diamonds from conflict areas can be arrested and prosecuted. An inter-governmental conference, hosted by the British Foreign Office in London last week, began the process of making such legislation a reality.
I was encouraged to note that Mr Murphy recognised in his article, albeit briefly, the enormous benefits that diamonds have brought to many countries. In Botswana, they have been the catalyst for development which has seen a once poor nation become one of the world's economic success stories. The emotional distress caused by the harrowing images of war-torn Sierra Leone must not divert us from finding a rational and durable solution to this issue.
When peace finally returns to Sierra Leone, Angola and Congo they will need recourse to their diamond reserves to provide the building blocks of recovery. The halting of the trade in conflict diamonds could never "do more harm than good for many Africans", as Mr Walsh suggests. The elimination of this scourge once and for all will provide much hope and above all the opportunity for diamonds to fulfil their potential as agents for growth and prosperity. - Yours, etc.,
Rory More O'Ferrall, Director, Corporate Affairs, De Beers, Charterhouse Street, London EC1.