The international focus on "conflict minerals" is a self-serving charade.
By JACK JOLIS
Thanks to Naomi Campbell's clueless testimony before the U.N. Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague, the manufactured non-scandal of "blood diamonds" is once again being trundled before the collected gullibility of the world.
The parallel occurrences of diamonds and internecine mayhem in Africa are in no way causative—certainly no more than by any other commercial commodity found in the continent. When was the last time we heard of "blood manganese," or "blood copper," or, for that matter, "blood bananas" or "blood cut flowers"?
The fact is that most African diamonds are produced in places that are reasonably-to-perfectly peaceful, (such as Botswana, Namibia and South Africa), whereas there are murderous African conflicts that rage elsewhere without the slightest "assistance" from diamonds (such as Rwanda, Uganda, and the Sudan).
( Unfortunately, there's moreCollapse )
I lost it at the suggestion that there are no other blood minerals. Which, tbh, is a bit farther than I normally get in most WSJ articles. That said, I think there is a general point about what is being done, and how effective these methods are (or rather, are not). That was lost in gallons of wharrgarbl in the article, but it's a point for discussion.