You might say Joanne Aono and Brian Leber are activists who happen to be jewelers.
Photo: James Dames
May 2004
Diamonds: No One’s Best Friend?
A look at the nagging question of “conflict-free” gems
by Mandy Burrell
Last October Tom Whitehead asked his girlfriend of seven years, Annie Wallis, to marry him.
For the nail biters out there, she said yes. And for the record, Whitehead was pretty sure she would. But that didn’t stop him from planning the perfect moment. While on a walk through the Gold Coast’s Washington Square park — supposedly headed for a ho-hum dinner at an old stand-by, but actually on the way to celebrate at upscale Tru restaurant and a night at the Ritz — Whitehead grabbed Wallis’ hand and “completely shocked” her with The Ring.
Ah, the ring. Whitehead, 26, spent two whole years researching the perfect rock. An electrical engineer — and every bit as meticulous as his job requires — he studied gemology Web sites and classic diamond cuts to design Wallis’ engagement ring himself. His research began at Tiffany’s because that’s where he’d always shopped for fine jewelry. Soon he had half a binder full of information — and half a plan for the perfect diamond.
As much as the four “Cs” — clarity, color, cut and carat — factored into Whitehead’s plans, he also decided that the perfect diamond for his fiancée absolutely had to be a fifth “C” — conflict-free. This is because Wallis, 25, a Northwestern University law student studying international trade law, has long been disturbed by “the general exploitation of Africa” and she makes her purchases accordingly. Yet as Whitehead visited retailers throughout the Chicago area — including Tiffany’s — he says they all delivered the same canned response: No one can guarantee a conflict-free diamond.
My boyfriend and I could relate to Whitehead’s frustrations. He wanted to buy me a diamond — and still does. And I was dead-set against one, especially after a local jeweler looked me in the eye and said, “No one gets hurt mining diamonds anymore.” I knew better.
When I heard about Leber Jeweler in Western Springs, Ill., I headed out to meet husband-and-wife team Brian Leber and Joanne Aono. The couple is determined to keep a third-generation family business alive without compromising their progressive values. Social activists long before they were jewelers, Brian and Joanne decided to run the store their way when Leber’s father retired. “The jewelry trade just happens to be where we’re standing with our flashlight,” says Leber of he and his wife, whose activism includes working with Chicago’s Peace Museum, Amnesty International, Burma Campaign U.K. and Free Burma Coalition.
Leber Jeweler was a beacon in the dark for Whitehead, who ultimately purchased his custom-designed ring from Leber. “For Tiffany it’s not a matter of being socially conscious. It’s about economics,” says Whitehead. “But [Brian and Joanne] use the business to promote their agenda against flagrant human rights abuses.”
To that end Leber and Aono completely steer clear of products mined in Africa. There, miners reportedly are paid well below a living wage, toiling in hazardous conditions known to cost many their lives through violent exploitation. In addition, at least one group, Survival International, has accused De Beers of forcing Africa’s Bushmen tribe from its ancestral land in Botswana where a profitable diamond cache awaits mining. Among other horror stories associated with African mining, in Sierra Leone diamond profits have been linked to a cruel terrorist regime infamous for routinely amputating thousands of people’s limbs, including children’s. However, such atrocities aren’t limited to Africa and Leber and Aono know that. They carefully research their sources, avoiding products mined in any country where anti-democratic regimes deal in the jewelry trade to fund their terrorist campaigns.
Perhaps most boldly, Leber and Aono have challenged their industry colleagues to look past the bottom line and reduce the jewelry trade’s destructive practices. They have focused much of their attention on Burma, where nearly a million natives have fled to the jungles since a junta overthrew the democratic government in 1990 and took control of Burma’s mines.
The U.S. placed sanctions on Burmese products last summer to put an economic squeeze on the junta, which has forcibly taken over most of Burma’s industries to fund its terrorist campaign. Leber spoke recently at the American Gem Trade Association conference to support these sanctions, which make it illegal for U.S. jewelers to purchase Burma’s highly prized rubies, sapphires and jadeite. He and his wife are also trying to drum up donations from the jewelry industry to provide aid to Burmese people. “Many people in the industry would say, ‘Why should we threaten our livelihoods and profits for the sake of several dozen people being shot in the back of the head?’” says Leber. “But because of the industry’s reliance on Burma, I believe we should do something.”
And they have, though it hasn’t been easy. Of course, the couple anticipated backlash. With DeBeers as big of a company as it is (”Think of it as a small country,” says Leber) the jewelry industry is very close to a monopoly. Consider this: Only about 100 people in the entire world buy and sell rough diamonds to the rest of the market. That means a powerful few hold “a frightening amount of sway,” says Aono — and they stand to lose a great deal when do-gooders speak out. In fact, it wasn’t long before Leber and Aono gained a reputation as troublemakers. Yet she and her husband continue to raise funds for the Foundation for the People of Burma, an established Burmese aid organization.
Regardless of their efforts, Leber knows dealers who have found ways to circumvent sanctions, for instance by routing Burmese gems through neighboring Thailand and relabeling them accordingly. One major gemstone company is even seeking exemption from sanctions, using the excuse that “too many jewelers will suffer,” according to Leber. Moreover, international efforts to cleanup the industry have been halting. Three years ago some 49 countries agreed to the Kimberley Process, a certification system designed to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the market. But critics such as human rights watchdog Global Witness say the process has been a joke. For one thing no independent, third party organization exists to ensure honest certification. Also, the agreement defines “conflict diamonds and gems” as products tied to rebel violence, a narrow definition that turns a blind eye to wrongs committed by corporations and legitimate governments. For instance, mine police in Congo have been known to imprison children and shoot civilians, yet Congolese diamonds are labeled “conflict-free” because the mine is government owned.
In some ways, it seems it really is difficult for jewelers to guarantee conflict-free diamonds. That’s why Leber and Aono decided to purchase diamonds exclusively from Canada. There, mining companies maintain safe working conditions and pay fair wages — and diamonds and terrorism don’t mix.
Eco Destruction
Yet despite Leber and Aono’s best intentions, some claim that mining Canadian diamonds simply shifts the “conflict” from people to the environment. “Diamond mining is cleaner than mining for gold or base metals,” says Kevin O’Reilly, research director with the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, a nonprofit that helps to oversee and develop mining regulations. “But it still involves digging holes in the ground. And digging holes in the ground in and of itself is not a sustainable venture.” So while Canada is way ahead of Burma in terms of human rights, mining leaves a “huge” footprint on Canada’s environment, says O’Reilly.
No matter their country of origin, all diamonds develop on large rock formations called kimberlites. In Canada many of these kimberlites formed under glaciers that melted to create lakes. Miners must drain the lakes to extract the diamonds, creating a ripple effect on all plant and animal life. For instance, many of Canada’s mines lie in the migratory path of the Bathurst caribou herd, and those who track the herd report that the caribou now avoid those paths. More telling, perhaps, is that the herd’s population has dipped to a 20-year low — and some biologists blame mining, says O’Reilly.
Though they’re aware of mining’s adverse environmental effects, Leber and Aono say Canada’s mining regulations are some of the strictest “on the planet.” Plus, Leber notes, the industry has brought steady work to hundreds of Northern Canada’s aboriginals, who historically have experienced high rates of suicide, alcohol abuse and unemployment. “So if we simply closed the mines, what would we have?” asks Leber.
It’s true that mining has created a huge economic boom in Canada. In less than a decade, diamond mining has become a billion dollar-a-year industry, and estimates project that the country will account for 12 to 14 percent of world diamond production by 2007. But “along with the economic boom, there are losers,” says O’Reilly. Mining towns in the scarcely populated Northwest Territory have sprung up overnight, stressing social infrastructure. Affordable housing is nearly nonexistent. And incidents of drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence have spiked. O’Reilly and his colleagues want the federal and provincial governments to mandate that mining companies more adequately share their wealth with mining towns. “There’s definitely an issue as to whether there’s a fair return to the public purse for these resources that are being collected,” says O’Reilly.
In the meantime, Leber and Aono continue to see Canada as their best source for diamonds — but they say they will continually seek out better sources as they become available. “Everything is so interconnected, sometimes bad contains good. Sometimes good contains bad,” says Leber. “What’s important is to make sure the scales always tip to good.”
That responsibility rests not only with retailers, but also with consumers, says Leber — and consumer habits, embedded in our culture, often take a long while to shift. Consider society’s fixation with the diamond engagement ring. In 1477, Maximillian of Austria gave one to Mary of Burgundy to celebrate their upcoming nuptials. Intent on imitating the rich, middle-class men soon began to replace land, livestock and property with gold, silver and gems — making the engagement ring the new down payment for a wife and the symbol of love and commitment in the West. Today’s independent woman likely would balk at the idea that she was bought and sold. Yet most find no fault with the diamond industry’s “buying guidelines,” which urge men to sock away at least two months’ salary to buy a rock.
Personally, if my partner had two months’ salary to spend on me, I could dream up much more satisfying uses for it — such as putting it toward an amazing honeymoon or a down payment on a house. Practical me aside, reporting this piece has cemented my belief that the traditional diamond engagement ring isn’t for me — and my partner, who is an ever-patient audience to my late-night readings, has come to agree. Now we’re searching for a meaningful replacement, and we’ve turned up several good alternatives. (See sidebar “Instead of a Ring...”)
Admittedly, part of me feels torn about denying such a time-honored tradition. While Whitehead and Wallis never really talked about their engagement ring, Wallis says she would have been “surprised” if Whitehead gave her anything other than a diamond. “You just don’t think about [an engagement ring] not being a diamond,” she says. However, she admits that if her fiancé hadn’t sought a conflict-free diamond, she would have been stuck between a rock and ... well, you know. “It would have been hard not to be satisfied with a diamond from Tom,” says Wallis, adding that she doesn’t think most women would return an engagement ring for political reasons. “But I was so surprised and happy that Tom went to so much effort to make sure I didn’t have to wonder, ‘Did someone lose their arm for this?’ every time I look at my ring.”
Mandy Burrell, associate editor, is taking suggestions on how to spend two months of her partner’s salary.
Get More Info:
Canadian Arctic Resources Committee
![[Send]](http://consciouschoice.com/sendlink/send.gif){kind=small}
Recommend this page to a friend
Top Ten pages recommended to friends:
