Blood Diamond - World mass media reaction

In the USA the Blood Diamond film was released in late 2006, about a month before Christmas holidays. With all that, during the period under report the film was most often mentioned in British mass media for in Great Britain distribution of the film began in January, 2007.

The film release made a mighty impact both upon De Beers reputation in general and on the opinion of the media community with regard to the company’s activity in Africa.

During December, 2006 the two hour long documentary “Blood Diamond” came to be shown by the “History Channel” three(!) times . The film was shot with participation of De Beers press-secretary Andy Bone and representatives of other diamond industry companies and non-governmental organizations. The film presents a detailed account of the wars in Angola and Sierra-Leone and gives the viewer an idea of the Kimberley Process and the Diamond Development Initiative. Its authors has always stressed they have been after a balanced account of the events displayed and never meant to urge people to boycott the industry.[1]

“Isn’t he (Dicaprio) trying to jump in the last carriage of a train departing?” - the “Evening Standard” inquired. – “with “green” being indeed the very catchword with them in Hollywood”. Indeed, there were other much more large-scale public opinion trends already in place at the time of the film release that underlay the stir caused by and in connection with the “Blood Diamond”, which trend are related to discussion of the urgent problems of environmental protection such as sensible exploitation of natural resources, global warming, cutting down the forests of Amazonia and so on and so forth. The movie and music stars’ passion for such campaigns is well-known. But in this particular case the film makers, the branch experts and the non-governmental organizations activists supporting them faced with a dilemma: they had to find a way to expose and denounce conflict diamond trade without dandifying the branch on the whole which would result in a heavy blow to the economy of the African countries that ultimately depend on diamond export.

Jennifer Connelly, activist of the “Amnesty International” human rights organization starring in the movie, wore diamond jewelry when at the press-conference preceding the film’s first performance explaining to the public that was the way diamonds came to be certified as to compliance with standards of ethics.

As Dicaprio accentuated in an interview: “The message of the film is not that one ought not to buy diamonds; its about our approving of the business strategy and methods of a given particular company every time we draw a check. As far as diamonds are concerned, I always do my best to make sure those are no conflict stones I am dealing with”.

But the London “Evening Standard” that interviewed Dicaprio in January, reported: «The news of such a film being in the making immediately horrified the “De Beers” diamond corporation authorities. They passed into the offensive by recruiting a Hollywood PR-agency and launching a costly campaign (jointly with the World Diamond Council) aimed at somewhat alleviating the losses anticipated. The major world diamond trade giant and the World Diamond Council feared lest the film should tell negatively on the purchase requirement trends. The Council even endeavored pressurizing the film director Ed Zwick, hoping in vain he might agree to show in the movie the conflict diamond trade allegedly slacking off. Dicaprio also caught it hot”.[2]

Against such a background Barak Richman, Professor of Law at Duke University in Durham started a campaign of criticism aimed at De Beers and the Kimberley Process in general. He is of the opinion that such qualities inherent in diamonds as practically uncontrollable transportability and universal value inevitably make them the ideal “currency” for all sorts of insurgents and dictatorial regimes. Richman is inclined to believe there is a serious risk of the Kimberley Process, primarily designed to put an end to the conflict diamond trade practice, turning into a mighty instrument for «monopolists like De Beers to exercise a closer control over the world system of diamond raw material supply. On the one hand the efforts of the diamond industry giant to do away with conflict diamond trade in cooperation with UNO and WTO are absolutely just and positive, but on the other there is a paradigmatic coalition of «preachers and bootleggers» doubtlessly on hand for the corporation dominating the market, intent on maintaining its weight and influence, actively benefits by the social policy it pursues. Richman suspects the Kimberley Process may root out the little free competition left in the diamond industry sphere and still fail to fulfill its initial task.[3]

“The new film will make the Hollywood stars think twice of the origin of the diamonds they wear at the Oscar prize ceremonies, - The Australian digest of “ustralasian Business Intelligence remarks. – Nowadays the customers are after making sure the diamonds they are buying have nothing to do with war, crime, human rights violation or social conflicts. De Beers, the branch leader, turns down all the accusations launched against it, while representatives of the World Diamond Council do confess the film being true to life, but reserve it is basically the life as it used to be in 1999, the reality having basically changed since the time».[4]

The “Jewelers Circular Keystone” magazine, without beating around the bush, states it was De Beers that served as the immediate prototype of the imaginary villainous diamond cartel of Van De Kaap portrayed in the film . According to the data cited by the magazine the campaign aimed at mitigating the film’s adverse consequences has cost the World Diamond Council USD 15 million.^[5]

 

Another article published in the Evening Standard dwells on some details of the campaign De Beers and the World Diamond Council had to initiate in connection with the film.

The Hollywood agency of Sitrick and Company succeeded in recruiting some celebrities including Beyonce Knowles and Jennifer Lopez, who agreed to wear gaudy diamond jewelry at the «Golden Globe» award ceremony on the condition that a lavish contribution would be made to the programs and foundations for the support of the poorest African counties (the so-called Raise Your Right Hand initiative).

In this respect it is worth mentioning the selection of Beyonce Knowles, an idol with the young audience, holder of nine “Grammy” prizes and an indisputable youth subculture trendsetter, was an evident stroke of luck with the agency. As for Jennifer Lopez, the press remarks the boom of demand for fancy colour diamonds started after Ben Affleck had presented her with a similar one.[6]

 

The same trick of having Hollywood superstars won over to one’s side  was socked up for the “Oscar“ ceremony as well. The account of the event by the British “The Independent” features their names. Patricia Arquette and Sarah Jessica Parker agreed to wear diamond rings in public in return for donations for the ones in need out in Africa. But the “evil tongues” from among representatives  of the groups trying to exercise pressure on the diamond industry declare that was nothing but a shameless marketing trick from the direction of “DTC” that had nothing to do with rendering actual help to victims of military conflicts in Africa.[7]

 

Through the mediation of its American PR branch “Diamond Information Center” “De Beers” sponsored the African tour of the well-known jeweler and musical producer Russel Simmons. On his return the latter announced establishment of a special philanthropic fund for assisting African countries and promised to have a quarter of the revenue of Simmons Jewelry Co transferred in favor of it.

Simmons’s voyage to Botswana, South Africa and Mozambique (where he paid a visit to the ex-president of the South African Republic Nelson Mandela) aroused heated criticism from the direction of the film authors and representatives of non-governmental human rights associations. Director Ed Zwick said in an interview: “I feel ashamed for Russel Simmons. If he really meant to learn something about bloody diamonds, he ought to have gone not to Botswana and South Africa, but to Sierra-Leone and Angola».[8] A detailed account of the campaign launched by Diamond Information Center was published in the April issue of the Jewelers Circular Keystone magazine.[9] A detailed account of the campaign launched by Diamond Information Center was published in the April issue of the Jewelers Circular Keystone magazine.

 

In an interview given to the Modern Jeweler reporter Stephen Lussier, one of the De Beers top executives, found it necessary to particularly stress the company deemed diamond deposits were doubtless benefit for the counties disposing of them. “We are absolutely sure progress of the diamond industry will help to solve the problem of poverty and infrastructural underdevelopment with some of the African states… Diamonds are a valuable natural resource ensuring stable well-being for the families of the ones engaged in their extraction and processing, as well as a national economy flourish, as it actually happens in the case of the leading diamond producers such as Namibia, Botswana and South Africa», Lussier declared. It is the easiest way to refer all the problems of Africa to its being so reach in minerals which too many are willing to appropriate. “One ought to remember natural resources as they are imply no moral at all", he emphasized.[10] “You may have various reasons to become indignant at De Beers, - as the Jewelers Circular Keystone branch magazine put it in its January issue, - but their investment in the economy of Botswana really deserves praise».[11] “You may have various reasons to become indignant at De Beers, - as the Jewelers Circular Keystone branch magazine put it in its January issue, - but their investment in the economy of Botswana really deserves praise».

Expert and head of Warwick Business School Alyson Warhurst (who used to consult De Beers on issues of corporate social responsibility) in an article specially devoted to the problem actually expressed her solidarity with De Beers, repeating the arguments advanced by  Stephen Lussier supported by the corporate accounts facts and figures: the previous year  total annual income of De Beers amounted to USD 8 billion, with USD 5 billion of the sum having become eventually reinvested in the economy of African states. With the purchasing-power parity in Africa taken into consideration, Warhurst adds, the sum is actually equal to USD 13.5 billion. Besides, she mentioned the fact of the industries related to diamond extraction and processing give employment to nearly a million of people.[12]

 

The above measures taken, “De Beers” succeeded in minimizing the damage to its image and reputation. But a new blow was not slow to come. In January the corporation again fell prey to mass media attacks, this time in connection with the Botswana Bushmen problem.

The Kalahari Bushmen community is one of the oldest ones in the world. When in 1980s in the region of Gope diamond deposits were discovered, “De Beers” procured the right to undertake their development. Gradually the Bushmen came to be ousted off the territory to find shelter in migratory settlements, decimated by alcoholism and AIDS.

In late 2006, after three years of legal proceedings, the bushmen gained a suit versus the government of Botswana in the High Court of the country and in January 2007 separately scattered groups of the indigenes began arriving in their former reservation which fact was eagerly commented upon by the British press immediately before the “Blood Diamond” first performance.

Chief Executive of the “De Beers” Botswana branch Sheila Khama declared when interviewed for “The Independent” that the company’s “activity surely had nothing to do with the Kalahari people forced resettlement”. But the opposing party found itself in a much more advantageous position. Groups of human rights activists, in the first place – member of the “Survival International”, put forward a demand for all diamonds of Botswanian origin to be recognized as conflict ones; under their pressure, the supermodels  Iman and Lily Cole were urged to give up cooperation with De Beers. Besides, the activists created a special web-site for the occasion: www.boycottDe Beers.com.

Leonardo Dicaprio again happened to be involved in the very thick of things: in September, 2006, having come to know of the film being shot, the Bushmen drew an open letter addressed to him. But the decision of the High Court of Botswana, though in favour of the Bushmen, was a disappointment for the activists: the judges declared the diamond deposit development activity had played «no role» in the matter.[13]

In the long run the premonitions of the brillianteering and jewelry industry specialists mostly turned groundless. The recession happily did not affect the key periods of the branch activity: those of Christmas and Saint Valentine’s Day. Managing Director of De Beers Garret Penny said the film had hardly had any impact  upon the sales dynamics except the fact that customers had come to pay closer attention to documents certifying the gems origin.

The poll carried out by the Jewelers Circular Keystone magazine with employees of the American retail jewelry trade yielded results to the same effect 78.5 % of the poll participants were of the opinion the film had influenced the trade and the amount of sales but little and only  35 % of them found that during the current year customers had become  more fastidious as far as the diamonds origin was concerned.

In the article on the poll results published by the magazine the most curious saying of the respondents were cited:

- «That is a stroke of luck for the Canadian diamonds».

- «I keep telling the people they would be horrified to know the way sugar and bananas arrive at their daily dining table».

- «A well-done show and lots of facts».

- «It is not that the customers have come to ask too many questions, but I am sure the thing has got stuck in their brains».

It is curious to note only 22.3 % of the respondents had actually seen the film.[14]