That seems like it should be the right question to ask, but...
The real question is what a conflict diamond isn't. Let me explain...
The United Nations defines conflict diamonds as, “. . . diamonds that originate from areas controlled by forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized governments, and are used to fund military action in opposition to those governments, or in contravention of the decisions of the Security Council” (10 United Nations).
Another very important definition is one used the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, “. . . rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments” (11 Ministers).
These definitions can be a lot to take in so I’ll try to simplify them a bit. First of all, in these definitions the term conflict diamonds only applies to rough diamonds, meaning mined directly from the ground, not to the ‘cut and polished’ stones that you would see at the jeweler. More importantly, these definitions say conflict diamonds are only rough diamonds that fund rebel groups in civil wars; violence and atrocities committed by other groups or individuals are not covered in these definitions.
Some groups, like Global Witness and Partnership Africa, are advocating that these definitions are far too narrow and need to be expanded to include human rights violations that are perpetrated by any individual, government, or corporation in order to remain credible in the consumer eye. We, as consumers, expect much more when we hear ‘conflict free’ then just not funding violence committed by rebel groups.
