June 19, 2000
Mr.
Blair's Rough Diamonds
INTO AFRICA
There
is an odd similarity between the British intervention in Zimbabwe
and that in Sierra
Leone, as well as the American action against her former ally
in Angola, UNITA.
And it's all down to carbon. Compact carbon, or diamonds, are mined
in both Angola and Sierra Leone, surprisingly enough in the rebel
zones. Zimbabwe too is a producer of diamonds, in a way, through
its occupation of the diamond producing area in the Congo. That
we should be so concerned about Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Angola,
and not (for the moment) about, say, Eritrea
or Sudan
is odd. Why go
to some parts of Africa and not others? But that it is something
to do with diamonds, I am convinced.
A
CENTRAL PLAYER
The
key player in the world diamond market is the shadowy South African
mining house of De Beers,
which is the central player in the diamond selling cartel, the Central
Selling Organization, a sort of OPEC for engagement rings. Diamonds
are remarkably reliant on sentiment; the natural value of diamonds
is well below the real price, with the value being driven up by
aggressive advertising.
You thought "Diamonds are Forever" was a commonplace –
wrong, it was concocted by De Beers in 1947. There is another unnatural
sentiment that drives up market prices – straightforward price fixing.
The Central Selling Organization controls roughly two thirds of
diamond sales, which naturally gives it a strong influence on the
price. However two thirds of the market may give a strong influence,
but it does not give control – and therein lies a story.
CRACKING
OPEN DE BEERS
The
fact is that De Beers is suffering what any classical economist
would say would happen to a cartel overstretch.
As De Beers has held up the price, so new suppliers have come in.
There are simply too many diamonds in the world and De Beers is
suffering. As part of De Beers' policy is to buy up excess diamonds
and hold down production it has been suffering while "rogue" producers
flood the marked. Not surprisingly, De Beers has been at the forefront
of efforts to choke off these "blood diamonds," for entirely commercial
reasons. In the last few months, De
Beers has even talked about giving up the cartel. Now De Beers'
fortunes in this area have improved dramatically.
JUST WHO
ARE THEY?
A
quick word should go on just who De Beers are. They are a diamond
mining operation, who through their selling arm control two thirds
of the diamond market. They have been indicted by the US commerce
department for fixing
the price of industrial diamonds, although the case collapsed,
no board member will go to the US. They have a large cross shareholding
with Anglo-American,
which is listed on the London Stock Exchange and has several of
the British great and good on the stock exchange. De Beers is run
by the anglophile (and Anglican) Oppenheimer family, the present
head of the family is Nicky
Oppenheimer a cricket fanatic who went to Harrow, the second
most prestigious British public school. Anglo-American has an honorable
reputation for funding the liberal Federal Progressive Party, the
main white opponents of Apartheid in South Africa (and the predecessor
of the Democratic Party the main opposition to the ANC). They
were also one of the first large South African firms to recognize
black unions, and they owned and subsidized the Liberal press in
South Africa.
THE CONSPIRACY
CORNER
Due
to their economic power, and their presence in an obscure part of
the world, they will naturally attract conspiracy theories. Well
you can just see them as the villains in a Bond film. Add the liberal
politics, the Jewish antecedents of many of the founders of Anglo-American
(not to mention the Oppenheimers), the role of the overgrown adolescent
Cecil Rhodes in founding Anglo-American, and you get a potent brew
for any conspiracist. I was highly reluctant to write about De Beers,
for the very reason that they attract criticism from some of the
less balanced denizens of the fringe. I do not believe in any of
this mystical gumph, and I do not particularly want to be seen believing
it (although I have a rather thick skin). Nevertheless, there is
a massive advantage accruing to De Beers, and we must find out what
it is.
BEATING
UP MUGABE
Although
Zimbabwe
herself is not a producer of diamonds, her neighbour, the Congo,
is. By total coincidence, the Congo is in war, and Zimbabwe
has intervened in the
Congo to prop up the government
of Laurent Kabilla. This war
is very unpopular in Zimbabwe, unpopularity noted by the opposition
who vehemently opposes the war. However, the Zimbabwean
army controls diamond producing districts. At the same time
the
United Kingdom is determined to topple Mugabe, by democratic
means if possible, by other means if the "good
guys" lose the
election in less than a weeks time. Now isn't there a coincidence?
SINKING
A FLOAT
The
story took a bizarre turn in the last week with the "reverse
takeover" (a quick version of an IPO) of Petra by Oryx,
a diamond mining company operating. The problem was that Oryx was
mining diamonds in the Congo, in an area under Zimbabwe’s control.
This would be out of the rocket range of any rebels, let alone their
control. In short, they are a legitimate business, working in Congolese
government territory. However, the British government did not see
it this way. Peter
Hain, the naturalised South African who is Blair's minister
for Africa, has claimed that these diamonds are conflict diamonds,
although any knowledge of the civil war in the Congo would show
that this is precisely what they are not. Even by the standards
of incompetence that the Blair government can manage this is spectacular,
one would have thought that some civil servant or diplomat would
have pointed it out to them.
A LIE THAT
WORKED
Therefore,
it must have been a deliberate lie. But a lie that worked. Coupled
with the story (supplied by whom?) that a middle
level Commonwealth functionary, with some responsibility for
overseeing the Zimbabwean elections, had a stake in Oryx, this sunk
the Oryx float. Petra diamond’s advisor, Grant
Thornton, resigned without giving a reason. This would have
meant that Petra would have to de-list, and so Oryx would not be
listed. The floatation was called off. Why did Grant Thornton behave
in such obviously unprofessional way? They still won’t say, but
it sure hasn’t hurt any prospects
for future government contracts.
|