Ask Judge Mathis

Diamonds are a girl’s – or rapper or baller’s – best friend; this we know. But, these precious stones are also at the core of some of the greatest atrocities known to man. “Blood diamonds” or conflict diamonds, as they are called, are diamonds mined in war zones and then used to fund violent militias; they’re most common in Africa, where about two thirds of the world’s diamonds are produced. As governments and organizations around the world have become more of ‘blood diamonds’ and the roles they play in war, actions have been taken to limit their appearance in the market place. We too can, and should, do our part to make sure any bling we might buy is conflict free.

For three years, former Liberian president Charles Taylor has been on trial for, among other things, sex trafficking, murder, and recruiting and using child soldiers. Taylor allegedly used blood diamonds to fund these crimes. The case has attracted international media attention and has even involved testimony from international supermodel Naomi Campbell who received blood diamonds from Taylor’s men in 1997.

Taylor’s case is important because it illustrates very clearly the destruction and terror that blood diamonds, once they’re sold – can bring. Thankfully, much has been done around the world to try to curtail the trading of these stones. In 2001, the U.S. passed laws that prevented rough diamonds from Sierra Leone and Liberia from being imported into the country. In 2003, the Clean Diamond Trade Act was passed and signaled the U.S.’s participation in The Kimberley Process. Started in 2000, The Kimberley Process is a UN mandated certification system that prevents conflict diamonds from entering the marketplace. Today, over 99 percent of all diamonds certified through process are from conflict free sources.
Though this is an impressive fete, a tiny number of blood diamonds are still sold – knowingly or unknowingly – by jewelers, usually small, independents sellers. Ask your jeweler or reseller to provide documentation certifying the diamonds are conflict free. If they cannot do that, look for another jeweler. This seemingly small action is a big step in helping shutting down the blood diamond market and, hopeful, bringing an end to these unthinkable acts of torture.

Recently, two top ranking Congressional Democrats have been charged with ethics violations by the Office of Congressional Ethics, where members can anonymously accuse their peers of wrong doing. Whether or not there is any merit to the charges remains to be seen but it is interesting that, of the last 10 ethics investigations the Office has conducted, eight of those under scrutiny were black.

New York Congressman Charles Rangel is charged with 13 congressional ethics violations and California Congresswoman Maxine Waters is charged with three. Among the charges Rangel faces are improperly using his office to secure donations for a school of public in New York that is named after him, failing to pay taxes on rental income from a home he owns in the Dominican Republic and for using a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem for his campaign office. Waters has been accused with using her influence to arrange a meeting between the Treasury Department and a bank her husband owned shares in. Both plan to fully fight the charges against them.

Eliminating government corruption is important but the fact that blacks make up less than 10 percent of Congress yet comprise 80 percent of the most recent ethic violation investigations is a cause for concern. The fact that the charges can be levied anonymously only ups the suspicion factor. Political enemies on the other side of the aisle can bring the charges in hopes of tarnishing a politician’s image. Even if the accused isn’t up for re-election, his or her party could suffer from the negative publicity. In an election year, this could mean a few extra Republican seats in Congress. Singling out black politicians could also be a tactic to play up on the racist undertones of growing movements, like the Tea Party, sending a message that “they”-blacks – “can’t be trusted”. Since our achievements – and failures – as a people are often lumped together by the main stream, hurting black politicians could have a negative impact on the President’s 2012 re-election bid down the road.

Congress is right to heavily scrutinize its members. But it should also scrutinize the way charges are made. Has no one outside of the Congressional Black Caucus wondered why so many black Congressmen and women are being “nominated” for investigation? That, in itself, warrants an investigation. Let’s hope that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her quest for a clean Congress, works to bring any underlining racism to light.