Thursday, January 03, 2008

Diamonds, Gold & War

This looks like a sequel to Guns, Germs and Steel.

 

When Frederick Boyle, an author, returned from diamond diggings in 1871, he wrote about the need for monopoly in the industry, thus: “You cannot drown the market with an article only appertaining to the highest luxury — without swift and sudden catastrophe…”

By royal monopoly alone, or by means of great and powerful companies, can jewel digging be made a thriving industry, he proposed. Citing this, Martin Meredith writes in Diamonds, Gold and War ( www.landmarkonthenet.com ) that several attempts at amalgamation had since been made. “Two companies had emerged by 1885 as the most likely nuclei for a diamond mining monopoly: Kimberley Central and De Beers,” he narrates. “Both set about crushing smaller rivals by producing as many diamonds as possible; in the words of a Standard Bank report, by ‘swamping them with production’.”

De Beers developed its operations at breakneck speed, doubling the amount of ground it excavated in the process and showing, according to the Standard Bank, ‘a reckless disregard for human life’, informs the book. “With accidents multiplying and disease rife, the death rate in the mine reached 150 per thousand employed.”

Within a few years, at Cecil Rhodes’ behest, a new company was set up — De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd.

“Instead of being limited to diamond mining, Rhodes wanted the new company to be able to engage in any business enterprise, annex land in any part of Africa, govern foreign territories and maintain standing armies.” At the first annual general meeting of the company, held on March 31, 1888, Rhodes “triumphantly proclaimed his determination to make De Beers ‘the richest, greatest, and most powerful Company the world has ever seen’.”

By September 1889, he had achieved ‘a complete monopoly of all Kimberley’s mines – 90 per cent of the world’s production.’ Together with the world’s principal diamond merchants, he then set out to achieve a marketing monopoly of the diamond trade to ensure that the market could be manipulated to the best advantage, keeping supply in line with the highest price available…”

No comments: