[image src="http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/3234/week_4/052909-061207018096-300.jpg" caption="A woman tries on a diamond ring." align="right"]
When my husband and I looked at diamond engagement rings 15 years ago, jewelers told us to keep in mind the four “Cs” – cut, color, clarity and carat weight – when choosing stones. At that time, no one mentioned a fifth “C” – conflict. If someone had, I wouldn’t be wondering now if our jewelry purchase helped fund human rights abuses or a coup effort somewhere in the world.

Conflict diamonds, also known as blood diamonds, come from areas controlled by rebel movements or their allies and are used to finance military actions against legitimate governments. According to analysts, money from the sale of blood diamonds helped fuel Sierra Leone’s civil war, which killed or maimed thousands. Physically, there is no difference between a conflict diamond and a regular one; the issue is the diamond’s provenance.

In 2000, several countries meeting in Kimberley, South Africa, proposed a certification process to monitor and control the trade in rough diamonds. The Kimberley Process, formally launched in 2002, seeks to stop the flow of conflict diamonds to international markets while simultaneously protecting the legitimate diamond industry. Through the Clean Diamond Trade Act of 2003 (PDF, 44 KB), the United States now prohibits the U.S. import or export of rough diamonds that have not been certified as “clean” through the Kimberley Process.

Although the Kimberley Process came into being too late to help my husband and me 15 years ago, I think it is now a useful tool to help protect people from unwittingly contributing to war and violence. But when will there be a similar certification process for other gemstones? And what about protections for gold and silver?