http___qha.com.ua_tr_analiz-haber_kanli-elmaslar-nisan-yuzugunun-perde-arkasi_152286__1.xml
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 9.1 10.1 10.2 11.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 14.1 15.1 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 17.1 17.2 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 19.1 19.2 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 21.1 22.1 23.1 23.2 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 25.1 25.2 25.3 26.1 26.2 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 28.7 29.1 30.1 30.2 31.1 31.2 32.1 33.1 33.2 34.1 35.1 35.2 35.3 36.1 36.2 37.1 37.2 37.3 38.1 38.2 38.3 39.1 39.2
The De Beers Group of Companies is an international corporation that specialises in diamond exploration, diamond mining, diamond retail, diamond trading and industrial diamond manufacturing sectors. The company is currently active in open-pit, large-scale alluvial, coastal and deep sea mining.[2] It operates in 28 countries and mining takes place in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Canada. Until the start of the 21st century, De Beers effectively had total control over the diamond market as both a monopoly and monopsony of diamonds.[3] Opposition has since dismantled the complete monopoly, though De Beers is still a large shareholder and currently sells approximately 35%[4] of the world's rough diamond production through its Global Sightholder Sales and Auction Sales businesses.[5] The company was founded in 1888 by British businessman Cecil Rhodes, who was financed by the South African diamond magnate Alfred Beit and the London-based N M Rothschild & Sons bank.[6][7] In 1926, Ernest Oppenheimer, a German immigrant to Britain who had earlier founded mining giant Anglo American plc with American financier J.P. Morgan,[8] was elected to the board of De Beers.[9] He built and consolidated the company's global monopoly over the diamond industry until his death in 1957. During this time, he was involved in a number of controversies, including price fixing, trust behaviour and an allegation of not releasing industrial diamonds for the U.S. war effort during World War II.[10][11] The name "De Beers" was derived from the two Dutch settlers and brothers Diederik Arnoldus De Beer (December 25, 1825 – 1878) and Johannes Nicolaas De Beer (December 6, 1830 – June 20, 1883), who owned a South African farm named Vooruitzicht (Dutch for "outlook") near Zandfontein in the Boshof District, Orange Free State. After they discovered diamonds on their land, the increasing demands of the British government forced them to sell their farm on July 31, 1871, to merchant Alfred Johnson Ebden (1820–1908) for 6,600 GBP. Vooruitzicht would become the site of the Big Hole and the De Beer Mine, two successful diamond mines. Their name, which was given to one of the mines, subsequently became associated with the company.[12] Cecil Rhodes, the founder of De Beers, got his start by renting water pumps to miners during the diamond rush that started in 1869,[13][14] when an 83.5 carat diamond called the 'Star of South Africa' was found at Hopetown near the Orange River in South Africa.[14][15][16] He invested the profits of this operation into buying up claims of small mining operators, with his operations soon expanding into a separate mining company.[17] He soon secured funding from the Rothschild family, who would finance his business expansion.[18][19] De Beers Consolidated Mines was formed in 1888 by the merger of the companies of Barney Barnato and Cecil Rhodes, by which time the company was the sole owner of all diamond mining operations in the country.[17][20][21] In 1889, Rhodes negotiated a strategic agreement with the London-based Diamond Syndicate, which agreed to purchase a fixed quantity of diamonds at an agreed price, thereby regulating output and maintaining prices.[19][22] The agreement soon proved to be very successful — for example during the trade slump of 1891–1892, supply was simply curtailed to maintain the price.[23] Rhodes was concerned about the break-up of the new monopoly, stating to shareholders in 1896 that the company's "only risk is the sudden discovery of new mines, which human nature will work recklessly to the detriment of us all".[19] The Second Boer War proved to be a challenging time for the company. Kimberley was besieged as soon as war broke out, thereby threatening the company's valuable mines. Rhodes personally moved into the city at the onset of the siege in order to put political pressure on the British government to divert military resources towards relieving the siege rather than more strategic war objectives. Despite being at odds with the military,[24] Rhodes placed the full resources of the company at the disposal of the defenders, manufacturing shells, defences, an armoured train and a gun named Long Cecil in the company workshops.[25] In 1898, diamonds were discovered on farms near Pretoria, Transvaal. One led to the discovery of the Premier Mine. The Premier Mine was registered in 1902 and the Cullinan Diamond, the largest rough diamond ever discovered, was found there in 1905.[26] (The Premier Mine was renamed the Cullinan Mine in 2003.) However, its owner refused to join the[27] De Beers cartel.[28] Instead, the mine started selling to a pair of independent dealers named Bernhard and Ernest Oppenheimer, thereby weakening the De Beers cartel.[29] Francis Oats, who became chairman of De Beers in 1908, was dismissive of the threats from the Premier Mine and the finds in German South West Africa.[30] However, production soon equalled all of the De Beers mines combined. Ernest Oppenheimer was appointed the local agent for the powerful London Syndicate, rising to the position of mayor of Kimberley within 10 years. He understood the core principle that underpinned De Beers success, stating in 1910 that "common sense tells us that the only way to increase the value of diamonds is to make them scarce, that is to reduce production".[28] During World War I, the Premier Mine was finally absorbed into De Beers. When Rhodes died in 1902, De Beers controlled 90% of the world's diamond production. Ernest Oppenheimer took over the chairmanship of the company in 1929,[31] after buying shares and being appointed to the board in 1926.[29][32][33] Oppenheimer was very concerned about the discovery of diamonds in 1908 in German South West Africa, fearing that the increased supply would swamp the market and force prices down.[10][11] During apartheid period De Beers (formerly headed by Nicky Oppenheimer) has been criticised for profiting initially from exploitation through colonialism and then from the system of apartheid.[34] Former CIA chief Admiral Stansfield Turner claimed that De Beers restricted US access to industrial diamonds needed for the country's war effort during World War II.[35] De Beers successfully advertised diamonds to manipulate consumer demand. One of the most effective marketing strategies has been the marketing of diamonds as a symbol of love and commitment.[36] A young copywriter working for N. W. Ayer & Son, Frances Gerety (1916–1999), coined the famous advertising slogan, "A Diamond is Forever", in 1947.[37] In 2000, Advertising Age magazine named "A Diamond is Forever" the best advertising slogan of the 20th century.[38] Other successful campaigns include the "eternity ring" (meant as a symbol of continuing affection and appreciation),[36] the "trilogy ring" (meant to represent the past, present, and future of a relationship) and the "right hand ring" (meant to be bought and worn by women as a symbol of independence).[39] De Beers is also known for its television advertisements featuring silhouettes of people wearing diamonds, set to the music of "Palladio" by Karl Jenkins. The campaign, titled "Shadows and Lights", first ran in the spring of 1993. The song would later inspire a compilation album, Diamond Music, released in 1996, which features the "Palladio" suite. A 2010 commercial for Verizon Wireless parodied the De Beers spots.[40] De Beers carried out monopoloid practices throughout the 20th century, whereby it used its dominant position to manipulate the international diamond market.[17][41] The company used several methods to exercise this control over the market. Firstly, it convinced independent producers to join its single channel monopoly. When that did not work, it flooded the market with diamonds similar to those of producers who refused to join the cartel. Lastly, it purchased and stockpiled diamonds produced by other manufacturers in order to control prices by limiting supply.[42] In 2000, the De Beers business model changed[42] due to factors such as the decision by producers in Canada and Australia to distribute diamonds outside the De Beers channel,[17][41] as well as rising awareness of blood diamonds that forced De Beers to "avoid the risk of bad publicity" by limiting sales to its own mined products.[43] De Beers' market share of rough diamonds fell from as high as 90% in the 1980s to 33% in 2013,[44][45] because of a more fragmented diamond market with more transparency and greater liquidity.[46] In November 2011, the Oppenheimer family announced its intention to sell the entirety of its 40% stake in De Beers to Anglo American plc thereby increasing Anglo American's ownership of the company to 85%.[47] The transaction was worth £3.2 billion (US$5.1 billion) in cash and ended the Oppenheimer dynasty's 80-year ownership of De Beers.[48][49] Mining in Botswana takes place through the mining company Debswana,[50] a 50-50 joint venture with the government of the Republic of Botswana. In Namibia, it takes place through Namdeb Holdings,[51] a 50-50 joint venture with the government of the Republic of Namibia. Mining in South Africa takes place through De Beers Consolidated Mines (DBCM),[52] 74% owned by De Beers and 26% by a broad-based black economic empowerment partner, Ponahalo Investments. In 2007, De Beers began production at the Snap Lake Mine in Northwest Territories, Canada;[53] this is the first De Beers mine outside Africa and was Canada's first completely underground diamond mine,[54] however production was suspended when the mine was put on care and maintenance in 2015.[55] In 2007, De Beers opened the Victor Mine in Ontario, Canada.[56] This was followed by the opening of the company's third mine in Canada, Gahcho Kue, in 2016.[57] Trading of rough diamonds takes place through two channels – De Beers Global Sightholder Sales[58] (GSS) and De Beers Auction Sales.[59] GSS sells about 90% of De Beers' rough diamonds, by value, and features wholly owned and joint venture operations in South Africa (De Beers Sightholder Sales South Africa), Botswana (DTCB), and Namibia (NDTC). They sort, value and sell 33% (2013) of the world's rough diamonds by value.[45] There are two main types of customer for rough diamonds – Sightholders and Accredited Buyers. Sightholders have a term contract. Accredited Buyers (a customer type introduced in 2014-15) have a more ad hoc arrangement. De Beers also sells about 10% of its rough diamonds through online auction sales. The company pioneered the approach in 2008 when it broke with 44 years of direct sales to hold the diamond industry’s first online international auction sale. It is now the world’s leader in this kind of auction sale. De Beers employs about 30,000 people around the globe on five continents, with more than 17,000 employees in Africa. Almost 8,000 people are employed in Botswana, around 6,200 in South Africa, nearly 2,900 in Namibia, some 1,260 in Canada and about 320 in group exploration. On 4 November 2011, Anglo American plc and CHL Holdings announced their agreement for Anglo American to acquire an incremental interest in De Beers, increasing Anglo American's 45% shareholding in the world's leading diamond company to 85%. De Beers Investments is the privately held ownership company of De Beers Société Anonyme (DBSA), and is registered in Luxembourg. It is made up of two shareholdings: Anglo American plc has an 85% shareholding and the government of the Republic of Botswana owns 15% directly. De Beers Société Anonyme is the holding company of The De Beers Group of Companies.[60] The De Beers Group of Companies is involved in many parts of the diamond value chain, from mining to sales, and is made up of a series of joint ventures and wholly owned operations. The joint ventures are: The wholly owned operations are in southern Africa and Canada. Also wholly owned are Forevermark, IIDV, IIDGR and Element Six (Umicore has a 40% stake in Element Six's abrasives division). Forevermark launched in 2008 as one of the two diamond brands from The De Beers Group of Companies. According to the company website, "Each Forevermark diamond is inscribed with a promise: that it is beautiful, rare and responsibly sourced." Forevermark diamonds are inscribed with an icon and unique identification number, albeit invisibly to the naked eye: the Forevermark inscription is 1/20th of a micron deep. This inscription helps keep Forevermark diamonds distinguishable from synthetic diamonds, which are otherwise identical to mined diamonds, and maintain scarcity: the Forevermark website boasts that only a tiny percentage of diamonds qualify for the Forevermark brand.[65] De Beers Diamond Jewellers (DBDJ) was established in 2001 as a 50:50 joint venture between The De Beers Group of Companies and LVMH, the French luxury goods company.[65] The first De Beers boutique opened in 2002 on London’s Old Bond Street as the brand’s flagship store. Since then, stores have opened in various cities around the world. In March 2017, The De Beers Group of Companies acquired LVMH's 50% shareholding in DBDJ.[66] During World War II, Ernest Oppenheimer attempted to negotiate a way around the Sherman Antitrust Act by proposing that De Beers register a US branch of the Diamond Syndicate Incorporated. In this way, his company could provide the US with the industrial diamonds it desperately sought for the war effort in return for immunity from prosecution after the war; however his proposal was rejected by the US Justice Department when it was discovered that De Beers had no intention of stockpiling any industrial diamonds in the US.[35] In 1945, the Justice Department finally filed an antitrust case against De Beers, but the case was dismissed as the company had no presence on US soil.[67] In 2014, the Leverhulme Centre for the Study of Value, based at the University of Manchester, published a report authored by Sarah Bracking and Khadija Sharife, identifying over $3 billion in price fixing of South African rough diamond trade, through transfer pricing manipulation from 2005 to 2012. The report found significant evidence of profit shifting through volume and value manipulation.[68] Sharife simultaneously published an article [69] disclosing the political system that cultivated revenue leakage, including the donation of De Beers staff to the State Diamond Trader (SDT). The report, like the article, utilised aggregated data produced by the Kimberley Process (KP) certificates of import-exports, relying on figures listed by the diamond companies themselves, in which De Beers was the dominant player. The South African Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) disclosed that De Beers did not authorise them to publish figures involving values, sales, pricing and other data, preventing transparency of the industry. From 2001 onwards several lawsuits were filed against De Beers in US State and Federal courts. These alleged that De Beers unlawfully monopolised the supply of diamonds and conspired to fix, raise and control diamond prices. Additionally there were allegations of misleading advertising. While De Beers denied all allegations that it violated the law, in November 2005, it announced that an agreement had been reached to settle civil class action suits filed against the company in the United States and, in March 2006, three other civil class action suits were added to the November agreement. In April 2008, De Beers confirmed that Judge Chesler of the US Federal District Court in New Jersey had entered an order approving a settlement arrangement totalling US$295 million. De Beers does not admit liability. As part of the settlement, persons who purchased gem diamonds from 1 January 1994 to 31 March 2006, may be eligible for compensation.[70] However, claimants were generally not pleased with the amounts they received from the settlement.[71] In 2004, De Beers pleaded guilty and paid a US$10 million fine to the United States Department of Justice to settle a 1994 charge that De Beers had colluded with General Electric, which was acquitted of all charges, to fix the price of industrial diamonds.[72][73] In February 2006, De Beers entered into legally binding commitments with the European Commission to cease purchasing rough diamonds from Russian mining company Alrosa as of the end of 2008.[74] In January 2007, the European Commission announced it had closed the file due to lack of Community Interest. The commission decision is under appeal before the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg.[75] In 1999, a campaign by Global Witness to highlight the role of diamonds in international conflicts led to a review by the United Nations. The initial focus of the UN's investigation was on Jonas Savimbi's UNITA movement in Angola, which was found to have bartered uncut diamonds for weaponry despite international economic and diplomatic sanctions being in effect through United Nations Security Council Resolution 1173.[76][77] In 1999, De Beers Group claimed to have stopped all outside buying of diamonds in order to guarantee the conflict-free status of their diamonds effective from 26 March 2000.[78][79][80] In December 2000, following the recommendations of the Fowler Report, the UN adopted the landmark General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/56[81] supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. By November 2002, negotiations between governments, the international diamond industry and civil society organisations resulted in the creation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which sets out the requirements for controlling rough diamond production and trade and became effective in 2003. De Beers states that 100% of the diamonds it now sells are conflict-free and that all De Beers diamonds are purchased in compliance with national law, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme[82] and its own Diamond Best Practice Principles.[83] The Kimberley process has helped restore the reputation of the industry, as well as eliminating sources of excess supply.[84] In Botswana, a long dispute has existed between the interests of the mining company, De Beers, and the relocation of the San (Bushman) tribe from the land, in order to exploit diamond resources - an allegation rejected by De Beers. The San have been facing threats from government policies since at least 1980, when the diamond resources were discovered.[85] A campaign is being fought in an attempt to bring an end to what the indigenous rights organisation, Survival International considers to be a genocide of a tribe that has been living in those lands for tens of thousands of years.[86][87][88] On the grounds that their hunting and gathering have become obsolete and their presence is no longer compatible with preserving wildlife resources, the Gwi and Gana people were persecuted by the government of Botswana in order to make them leave the central Kalahari reserve. To get rid of them, they had their water supplies cut off and they have been "taxed, fined, beaten, and tortured".[89] Several international fashion models, including Iman, Lily Cole and Erin O'Connor, who were previously involved with advertising for the companies' diamonds, have backed down after realising the consequences raised by this scandal, and now support the campaign.[90] Another view is that, apparently confounded by the intractability of the Botswana government, Survival trained its guns on Botswana’s diamond industry.[citation needed] Survival points to a diamond prospect in the central Kalahari as the real reason behind the relocations and has identified De Beers as the main villain in this drama. However, the negotiating team,[clarification needed] the diamond watchdog Global Witness,[citation needed] and Member of the European Parliament Glenys Kinnock[citation needed] have all said that there was no connection between diamonds and the relocations. None of the audio/visual content is hosted on this site. All media is embedded from other sites such as GoogleVideo, Wikipedia, YouTube etc. Therefore, this site has no control over the copyright issues of the streaming media. All issues concerning copyright violations should be aimed at the sites hosting the material. This site does not host any of the streaming media and the owner has not uploaded any of the material to the video hosting servers. Anyone can find the same content on Google Video or YouTube by themselves. The owner of this site cannot know which documentaries are in public domain, which has been uploaded to e.g. YouTube by the owner and which has been uploaded without permission. The copyright owner must contact the source if he wants his material off the Internet completely.
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1 24.1
“Uluslararası Örgütler”in algımızla oynadığı, “oyunlar” çevirdiği sürekli anlatılır. Bu oyunlar siyasi, dini, sosyal mahiyette olabileceği gibi, aynı zamanda ekonomik mahiyettedir, anlatılanlara göre. Bu “sinsi” yapılanmalar, kimsenin bilmediği mahfillerde planlar yapar ve Türkiye gibi ülkeler üzerinde uygular-mış. Gerçek böyle midir? Böyle sinsi örgütler algılarımızla mı oynuyor? Bu sorunun cevabını verirken, “gizli” olduğu iddia edilen örgütleri açığa çıkardığını iddia edenlerin kişisel psikolojilerinin bu “moda”nın oluşmasında rol oynadığını unutmamak lazım. Örneğin, en meşhur “komplo deşifresi”, Leo Taxil isimli bir yazarın Masonlara dair yazdığı bir kitabın, “Farmasonların Gizemleri”nin başrol oynadığı bir anlatıydı. Fakat nihai olarak, Leo Taxil’in Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès isimli bir yazarın takma adı olduğu ve kitabı güncel deyimle “trollük” olsun diye yazdığı ortaya çıkmıştı. Fakat bu bilgiden habersiz olanlar, bugün bile Leo Taxil’in kitabına atıflar vererek masonların ne kadar sinsi, düzenbaz ve hain olduklarını anlatıyorlar. Fakat madalyonun bir de öteki yüzü var: Reklamlar, PR kampanyaları, filmler, diğer iletişimsel aktiviteler yoluyla şirketler algımız üzerinde etki sahibi oluyorlar. Komplo teorilerinin mistik dünyasının dışında, hiç de “sinsi” olmayan, hisseleri halka açık, yılda birkaç defa tarafsız kuruluşlar tarafından denetlenen firmalar, amaçlarına ulaşmak için insanı hayretler içerisinde bırakacak algısal oyunlar gerçekleştiriyorlar. Hem siyasette, hem ekonomide gizli odakların oyunlarından sıkça bahsedilen ülkemizde, tarihin en büyük “oyun”larından birine değinerek okurlarımıza bir başka pencere sunmak istedik. Elmas, kardeşlerinden ayrılıyor Avrupa’da elmas nadir bulunurdu. Geleneksel elmas yatakları Hindistan’daydı, uzaklardan gelen bir nadir taş olarak egzotik bir değer taşırdı. Fakat bu dönemde elmas sözgelimi yakut, zümrüt gibi bugün “yarı-değerli taş” kabul edilen minerallerden çok da farklı bir konumlandırmaya sahip değildi. Mücevherlerde bu taşlar kullanılırken, renk ve görünüm daha çok önemsenir, elmas da kendisini ta Hindistan’dan getirtebilecek kadar zengin ve güçlü olanların kimi mücevherlerini süslerdi. Yeni Dünya’da elmas yataklarının bulunması elmas piyasasını biraz etkilemiş olsa da hem hacim olarak, hem de çıkarma&getirme zorluğunun aşağı yukarı aynı kalması açısından büyük bir arz-talep karmaşası yaratacak ölçüde etki yaratmamıştı. 19. yüzyılın sonuna doğru Güney Afrika’da elmas madenlerinin keşfedilmesi, büyük bir etki yarattı. Artık dünyanın birçok yerinde elmas üretiminin hacmi ve kalitesi artmıştı. Bu durumun elmas arzını aşırı arttırıp, elması bir yarı-değerli taşa dönüştürmesi işten bile değildi. Tam bu esnada, Güney Afrika’da bir şirket, arzı ve daha sonra talebi kontrol etmenin yollarını aramaya başlayacaktı… De Beers: Elmas tekeli Hollanda kökenli De Beer kardeşlerin tarlasında büyük bir elmas yatağının keşfedilmesi, Güney Afrika Cumhuriyeti’nin kaderini değiştirmişti. Ünlü İngiliz politikacı, iş adamı ve girişimci Cecil Rhodes, çok geçmeden bölgede madencilik faaliyetlerine başladı. Küçük maden işletmelerinin Rhodes’in iş zekası sayesinde birleşmesiyle, De Beers Elmas Madencilik şirketi, bir anda büyük bir tröste dönüşmüştü. Daha ilk yıllardan itibaren Rhodes, Londra’daki Elmas Karteli ile bir anlaşma yapmış ve fiyatları sabitlemişti. Bir diğer elmas girişimcisi Ernest Oppenheimer, kurduğu Anglo Amerikan Elmas Şirketi’nin yanında, De Beers’in de hisselerine sahip olmak istedi. Her geçen gün yeni madenlerin bulunduğu Güney Afrika’daki elmas işi yapan işletmeler, bir birleşme trendine giriyorlardı. Oppenheimer, uzun mücadeleler sonucunda De Beers’in yönetim kurulu başkanı olmayı başardı ve dev tekel, iyice güçlenerek, Amerika, İsrail, Hollanda ve İngiltere’deki bağlantılarıyla, uluslararası elmas ticaretinde fiyat belirleyici bir role büründü. De Beers’in yaptığı şey basitti: Mümkün olan bütün üreticilerden elmaslarını satın alıyor, ülkelerle elmas satın alımında tek yetkili olma anlaşmaları yapıyor (Bugün De Beers hisselerinin %15’i, Afrika’da bir ülke olan Botswana’nın devlet tüzel kişiliğine aittir) ve bu sayede üretimden sonra piyasaya salınacak elmas miktarı üzerinde neredeyse tam tahakküm sahibi oluyordu. Öyle ki, yıllar sonra Sibirya’da elmas yatakları bulunmasıyla De Beers, Soğuk Savaş’ın bütün bariyerlerini aşmış ve Sovyetlerle de anlaşma yapmıştı. Hindistan’dan, Afrika’dan, Sibirya’dan elmaslar De Beers ve alt-firmalarının tekeline akıyor, bu tekel de aşırı arzın fiyatları düşürmesine izin vermeden piyasaya elmas salıyor, üreticiler ve ortaklarının aşırı kar etmesini sağlıyordu. De Beers tekeline karşı çıkacak bir girişim olduğunda, De Beers bir anda piyasaya bolca elmas salıyor, fiyatların aşırı düşmesini sağlıyor ve bu sayede mali tablosu bununla başa çıkamayan rakiplerini saf dışı bırakıyordu. Ayrıca kurduğu “otorite kuruluşlar” sayesinde elmas standardı ve fiyatlamasında tek söz sahibiydi. De Beers’in yaptığı bununla kalmadı, yaşamlarımıza “doğal” zannettiğimiz bir geleneği de yerleştirdi. Elmas sonsuza kadar Birinci Dünya Savaşı’nı takip eden, 1920lerin sonu ve 1930ları etkileyen “büyük buhran”, mücevher ve değerli taş ticaretini de vurmuştu. Lüks tüketim olarak kabul edilen bu ürün kalemi, düşen alım gücü ve ekonomik belirsizlik nedeniyle tüketicilerini kaybediyordu. De Beers, bu etkiden kurtulmak için hayatlarımızı bugün bile etkileyen bir hamle yaptı: N.W. Ayer firmasıyla, 1938 yılında bir anlaşma yaparak evlilik ritüellerini sonsuza kadar değiştirdi. 1938 yılından önce de, nişan yüzükleri alanında pırlanta içeren yüzüklerin bir payı vardı. Fakat pırlantanın “olmazsa olmaz” konumu yerleşmemişti ve Büyük Buhran, elmasa talebi iyice düşürmüştü. Pırlantayı evlilik ritüelinin olmazsa olmazı olarak konumlandırmak ve pırlanta yüzüğü eskimeyen aidiyet vurgusunun sembolü haline getirmek için bir kampanya başlattılar. Önceleri halkı pırlantanın özelliklerine (kesim, karat, renk ve berraklık) dair eğiten ve pırlanta etrafında bir “kültür” örmeye başlayan kampanya, 1947 yılında bugün bile De Beers tarafından kullanılan sloganı yarattı: “A Diamond is forever”, “Elmas ebedidir”. Özellikle ünlülerin de kampanyada kullanılmasıyla, pırlanta bugün neredeyse “tartışılmaz” olan konumunu kazandı: Bir kadına evlilik niyetini açıklayacaksan, mutlaka pırlanta vermelisin. Pırlanta sadakatin, soyluluğun, kalıcı sevginin, berraklığın ve yüceliğin sembolüdür. 1949’da yazılan ve Marilyn Monroe’nun da 1953’te söylediği “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend” (Pırlanta bir kadının en iyi arkadaşıdır) şarkısını, bir de bu cihetten dinleyiniz. Öte yandan, De Beers ve Anglo American’ın “kanlı elmaslar” denen, kabilelerin yerlerinden sürüldüğü, çocuk işçilerin çalıştırıldığı, iç savaşların finanse edildiği elmas madenleriyle ilişkisi, pırlantanın kadınlarda yarattığı ışıltılı illüzyonun arkasına, çok güzel saklanabiliyor. Bir diğer QHA Özel dosyasında görüşmek üzere. M. Bahadırhan Dinçaslan QHA Türkçe Sayfa Yayın Yönetmeni QHA