NEWS BULLETIN: October 18, 2007

Jewelry Industry Boycott of Burmese Gems is Gaining Momentum

By David Federman, Colored Stone Editor-in-Chief

Are we headed for a ruby-less Christmas?

Depending on your vantage point, the burgeoning jewelry industry boycott of Burmese gems is a milestone—or a mill stone.

Last week, the powerful Jewelers of America sent a letter to its 11,000 members requesting their participation in an industry-initiated moratorium on selling any gems known or suspected to have been mined in Burma. Since 90% of the world’s ruby comes from Burma (which the ruling generals, whose authority is being challenged, renamed Myanmar), this is tantamount to a self-imposed ruby embargo. But JA thinks the boycott should also include jadeite, sapphire and spinel, among other gems for which Burma is famous.

Not surprisingly, the gem trade is miffed at JA’s unprecedented action. “I can understand how JA doesn’t want a replay of the ‘blood diamonds’ scandal,” says one New York dealer who buys on the Thai/Burma border. “But I have yet to see evidence that any gem-mining peasant in Burma has had his hands or feet amputated by guerillas. If anything, these peasants are able to survive by smuggling gems into Thailand. And gem smuggling sure beats prostitution. So don’t give me any ‘blood rubies’ malarkey.”

Tiffany's Washington Post ad.

As more and more people in the media draw connections between African blood diamonds and Burmese blood rubies, dealers will have a tough time stopping the Burma gem boycott—or even opposing it. Early in October, Tiffany’s, who ceased buying Burmese gems in 2003, took an ad in the Washington Post to reiterate and reaffirm its four-year ban. Equally prestigious Bulgari and Cartier issued statements that they, too, are refraining from commerce in Burmese gems until the country takes its first meaningful steps toward human rights and democratic reform. Since all these firms have stores round the world, this, in effect, globalizes the boycott.

Most recently, Kay Jewelers posted the following statement at its Web site: “Given our deep concern about the current unrest in Myanmar/Burma, and its military government’s human rights violations, beginning October 12, 2007 we require that suppliers do not knowingly sell us any gemstones of Burmese origin until further notice.”

Kay may have a long wait ahead of them. “The generals are a stubborn bunch,” says the New York dealer.

But the generals have never before had to contend with widespread jeweler ostracism of their country’s gems. You might even call it ‘counter revolution.’

Nevertheless, don’t villainize gem dealers.

Technically speaking, it is perfectly legal to sell Burmese gems in the United States. Although Congress banned direct imports from Burma in 2003, U.S. Customs later punched a gaping loophole in the law by permitting importation of Burmese gems cut and polished in other countries. Since most Burmese gems are cut in Thailand, and exported from there, dealers can keep bringing in Burmese gems as Thai imports.

For this reason, JA has petitioned Congress to close this escape clause. And Congress seems to be lending JA’s proposal a friendly ear.

Yesterday, Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, announced he will introduce sanctions that will prevent laundering of Burmese gems through third-party countries. “There is a direct link between these blood-red gemstones and the bloodied robes of monks who were brutally suppressed when they took t the streets to demand democracy and human rights,” Lantos said. “It is high time for the world to reject Burmese gemstones, because their sale funds the ruling junta’s ongoing campaign of brutality against its own citizens.”

Here’s where things get tricky.
Dealer opposition to the ban isn’t based solely, as some accuse, on self-interest. There are sound gemological arguments to be raised against such an action.

If Burma were the sole producer of ruby, a boycott would be easy to start and maintain. Unfortunately, as Christopher Smith, vice president and chief gemologist at American Gemological Laboratories, New York, explains, there is “a vast ruby belt that extends from Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan through to Nepal and Burma to near the Pacific Ocean in northern Vietnam.” Hence rubies from this extensive region share similar gemological traits. This makes exact pinpointed identification of stones as Burmese difficult, unless they are sent to labs proficient in origin analysis. What’s more, East Africa and Madagascar are significant sources for ruby.

For this reason, Kay Jewelers and others have announced quality-assurance programs with leading gem labs like GIA to ferret out gems of likely Burmese origin. But as anyone familiar with the intricacies of origin determination knows, labs don’t always agree on their origin conclusions or even find convincing signs that a stone was mined in a particular locality.

Does this mean, then, that all rubies must be boycotted—judged guilty of being Burmese unless proven geologically innocent?

Since the overwhelming majority of rubies come from Burma, it could be argued that, in this case, practicality and economics demand a temporary cessation of ruby sales. But don’t for a moment think that a blanket boycott won’t hurt some whose livelihoods depend on scratching in the gravel for ruby. And we’re not just talking about Burmese peasant panners. Several dealers told us there are just enough of this gem from other countries—most of them almost as poor as Burma—to make blanket ruby boycotts a bit unfair to what one called “innocent-bystander countries.”

“It’s a tough call,” this dealer concedes. “Burma is a brutal and backward military state that deserves sanctions. If it makes people feel good to stop buying rubies and jade, who am I to say that they shouldn’t follow the dictates of their conscience? But when I think that most of the jewelry America sells is made in China, a country with a far worse record on human rights and environmental protection, I can’t help but think this boycott is tokenism.”

Philadelphia designer Helen Driggs doesn’t buy this argument. “For there to be any sort of positive global change, you’ve got to start somewhere,” she says, “and Burma is as good a place as any.”

This was also sent out to our Colored Stone GemMail newsletter subscribers. Want to receive the latest up-to-date information on the gemstone industry? Sign up for our free Colored Stone GemMail newsletter.

e-mail the editors of Colored Stone | About Colored Stone | Sign up for the FREE Colored Stone GemMail newsletter

This site and all of its contents are copyright Colored Stone and Interweave unless otherwise noted.
All articles, photographs, graphics, logos, and trade show floorplans are owned by Colored Stone and may not be reproduced in any form,
in print or in electronic media, without the express written permission of the publisher. Violators will be subject to legal action.