Yesterday I learned that a lot of HIV cases were spread at diamond mines in S.Africa

[innerkitten]

One of my best friends works for catholic charities and spent two years in Zimbabwe and South Africa. They did a lot of work with people that have aids and they also trained individuals to volunteer and help teach people about aids prevention in their communities. Apparently a lot of hiv cases are spread in the dormatories and in the camps around the mines. It seemed to me that it was sad that catholic charities had to go out to these areas and educate the workers at the mines. Shouldn''''t the mines themselves educate there workers and provide them with hiv testing and condoms?

P.S My friend says Oprah is like a goddess in South Africa because of the work she does with children there.

 

[innerkitten]

P.S. It really got me thinking that if I were to make a diamond purchase I'd buy Canadian.

 

[oldminer]

Well, a couple of things go through my mind when I read this sort of message.

1. If people were to buy only Canadian Diamonds, these HIV infected miners would have no work and still have HIV. Then they'd soon have no food, either.

2. If Catholic Charities go there, I wonder if this sort of group pass out free condoms along with good advice about safe sex and/or abstinence? I don't doubt they do wonderful work for people living in horrible circumstances, but is there something missing in their efforts?

3. A large part of the African population has Aids or HIV already. This is not connected at all with diamonds or diamond mining. Workers in the mines now get substantial wages and benefits. I won't say they are treated like American workers, but they fare much better than many even poorer people around the world. Is it productive for them to promote buying diamonds from somewhere else? I personally don't think so, but undoubtedly some might disagree. Mining is a harsh business and diamonds have always been connected to the opposite pole, the wealthy. Something always seems unfair about the poor serving the rich, but no one has ever found a truly satisfactory way to make things good for everyone. There have been attempts, but they ended by making everyone miserable except for the few on the top who were in charge. From such things comes revolution.

 

[chialea]

----------------
On 7/7/2004 1:45:26 PM oldminer wrote:



2. If Catholic Charities go there, I wonder if this sort of group pass out free condoms along with good advice about safe sex and/or abstinence? I don't doubt they do wonderful work for people living in horrible circumstances, but is there something missing in their efforts?

----------------

There is actually some quite ... interesting work done by certain Catholic charities where they tell people that condoms do not prevent AIDS, and that they are dangerous. There's been quite a scandal about in other places than the US, apparently.

I'm not going to get into my disagreements with Catholocism, but I will say that passing out deliberately false information in an effort to skew people's behavoir in a way you like is generally considered rather bad in all areas of life.

 

[innerkitten]

Not everyone at catholic charities is catholic and according to my friend they do give out condoms.

 

[innerkitten]

Well whether or not you feel it's true, or valid or that is matters is up to you. I found it interesting myself and it made me think. Currently the same friend is working on some projests at UCSF here in San Francisco( more aids in third world counrties stuff). I found this article for anyone interested. It's oldish I think but gives numbers and stuff, and mentions miners in one section.

http://ari.ucsf.edu/policy/profiles/SouthAfrica.txt

 

[kevinng]

I agree with David that if the workers have HIV, it has little to do with the diamond mines. The diamond mines paid these workers to dig for diamonds. If they prefer to have promiscuous sex in their free time, why blame the mines?

Educate them? I don't think that's the mine's responsibility. If they were bus drivers, should the bus company teach them to have safe sex? If they sell fruits in the local market, should their customers tell them to have safe sex?

If you have been put in a managerial position, you will realise that workers are very difficult to change. It is far easier to change the job to suit the worker. Assign the right job to the right worker. But to change the worker? You will get a lot of resistance.

Even if you dish out condoms to these people and tell them to use it, I seriously doubt that many will use it in the long run. They will use it one day, and forget it on another.

Of course, the Catholic charities should be applauded for their effort. However, pointing a finger at the miners' pay master is a little far fetched.

 

[CaptAubrey]

well, believe it or not, de beers is doing something about this:




http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,770413,00.html

 

[msb2ncsu]

If the contraction of the virus was a direct result of the work then I could see the cause for concern but this is a lifestyle issue and none of the business of the corporations over-seeing them.

 

[innerkitten]

Captain Aubry, Thats good news.
I was glad to read it. I think they should provide something since the miners are living there for up to eight months at a time and some of the HIV is spread in the dorms themselves provided by the companies.

 

[CaptAubrey]

the hands-off approach is defensible elsewhere, but aids in africa is different. it's such an epidemic that it's causing serious problems of absenteeism and loss of trained employees for companies like de beers. they're doing things like this because they have to--their workforce is seriously threatened.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/7/2004 2:08:27 PM innerkitten wrote:

Not everyone at catholic charities is catholic and according to my friend they do give out condoms.----------------

And please don't believe that every Catholic doens't believe in birth control. Quite the contrary.

The aides situation in Africa is scary. But, I tend to agree w/ Dave. Separate from the aides issue, there has been many calls to boycott. Who will that really hurt? In theory, noble - but in reality quite something else perhaps.

It's good that Debeers is doing something, even if it's not altruistic.

 

[Hest88]

----------------

It's good that Debeers is doing something, even if it's not altruistic.
----------------

Yes, but that's the genius of big corporations. They do many, many, many bad things, but because they care so much about the bottom line they are forced to be at forefront of some areas---for instance domestic partner rights, diversity issues, etc. in the U.S.---in order to attract and keep skilled workers.

The situation in sub-Saharan Africa is just tragic. Plus, you have government corruption, misinformation, and superstition in the mix, making it even more difficult to get preventative programs and medications out to the people who need it most.

 

[Antwerpman]

Having lived and worked in southern Africa for some years I got to see the aids problem first hand and what one of the big diamond companies was doing to address the issue.

Firstly I think it is worth saying that when I was there Zimbabwe had the highest infection rates in the world, but with virtually no diamond mining to speak of.

Having said that it is known that because of the lifestyle certain individuals choose to live when they are in the mining compounds (and these are gold, platinum, coal, etc as well as diamonds), these can become hubs for the spread of the disease. The main problem is that the workers indulge in unprotected sex, then travel home to their families and spread any infections they may have contracted to their wives, partners, even their unborn children.

When I left at the begining of 1999 there was already an extensive education program underway, with free condoms available in all company toilets, peer councelling, free HIV testing, procedures in place to ensure HIV positive workers were not discriminated against, etc, etc

Unfortunately, as they say, you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink, and many of the causes of the HIV spread are rooted in the social structure of the countries it is affecting, and to change these attitudes and encourage people to behave in a different manner is difficult. I even had people telling me that "a friend of a friend heard on the news that the HIV virus was actually caught from the coating that they put on condoms" or that HIV did not exist and it was merely a story started by white south Africans to try and prevent the growth of the black population.

Obviously the tragedy for those affected can not be underestimated, but at least those who are in employment with companies who offer access to drugs stand some chance of leading a normal life, as do their families. If you take this away by boycotting diamonds, are you really doing anything positive for them, and what about the workers in the gold, copper, platinum, coal, oil and many other industries who suffer the same fate but without the access to free drugs, will you boycott these products as well, or are these ok because they are not so closely associated with Africa?

 

[oshilig]

The idea that mining corperations don''t have any responsibilities for the health of their workers sort of points out where globalization can go horribly wrong. These companies (mostly DeBeers) are foreign companies who are exploiting the valuable resources of southern Africa. While mining is very profitable to southern African countries, (Nambia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana) the vast share of the profits do not go back into the countries from which they came. With the low employment numbers in most of these countries, these far away mining jobs are supporting entire communities. I think it is the responsibility of the companies to make sure they are not creating havens of HIV/AIDS to be spread across the country, for financial reasons and moral reasons. Most of the spread of HIV/AIDS in southern Africa is due to the transient nature of peoples employment, so large mining companies do have a responsibility to take care of the people they are exploiting.

I recently have been struggling with the idea of buying a diamond for my GF. Besides the conditions of mines, there''s the blood diamond issues to consider. Having lived on the border between Namibia and Angola for two years, it is clear that tracking diamonds is almost impossible. However, a global boycott of diamonds would collapse the economies of the countries which depend on mining. So it''s a connundrum.

I suppose my point here is to buy your diamonds conciously and carefully.

 

[youngster]

Date: 7/7/2004 2

8:27 PM
Author: innerkitten
Not everyone at catholic charities is catholic and according to my friend they do give out condoms.

As a practicing Catholic, that''s news to me. We are always being solicitied (via mail, internet, and at our church) for contributions to various Catholic charities, some of which use the name "Catholic Charities USA", Catholic Relief Services, etc. There are so many of them its hard to keep track of which ones are actually affiliated with the church and which ones aren''t, but use the name.

 

[Rebemdee]

My two cents:

I had read many years ago, when I was working in HIV education and prevention in the US, that many cases of HIV and other STDs are spread along the trucking routes in Africa. That''s considered to be the route for the transfer of HIV from one end of the country to another. Efforts to educate truckers and prostitutes along the route have not been overwhelmingly successful.

I think culture plays a large role in the use of condoms, as well as sexual practices. I''m not sure if it is still going on in Africa, but at least in the last five years, there was a myth that having sex with a virgin would rid the body of HIV. Many young children were being raped and contracting HIV. Education may help prevent this, but cultural lore is difficult to change with information alone.

Also, when a person barely has enough money for food and clothes, I doubt condoms are high on the list of priorities. However, sex is always a means for intimacy or enjoyment, and will happen with or without protection.

It''s a multifaceted issue, involving culture, disease, religion, prejudice, poverty, and human nature. I don''t think diamonds alone are involved, but provide a startling juxtaposition between the bleak poverty of the workers and the nonessential product they mine.

 

[sparklish]

I agree with David that if the workers have HIV, it has little to do with the diamond mines. The diamond mines paid these workers to dig for diamonds. If they prefer to have promiscuous sex in their free time, why blame the mines?

I can't agree with this. Big companies come in and radically change the culture through globalisation. People leave their small towns and go to work at these places. Traditional culture is radically changed. Companies must take responsibility for those changes and be good corporate citizens, trying to make the country's better rather than just taking their profits and leaving.

Also, we must keep in mind, these aren't traditional 9 to 5 jobs where they go home at the end of the day. The workers LIVE there. The town will be virtually completely owned by the mine, every shop etc. It is absolutely the company's responsibility to ensure their workers are aware of the risks they are taking and are educated.

 

[perry]

It can be amazing how these old threads come back to life.

What bothers me more is the concepts that the people who have brought it back to life seem to hold. Specifically, that the mining companies have a significant responsibility here, are exploiting the people and the countries, and that the companies are responsible because they provide houseing as part of the job (i.e the company town).

Lets get down to basics. The only reason any of us have a job, unless you work for the Government, is because the business that employes you makes money off of you. You and/or your position will be eliminated the instant they stop making money from you. The tradeoff is that you should be making sufficient money to cover some purpose that you have (usually supporting you and your family). I do not consider this exploitation as long as you are free to leave when you want (i.e. quite and find another job somewhere).

Some businesses located in remote areas of various counties (including the US) also provide as an added benifit free housing, medical benifits, and even food, as part of the job benifits. While none of these types of jobs are the nicest (oil industry, mining, shipping, remote construction) they are typically highly sought after because of their relative high pay and benifits. Often, a person only working part of the year can support their entire family elsewhere for the entire year.

The African diamond mines are no different. These are high paying jobs - that also provide housing and medical benifits.

Most of us have to provide our own food and shelter - and pay to commute to work.

If higher than normal wages, free housing, and medical benifites, etc is considered exploitation - will someone please exploit me! Soon...

However, I know of no other industries where the companies providing such jobs are asked to be responsibile for people's personal behaviour and the health effectgs of that behavior (beyond being fit for duty). The oil industry is not asked to control or influence people's behavior during non-working hours, nor the shipping industry, nor the remote construction industry. Humans are sexual beings - and I assure you that the people employed in those industries also engage in sexual activities. Fact is, most people arround the world think that it is not the companies business at all once they are off duty for the day (and many countries have laws that prevent the companies from even inquiring).

So why is the African Mining companies somehow responsible. Why are they the only companies in the world that we seem to hear should be responsible? I'd like an answer to that.

While it is true that some of the profit (if there is any) will flow to the owners in other countries - that is true everywhere (and a lot of profits flow out of the US to forign owners). Most countries have tax laws that collect some of the profit to keep in within the country. Also, all of the base wages, local material, and material handling cost stay within the host country. Typical profit for most companies is on the order of several percent. Thus it is hard to claim that these international companies are really gutting the local economies. In fact - they most often are building and responsible for the local economy. The flip side is that many companies loose money on ventures and some never make a penny. I don't see a requirment for the locals to repay all the money these forign companies invest that turns into nothing.

The situation that I see is like the following: Hey bob - I can show you how to make a decent living, and in fact I can show you how your town can raise its entire standard of living. To do that I will invest a gob of money to build a new business. In return, after the business gets going (and most of the gob of money has been spent in the local community) I would like to keep a few percent of the profits. Sounds like a win - win to me. Sounds like a company willing to take responsibility and be a good corporate citiizen. Of course changing their standard of living and what they do is changing their culture.

The alternative is to not offer bob, or his community, any oportunity to make a decent living and raise their standard of living. We just leave them living the way they have always lived (we don't try to change their standard of living for the better). Woo be to him who wants to change their culture.

Fact is, change is constant - or you fall behind. Our culture, and every culture, is constantly changing. Get used to it.

Multinational companies have been arround for centuries. The question then is: Has Encyclopaedia Brittanica has been exploiting people in many countries for the last several hundred years, or has Encyclopaedia Britannica been helping people in many countries over the last several hundred years.

Was the "Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company" exploiting people in many countries, or raising the standard of living for people in many countries by providing a market for tea and similar herbs in the US and Europe.

Would the next person who wants to claim that these workers and the countries are really being exploited and that somehow the companies are responsible for personal behavior please explain to me the effects on the people and the countries of not starting these industrial venturs and not providing these job opportuinities.

While you are at it, please explain to me why HIV seemed to spread like widefire in Africa in all kinds of areas where there are not diamond mines, and in other industrial centers, yet no one is saying that we should stop buying other african exports because of the spread of HIV (but that somehow diamonds are different).

HIV is a human tradegty of huge proportions - that will be with us for decades and perhaps even centuries. In my opinon, it's spread is caused by human factors beyond the control of our employers (and would you want to work for an employer who controlled your behavior to such an extent to prevent you from the chance of getting HIV and other STD's).

Perry

 

[sparklish]

No one is saying that diamond mines are the only corporations that should be socially responsible. They all should.

Furthermore, if the living conditions provided for by the company leave a person WORSE OFF, and I think most of us agree that being HIV positive is being worse off, despite salaries and housing benefits, they should be responsible for that.

Companies can be held liable for the working conditions of their workers, and if the working conditions are such that the workers require housing etc., then that falls within the employer''s responsibility. If they are providing housing, they need to be responsible for what goes on there.

And yes it''s true AIDS is a huge problem in Africa, and no of course that doesn''t mean that we should stop buying all African imports. But if the manufacturing/processing scheme exacerbates the problem, then we shouldn''t. We shouldn''t buy them for the same reason we shouldn''t buy coffee that is picked by small children who are paid very little, or other products with unfair practices.

The diamond industry is no different and there is no problem with being conscious of the problem.

 

[fire&ice]

Well, how is that different than a corporation firing you/refusing to hire you if you smoke, frequent bars or engage in other "destructive" activities *off duty*? Should companies support a smoking help group - perhaps......

Corporations have the responsiblity of giving some back to their communities. The flip side to corporations being "responsible" is intrusion.

 

[perry]

Who says that the company living conditions are worse off - or leave a person worse off... Chances are actually good that the workers are in better living conditions at the african mines than they have at home....

There is nothing about the living conditions that gives people HIV (afterall - many people live there without getting HIV). It is people who decide to have "risky" sex that get HIV. The companies are not promoting risky sex, and in fact as mentioned above they are trying to educate people about it and trying to help people avoid it.

However people chose to have what kind of sex they like to have. I highly suspect that many of these people would have come up with HIV from another source if they did not work in the mines.

The fact of the matter is that condom use is not universally accepted by all men and women - and is certainly not the preferred way to have sex with any guy I know (including myself).

Thus, we have a choice: Restrict our sexual activities with clean partners (one argument for manogomy - or at least closed family polyigamy), use condoms, or risk STD''s and HIV.

Unfortunately, my understanding is that much of africa does not have - and never did have - a culture of monogamy. There is an open question on weather even the so called western countries have a strong culture of monogamy dispite our legal mandate for a monagamous marriage in many states of the US.

Company living conditions are not leaving these people worse off. Their own personal choices and actions are leaving them worse off.


Perry

 

[Antwerpman]

Date: 4/17/2005 5:30:24 PM
Author: sparklish
No one is saying that diamond mines are the only corporations that should be socially responsible. They all should.

Furthermore, if the living conditions provided for by the company leave a person WORSE OFF, and I think most of us agree that being HIV positive is being worse off, despite salaries and housing benefits, they should be responsible for that.

Companies can be held liable for the working conditions of their workers, and if the working conditions are such that the workers require housing etc., then that falls within the employer''s responsibility. If they are providing housing, they need to be responsible for what goes on there.

And yes it''s true AIDS is a huge problem in Africa, and no of course that doesn''t mean that we should stop buying all African imports. But if the manufacturing/processing scheme exacerbates the problem, then we shouldn''t. We shouldn''t buy them for the same reason we shouldn''t buy coffee that is picked by small children who are paid very little, or other products with unfair practices.

The diamond industry is no different and there is no problem with being conscious of the problem.

The inference seems to be that because a person worked for a company and used their housing they are now worse off because they have AIDS and that they would not have the disease if they had not been working in these conditions.

Of course this is simply not true and looking at the 10-20,000 people who work in diamond mines compared with the millions in Africa who have aids shows that the cause of the spread of the disease is something other than this alone. Of course the behaviour of the people who are working at the mines can lead them to increase their risk profile, but dont think that these compounds are some kind of free for all - access is strictly regulated and controlled - but who can say what a person does once they leave the confines of the compound....

Finally, as for the mining companies `exploiting` the local economies and taking all the profits, perhaps this Link will put things in to perspective - as you can see the government gets 80% of the profits AFTER it has taken its taxes, so in real terms the net inflow in to the economy is probably greater than 90%

 

[innerkitten]

I hate all the fighting this post as brought. I''m not even sure who brought it back from 2004 or why? But I still feel the same and no one here could ever change that. Let it rest already.
I have actually started getting involved on a local level and am volunteering one day a week fo the San Francisco AIDS foundation. I can''t change the world but I know I can help make changes in my own community.

 

[sparklish]

Okay, it might be extreme to totally prevent people from smoking at any time. However, if as a company, one-third of my employees had lung cancer, well then perhaps I might do some educating and provide some courses on quitting smoking.

At some mines, over ONE-THIRD of the workers have AIDS. Of workers in their early 30s, it can be as high as 40%. This Economist Article provides those stats. This is MUCH higher than the rate of AIDS in Africa generally, and when these workers go home, they spread it to their family. If you don''t agree with the moral argument that when you take groups of young men away from their family from prolonged periods of time, and allow them easy access to sex workers, that you have some moral duty to provide some education and some condoms, well then maybe you''ll buy the business argument. Doesn''t it make good business sense to make sure a third of your workers don''t have a fatal disease?

Or maybe you should allow their families to live with them? That might take away some incentive for going to sex workers, but many diamond mines will not allow their workers to bring their families.

 

[icekid]

Date: 4/18/2005 12:17:53 PM
Author: innerkitten
I hate all the fighting this post as brought. I''m not even sure who brought it back from 2004 or why? But I still feel the same and no one here could ever change that. Let it rest already.
I have actually started getting involved on a local level and am volunteering one day a week fo the San Francisco AIDS foundation. I can''t change the world but I know I can help make changes in my own community.

??????????????? i don''t see anyone fighting. just people stating their opinions. no attacks. let it rest? you brought it up, but then did not want to hear any opposing views? kind of confused.

anyway, i think we can all agree that we can try to educate people as much as we can. but in the end, people will make their own decisions.

 

[innerkitten]

For those of you that are interested ( I''m sure a few people here are) one of the groups my friend worked with while she was there is called CARE. Here is the web site http://www.care.org/
and now she is working with UCSF the site is http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/
and another http://www.womenchildrenhiv.org/

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/18/2005 12:17:53 PM
Author: innerkitten
I hate all the fighting this post as brought. I''m not even sure who brought it back from 2004 or why? But I still feel the same and no one here could ever change that. Let it rest already.
I have actually started getting involved on a local level and am volunteering one day a week fo the San Francisco AIDS foundation. I can''t change the world but I know I can help make changes in my own community.

InnerKitten I think this is simply healthy debate over a not so healthy topic. There are comments about AIDS in diamond trade magazines from time to time, and since the Economist and other articles it has been apparent that companies are taking approporiate action. After all it is not in their interest either to have sick workers. I do not think anyone would imagine any company would want people to get AIDS, let alone not do anything to stop it.

But i commend your personal interest and you actions to help where you can.

"Think globally, act locally."

 

[tanuki]

One way to look at the question would be for the companies to ask the newly hired workers to be tested for HIV at the time they are hired.

The HIV virus can stay dormant in the body for years before the person begins to show symptoms of AIDS. There is no way to know exactly when they contracted the disease (you can even be infected from your mother at birth if she has it)

Unless we know when the workers became infected we really don''t know if there is a higher statistical probability that someone is HIV positive in a diamond mine in Africa due to having money to spend on prostitutes (money they wouldn''t have if they weren''t working at the diamond mine) or if a significant number of the pool of workers is already infected before they got there.

If the diamond mine offers health care benefits to the workers there also would be an incentive for a person who knows they have HIV to try to get a job there.

 

[MINE!!]

There are some things that should probably be addressed when talking about people who are HIV pos and have AIDS in South Africa and African Countries. Hopefully, I can say these without making the wrong impression.

1. First of all, in the African tribal communities (just because one has moved out of traditional tribes, it does not mean that they do not have a tribal unbringing) there is a need to have as many children as possible.
I. BECAUSE, in many tribal religions, the only way to ''live'' when you have died is in the memory of your children. this is VERY important to these people. When you are ''forgotten'' by those who are living, you in eseence... ''move'' into a stasis of... ( I am not inclined to call it hell, but it is a form of it somewhat) of a dead of forgotten, unliving zone. This is a religious belief that has been around for a VERY long time.
1. Therefore a question of birth control cannot be a consideration.
2. Also there have been many programs, implemented by the United States, Catholic and Christain organizations and such that have been DETREMENTAL to the African Population... eugenics anyone? They have a wee hard time trusting anyone there.

2. In South Africa now, the leader there is now questioning the link between HIV and AIDS and refuses to allow any funding for research of distrubution of drugs. This is a problem, how do we help a people, who do not want to be helped, nor are really ''allowed'' to help.

I would suggested looking on the H-Africa website to get some more information about this topic. I am not a complete expert, so there is defintely more to this that can really help explain things.

As for not buying from Africa, this helps to keep Africa in the state it is in. Africa has many resouces that are shipped OUT of Africa, but nothing to process these raw materials in Africa. Although, the cruelty and horror of Cecil Rhodes and DeBeers past leaves one to shake their head, it still provides a porion of income to this continent.... and in turn, keeps the continent poor by not recycling the money.. It is a sad roadblocked situation...