Mogae’s stoic fight for natural diamonds
Lewanika Timothy | Friday May 15, 2026 10:32
Long before lab-grown diamonds disrupted the market and long before younger consumers began questioning the relevance of natural stones, Mogae was already fighting a different battle, one that threatened not merely diamond sales, but Botswana’s entire development story.
To understand why Mogae fought so fiercely for natural diamonds, one must return to the chaos of the 1990s, when diamonds became entangled with some of Africa’s bloodiest wars.
In Sierra Leone, rebel groups of the Revolutionary United Front carved out control of diamond-rich territories and used the stones to buy weapons and sustain a brutal civil war marked by amputations, child soldiers and mass killings. Similar patterns emerged in Angola, where UNITA rebels financed conflict through illicit diamond sales, and in Liberia, where Charles Taylor’s regime became deeply linked to trafficking networks moving conflict stones across borders.
By the late 1990s, graphic images from these wars had reached Western audiences. Human rights organisations intensified campaigns against what became known as “blood diamonds” or “conflict diamonds”, arguing that consumers purchasing diamond jewellery in New York, London and Paris were unknowingly financing African wars.
The pressure rapidly shifted from activism into mainstream politics and commerce.
In 2000, the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions targeting conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone. Around the same time, global NGOs, including Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada, released reports exposing how diamonds were being smuggled through neighbouring countries and integrated into legitimate trading systems, creating widespread industry panic.
For the first time in modern history, diamonds were no longer universally associated with love, prestige and permanence, but they were now linked to severed limbs, militia groups and war-torn zones
That moment would eventually give birth to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, established in 2003 as a United Nations-backed mechanism requiring participating countries to certify the origin of rough diamonds to prevent conflict stones from entering legitimate markets.
Mogae strongly supported the process, and he had every reason to. Unlike war economies elsewhere on the continent, Botswana’s diamonds had financed one of Africa’s most remarkable development stories. At independence in 1966, the country had fewer than 15 kilometres of paved roads, little infrastructure and widespread poverty. Diamonds transformed that reality. Revenues from Debswana fund schools, hospitals, roads, water systems and one of the continent’s most respected public sectors.
By the time Mogae assumed the presidency in 1998, Botswana was being celebrated internationally as proof that natural resources could be used responsibly.
Chaos ensued in 2006 when Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio starred in Blood Diamond, a film set against the Sierra Leone civil war. The film was commercially successful and critically acclaimed, but for Botswana and the wider diamond industry, it represented something deeper than cinema.
It embedded the blood diamond narrative directly into popular culture. Consumers in Western jewellery markets became increasingly uneasy about purchasing natural diamonds. Activists intensified scrutiny of the industry, while jewellers and mining companies scrambled to reassure buyers that legitimate stones were not funding conflict.
Behind the scenes, De Beers poured enormous resources into protecting the reputation of natural diamonds. Advertising campaigns were redesigned around ethics, development and traceability. Botswana became central to that messaging because it served as the strongest possible counterexample to the conflict-diamond narrative.
But while De Beers fought through branding campaigns, Mogae fought through diplomacy.
At international conferences, investment forums and before the United Nations itself, Mogae repeatedly argued that the world was dangerously oversimplifying Africa’s diamond story.
For him, the distinction between conflict diamonds and Botswana diamonds was a matter of keeping the economy alive.
Addressing international audiences during the height of the backlash, Mogae defended the role diamonds had played in transforming Botswana from one of the poorest countries on earth into a functioning middle-income state.
“We are able to provide free education to all, and near-universal health services. Even in the most remote parts of the country, no one is more than 10 miles from a health centre,” Mogae said during one widely cited address defending Botswana’s diamond industry.
At the time, Botswana was simultaneously battling the HIV/AIDS pandemic, one of the worst public health crises in the world. Diamond revenues were used to finance free antiretroviral treatment programmes, orphan care, and healthcare expansion across the country.
“And we are fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic,” “American consumers should look at the good we have done and understand the role that is played by diamonds,” Mogae said
That became Botswana’s central argument and core message that Diamonds are for development.
Mogae consistently warned against collapsing all African diamonds into one moral category. In several speeches and interviews, he argued that such simplification unfairly punished countries that had managed their resources responsibly while doing little to address the root causes of conflict elsewhere.
Research papers examining Botswana’s role during the Kimberley Process negotiations frequently point out that the country viewed the certification scheme not only as a governance mechanism, but as a reputational shield essential for economic stability. Botswana’s economy was heavily exposed to shifts in diamond demand. Any sustained collapse in consumer confidence carried serious fiscal consequences.
Mogae understood this perhaps better than anyone. Unlike larger economies with diversified industrial sectors, Botswana’s development model relied heavily on diamond mining. Diamond revenues accounted for the bulk of export earnings and government income. If global consumers abandoned natural stones, Botswana itself would face economic vulnerability.
That fear never fully disappeared.
Although the Kimberley Process succeeded in restoring a degree of confidence in natural diamonds, criticism of the industry persisted. Human rights groups later argued that the Kimberley Process definition of conflict diamonds was too narrow because it focused mainly on rebel-financed wars rather than broader labour abuses or state violence associated with mining.
Even so, Botswana remained one of the process’s strongest defenders.
Mogae in particular saw attacks on natural diamonds as increasingly disconnected from Botswana’s lived reality. For decades, the country had used diamond wealth to fund infrastructure, expand healthcare, provide education and maintain macroeconomic stability in a region often defined by volatility.
Few African leaders defended a commodity with the same conviction.
Today, years after Mogae left office and following his passing, the pressures confronting natural diamonds have evolved. The industry is no longer fighting only the ghosts of conflict diamonds. It is now confronting the rise of lab-grown stones, shifting consumer values and weakening global demand.
Botswana’s diamond stockpiles have risen sharply as prices remain under pressure from synthetic alternatives and slowing luxury demand. Economists increasingly warn that the slowdown may reflect structural changes rather than temporary market weakness.
Yet even within this new reality, Mogae’s arguments continue to resonate.
Because his defence of natural diamonds was never simply about mining companies or export earnings. It was about the legitimacy of Botswana’s development model itself.
At a time when parts of the world viewed African diamonds as symbols of violence, Mogae forced international audiences to confront another truth: that in Botswana, diamonds had financed classrooms instead of militias, hospitals instead of warlords and stability instead of collapse.