In the last few days, Nelson Mandela has come under intense criticism for his recent decision to act as poster boy for the diamond industry. In anticipation of negative publicity for the upcoming film, “Blood Diamond,” the De Beers company has recruited the South African leader to defend the contemporary diamond industry.

According to sources, Mandela will go on record saying that the film depicts events that are no longer part of modern day African life. He will also argue that “blood diamonds” (also known as “conflict diamonds” or “war diamonds”) are no longer in circulation. (For those that don’t know, a blood diamond is a diamond mined in a war zone and sold in order to finance an insurgent or invading army’s war efforts.) Immediately after this information was released, conservative pundits began to attack the leader by calling him a “sell out” and a crook. I must admit that, immediately after hearing the news, I too was skeptical of Mandela’s actions and intentions.

After hearing more information, however, the situation seems more complicated than it initially appears. First, Mandela is not taking any money for his new campaign efforts. This is a point that has been ignored by his recent critics who suggest that financial gain is his primary motivator. Rather, it appears that Mandela genuinely believes that defending the diamond trade is a principled and productive move for African people, who benefit from the industry. While some will likely argue that there’s an under-the-table deal that is prompting his recent decision, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that President Mandela has felt this way for some time. As far back as the late 1990s, Mandela and other African leaders have warned against wholesale diamond boycotts because of their positive effects on African economies. Of course, real cynics will say that this only means that he’s been in their pocket for a long time. For the time being, however, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In a sense, Mandela is correct. The diamond trade does provide a level of economic stability that is requisite for African development. Also, the diamond industry does not rely on blood diamonds to the same extent that it did a decade ago. Still, the horrors of the diamond trade are far from the distant past. As recently as 2002, hundreds of people in Sierra Leone lost limbs and lives in order to extend Taylor’s control of the diamond trade. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, diamonds funded both sides of a bloody civil war. These are just a few examples of the extensive role that diamonds play in contemporary politics. Also, nearly 50% of the world’s diamonds are cut and polished India by child laborers who work under conditions comparable to slavery.

In the final analysis, I do not believe that Mandela is acting out of greed or selfishness. Rather, I think that he is willfully ignoring critical issues in order to further his larger goal of African self-governance. Regardless of his intentions, Mandela’s partnership with one of the most evil organizations in the history of the world will have a vicious effect on people throughout the globe. In order to realize this goal in an ethically upright manner, Mandela’s support of De Beers must be contingent upon the development of a clear and immediate plan to eliminate the exploitation and abuse of human beings through conflict diamonds.