The conflict came to a head this spring. Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi demanded that state-owned Okavango Diamond Company be allowed to sell 50% of the local production independently, bypassing De Beers’ London sorting room. De Beers countered with an offer of 30%.
The 2023 negotiations between President Mokgweetsi Masisi and De Beers were uncommonly public and surprisingly aggressive. President Masisi threatened to walk away from the deal entirely unless Botswana received a larger slice of the pie. The conflict came to a head this spring
However, analysts point out that De Beers pays royalties and taxes that are competitive, but perhaps not maximized for the producer's benefit. As the global diamond market fluctuates and synthetic (lab-grown) diamonds threaten natural prices, Botswana is seeking to secure a higher "floor" price or a larger volume allocation to sell independently. By relying heavily on De Beers' marketing machinery, Botswana arguably remains a tenant in its own house, renting out its soil rather than truly owning the product. As the global diamond market fluctuates and synthetic
What do you think? Should resource-rich nations control their own diamond destiny? Join the conversation in the comments below. Under the current deal
Another friction point is the financial structure of the agreement. Under the current deal, Botswana sells 75% of Debswana’s output to the Okavango Diamond Company (a state-owned entity), while De Beers takes the remaining 25%.
On the other hand, some arguments suggest that Botswana is not getting a raw deal:
The diamond industry has also had a significant impact on the people of Botswana. The industry has created jobs and generated revenue, but it has also been criticized for its treatment of workers and its impact on local communities.