In February, the International Grown Diamond Association (IGDA) has lived to be exactly one year old. However, there is no much fanfare audible - this modest jubilee has been slipped over by the industry media, regrettably. Because the birth of the IGDA has undoubtedly opened a new chapter in the history of the traditional diamond market. Maybe - the last chapter.
It is highly unlikely that today we can have doubts about the objectives set by this organization. The IGDA’s website in its “Education” section tells the visitor - with disarming candor of an old soldier - that natural diamonds (as opposed to synthetic) mean destroyed environment, child and slave labor, blood diamonds, etc. Ah, you say the Kimberley Process? Please be so kind to view this link: “The Kimberley Process is a 'perfect cover story' for blood diamonds”...
So, it can be said that the IGDA’s marketing experts have set themselves a well-defined task aimed at destroying the positive informational shell surrounding natural diamonds. We better be under no illusions - it is not about dividing the "spheres of influence” and not about creating any special market niche for synthetic diamonds, but it is about imparting a negative consumption value to natural diamonds. The consumer must feel aversion to natural diamonds and prefer synthetics instead. This is it - nothing personal, just business.
Almost simultaneously with the IGDA creation, there occurred a mutiny in the ranks of the traditional diamond industry. The Civil Society Coalition (CSC) headed by Partnership Africa Canada decided to boycott the Kimberley Process because of its inefficiency, that is its inability to deal with conflict diamonds, child and slave labor, environmental destruction, etc. Wow, what an amusing coincidence!
This synced execution of extravaganza has unwittingly made the writer of this article turn his thoughts back to the already distant 2005, when a small real-life experiment was carried out over the eloquent representatives of the civil society in the diamond industry with the sole purpose of “education.”
In that year, Russia chaired the Kimberley Process and Moscow was eagerly visited by the representatives of Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada. The awareness level of these non-governmental “co-founding fathers” of the Kimberley Process regarding the most scrupulous aspects of the diamond business caused genuine admiration, because it was obviously not a product of analysis based on open sources or investigative journalism. And since preventive public and corporate agencies, while providing information to human rights activists, always expect reciprocity, it was extremely interesting to determine the footing of this reciprocity.
In May 2005, during our meeting with the staff of Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada we discussed the problem of rough diamond trafficking from several European countries to Armenia and further to the unrecognized "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic," where there were established diamond cutting factories. The facts of gross violation of the Kimberley Process spirit and letter were evident: rough diamonds were quite deliberately supplied to the zone of armed conflict and were involved in commercial operations, the proceeds from which were used by one of the conflicting parties.
The representatives of Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada displayed undeniable interest towards the subject under discussion (hitherto completely unknown to them). And in November 2005, a report was published under the title “Making it Work: Why the Kimberley Process Must Do More to Stop Conflict Diamonds,” where the data on the supply of rough diamonds into the zone of the Karabakh armed conflict were confirmed in the chapter, “Weaknesses in the internal controls of diamond cutting and polishing centres. Armenia.” However, the report on Armenia was fundamentally different from the African studies of Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada, as it was entirely based on open sources and had absolutely no consequences.
It was clear that the Armenian issues (unlike those African) were of no interest to the presumed influential informal partner of these human rights organizations. It remains only to add that Armenia is a consumer and not a producer of rough diamonds. And the assumption that the Kimberley Process, and especially its members represented by non-governmental organizations, were used as a tool of market regulation, can be considered as proven.
Of course, I am far from thinking that such organizations like Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada are someone's pocket NGOs created and funded purposefully for specific tasks. This process is much more flexible and versatile. But the manipulation of such organizations is possible, without any doubt.
In the meantime, it should be noted that the entire body of negative information about natural diamonds used today by the IGDA for direct promotion of synthetics is created by non-governmental organizations, which are currently functioning (or functioned in the past) within the Kimberley Process. Any expansion of the definition of "conflict diamonds," any accusation against the diamond industry of its inability to cope with humanitarian, environmental or anti-terrorism issues will be used for exactly the same purpose. Immediately and efficiently.
Sergey Goryainov, Rough&Polished
