Understanding has been somewhat restored amongst the Kimberley Process (KP) diamond certification scheme family members who were engaged in an internecine battle for some time on whether Zimbabwe should be allowed to export its diamonds from the controversial Marange resource.
Much ink was spilled and hair raising arguments were made over the past year on the credibility of the Zimbabwean diamonds and KP.
KP, a rough diamond certification scheme, which was established in 2003 and brings together governments, industry and civil society, in a bid to eradicate the trade in conflict diamonds, came under heavy criticism for failing to fluff up a ‘delinquent’ child (Zimbabwe) that dragged the name of the scheme through the bayou.
Ian Smillie, one of the architects of KP even resigned last year from the campaign group, Partnership Africa-Canada (PAC) citing what he called an “utterly low level of efficiency” of the trade body in some of the diamond-mining countries.
One of the diamond mining countries he inferred to was Zimbabwe, where political and military elites were accused by rights groups of using violence to take advantage of the country's diamond wealth.
The Zimbabwean military was said to have embarked on an orgy of violence on artisanal miners and villagers from the surrounding areas who descended on the Marange diamond fields in a desperate search for gems after the government cancelled African Consolidated Resources’ mining claims in 2006.
Zimbabwe went on to allocate 2200 hectare concessions to Mbada Diamonds and Canadile Miners in 2009 to exploit the Marange resource in joint venture (JV) with the state mining company, Zimbabwe Mining Development Company (ZMDC).
Rights groups alleged that the Zimbabwean political and military elites were also using their links to the two companies to line their pockets.
They claimed that the manner in which Mbada and Canadile were given mining licenses was scandalous as it was done with little regard for legal process against a background of intimidation.
It is for such reasons, inter-alia that the campaign groups and most European countries vigorously campaigned for KP to suspend trading of diamonds emanating from Marange.
Despite this avalanche of pressure, a meeting held in Namibia late last year saw KP passing a resolution not to suspend Zimbabwe, but ordered the country to follow a set of 'guidelines' in an attempt to bring it back in line with international standards by mid 2010.
South Africa’s Abbey Chikane was tasked to see if the country was adhering to the guidelines, and after two separate visits he recommended that the country be allowed to export its diamonds saying it had met the minimum requirements spelt out by the trade body.
However, when KP met in Tel Aviv, Israel last June, the trade body failed to reach a consensus on whether Zimbabwe should be allowed to start trading its gems.
"There (were) no winners with this result. But by maintaining a ban on exports in the absence of significant improvements in Marange, the Kimberley Process has taken an important step towards restoring its battered credibility,” said Global Witness’ Elly Harrowell in a statement just after the Tel Aviv meeting declared the impasse.
So with the stalemate, it was reported that KP would try and resolve the issue in St Petersburg where a World Diamond Congress was convened recently.
Indeed, a consensus was finally met, which allowed Zimbabwe to start exporting a limited number of diamonds produced since May 28 in two sites at the Marange resource.
Campaign groups Global Witness and PAC said in a statement that the “last-minute deal” could pave the way for reinforced oversight of diamond production in Zimbabwe.
“Zimbabwe will be able to export one more batch of diamonds at the start of September, but any exports thereafter will be contingent on measurable improvements in the diamond fields,” said Global Witness.
So, if KP had allowed Zimbabwe to start trading all the diamonds it stockpiled without setting tight guidelines, it would have been a case of “sweating for nothing” for the campaign groups.
In a way it was a partial victory for them, but it had been quite clear, as some argued before that Zimbabwe would not be suspended on the basis that some campaign groups had labeled its gems “blood diamonds”.
It was mischievous on their part and it was not even surprising to read media reports that De Beers executive director Jonathan Oppenheimer had said although Zimbabwe's diamond mining remained a concern it was not in the league of the yester years of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola.
"Right now in Zimbabwe, where we can all agree that the diamond mining that is taking place is a concern, there is no overt conflict and we have a legitimate government," Oppenheimer said recently at the CNN Global Forum.
"And so the Kimberley Process itself is in a very difficult position. It feels like it needs to act. The community wants it to act. We've seen a dialogue within the Kimberley Process system that is looking at ways to act."
Blood diamonds was the wrong term for Zimbabwe’s gems, yes they were and they are still disquieting issues regarding the manner in which the gems are being mined.
Now that Harare has received a lifeline, it remains to be seen how it will conduct itself and this statement by Global Witness, though it is a bit exaggerated, says it all: “The ball is now in Zimbabwe's court to make good on its promises and act to end one of the most egregious cases of diamond-related violence for many years.”
Mathew Nyaungwa, Rough&Polished, from Namibia
