The new Kimberley Process (KP) chairperson Gillian Milovanovic has proposed a new definition of “conflict diamonds”.
She told a World Diamond Council (WDC) meeting held recently in Vicenza, Italy that the new definition should refer to rough diamonds used to finance armed conflict or other situations relating to violence affecting diamond mining areas.
Milovanovic said KP should modernise its function while maintaining focus on its mandate to monitor the rough distribution system.
"We cannot be everything to everyone and our role is to cover the rough distribution process," she said.
"The term conflict diamonds must accurately reflect today’s concerns as it did in 2002 when the Kimberley Process was being formed."
Human rights
Although the proposed definition excluded wording referring to human rights abuses, the KP chair was quoted by Rapaport News as saying that that the definition implied human rights violations, which were a great concern to the process.
WDC also said in a statement that members had expressed support for discussions to widen the conflict diamonds definition in the Core Documents of the KP, beyond the current definition which limits its scope to diamonds that finance civil conflict.
"The World Diamond Council was not established to protect the narrow interests of the diamond and jewelry industries in the evolving campaign against conflict diamonds, although it clearly was in our interest that conflict diamonds be eliminated from the face of the earth," said WDC president Eli Izhakoff.
"The WDC was established to articulate our refusal to allow the product, to which we have dedicated our careers, be used as an agent of suffering and oppression. Under no circumstances should the diamond be associated with collective violence against communities."
South Africa's Minister of Mineral Resources Susan Shabangu also said that the geopolitical environment within which diamonds were traded was constantly changing.
She said institutions that oversee the legitimacy of the diamond trade should constantly sharpen the efficacy of their tool to be swiftly responsive to such changes in order to remain current and relevant.
"The challenge to the sustainability of this industry is no longer limited to stemming the trade of conflict diamonds, but today, it also means ensuring that we support the fledgling democracies, and emergent economies previously ravaged by conflict fueled by the illicit trade of this commodity," Shabangu said.
Not all agree
Although, the press statements that came from Vicenza appeared to show a general consensus on the need to rewrite the definition of “conflict diamonds”, it seems not all and sundry were in agreement.
One of the WDC members, Kennedy Hamutenya, who is also Namibia’s diamond commissioner said in a speech during the WDC meeting that there was need to debate over the proposed changes.
“You have to convince us that this is the way we have to go. You cannot force us to agree to these things. No, it’s not going to happen, you have to convince us from the point of reason,” he said.
“I think that one of the challenges we have in KP is the abuse of the process itself. When people don’t use the procedures and processes at their best and make up new rules everyday to fit one particular country, it leaves [room for] abuse.”
Reports from India also suggested that the local gems and jewellery industry was set to oppose the proposal to change the definition of “conflict diamonds”.
"The US is trying to control the KP system. They (US leaders) have got the keys in their hands to bring the African countries like Zimbabwe under their control by implementing such vicious laws through KP. Indian industry will oppose it tooth and nail," an unnamed senior functionary of Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) was quoted by The Times of India as saying.
He said the proposal to change the conflict diamond definition would have a far reaching effect on the diamond producing and trading countries across the world.
“We have to do this with extreme care, because if we try and expand it carelessly, we run the risk of weakening its foundations and undermining the viability of the structure itself," the GJEPC official said.
Another unnamed DTC sightholder was also quoted as saying that if the new definition for “conflict diamond” was accepted then trading centres like Antwerp, India, and Dubai would face a lot of problems, as even a small incident of violence over gems would be enough to declare it conflict gems.
Vicious cycle
One cannot help it but conclude that this new definition was thrown around with Zimbabwe in mind.
KP members had been at loggerheads for the past three or so years on whether Zimbabwe’s diamonds were fit to be classified under “conflict” diamonds or not.
Although there were reports of human rights abuses in Marange, it was felt that keeping a trade embargo on Marange on the basis that they were “blood” diamonds was just delusional and political.
KP was forced to lift the ban last year amid protest from countries such as the U.S, as it could not justify continued existence of the embargo.
The issue of human rights abuses in diamond mining areas did not warrant any country’s suspension.
So, it is not shocking that the new definition now seeks to include this issue of human rights, which would make it easy to suspend Zimbabwe diamonds from trading.
There is no doubt that the KP intercessional meeting scheduled to take place in Washington on June 4 will be full of fireworks as member countries and civic bodies tackle this proposal.
Even though Milovanovic said that no decision would be made in Washington, there is no doubt that there will be another stalemate, as some members have already taken positions.
Just as the issue of Zimbabwe left KP heavily divided, one does not need to be a soothsayer to conclude that more cracks will emerge in the coming months, as the trade body discusses this proposed change.
Mathew Nyaungwa, Editor in Chief of the African Bureau, Rough&Polished
