The annual Kimberley Process (KP) plenary will take place online and in person from November 8 to 12, with the digitization of certificates featuring at the top of the agenda.
The hybrid format enables the KP to continue its activities despite the restrictions resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s Finance Ministry, which is chairing the organization this year, said last week. Those eligible to visit Moscow under Covid-19 rules will be able to attend the physical event.
The meeting will focus on modernizing the KP export and import documents for rough diamonds. The ministry is currently finalizing a pilot program involving an information exchange with one of Russia’s key trading partners and plans to present its findings soon, it said.
The KP will also consider the applications of new countries wishing to join the group, having paused this due to travel difficulties. Since the easing of the situation, the KP has organized missions to Qatar and Kyrgyz Republic, and plans to do the same in Mozambique. The chairmanship and the committee that handles applications for participation in the KP will consider the reports emanating from those visits.
The Central African Republic (CAR) will also be on the agenda, with the KP planning to send an expert mission to the country to evaluate its compliance with rules aimed at preventing the export of conflict diamonds. In addition, the KP will select a new vice chair for 2022, with that country taking over as chair in 2023 from Botswana, which is slated to take the helm next year.
Meanwhile, Russia will work with KP partners to reach a consensus on the location of a future permanent KP secretariat to help streamline the organization’s work.
The KP canceled the 2020 plenary and intersessional meetings because of the pandemic. However, the 2021 intersessional took place in June, focusing on topics including digitization and human rights.
A recent global meeting of the Kimberley Process (KP) ended in controversy as Chinese delegates allegedly clashed with a representative of nonprofit organizations on the issue of conflict diamonds.
Attendees from China interrupted a closing statement by Shamiso Mtisi, the coordinator of the Civil Society Coalition, after he criticized the country’s approach to the matter, Mtisi claimed this week. Part of the Chinese delegation left the Zoom meeting in protest, according to another participant.
Speaking at last month’s intersessional, Mtisi singled out China, India and Angola for failing to make progress on the KP’s definition of conflict stones, a central point of debate within the KP.
Proposals to update the definition have been under discussion for many years. The current language limits the term to rough goods used by a rebel group to finance conflict but excludes violence by ruling authorities.
The topic was on the agenda at the intersessional meeting from June 21 to 25, which took place online for the first time because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, China, India, Angola and other countries argued that the KP was not a forum for discussing human rights because the organization was for “trade issues,” Mtisi reported. Some governments also pointed out that the KP lacked a mandate to make the change, he said. Under KP rules, a revamp of the wording can only happen when all participating governments give their approval.
Potential motives
The reasons for the trio’s reluctance are murky, leading to speculation about possible factors.
China has invested in diamond mining in Zimbabwe, a producing nation with a contentious history of violence at its deposits, Mtisi explained to Rapaport News. He also alleged that India — the world’s largest rough importer — benefited from cheap diamonds originating in countries affected by human-rights violations. It is not clear why Angola, a mining nation, would oppose an updated definition, given its history of conflict, he said.
The question over the definition of conflict diamonds “is a sensitive issue that needs consensus at the level of all participants and observers,” a spokesperson for Angola’s Ministry of Mineral Resources, Petroleum and Gas said last week. “It is the role of [KP] participants and observers to discuss and reach consensus [on] when the definition of conflict diamonds should be changed.”
Mtisi also alleged that authorities in Angola’s Lunda Norte diamond-mining province were “violently” suppressing community protests against the “destruction of villages and livelihoods.” The Angolan government denied this.
The governments of China and India did not respond to requests for comment by press time. The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC), India’s main trade body for the sector, said it had never opposed rewriting the key definition if it helped create a more sustainable industry free of human-rights violations.
Zoom protest
At one point of his virtual speech, Mtisi — deputy director of the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association, which leads the Civil Society Coalition — named the three countries that, he claimed, had been dragging their feet for years.
“[The China delegates] unmuted their mic and they started shouting,” he alleged in an interview with Rapaport News. “I didn’t hear exactly what they were protesting about, but they were protesting about my speech and the mention of China as having blocked any discussions on [conflict-diamond] definitions.”
Russia, as chair, offered the protesting governments the opportunity to respond at the end of the speech, said Edward Asscher, president of the World Diamond Council (WDC), which represents the trade at the KP. The US, Canada, the European Union and the WDC all stated their views.
“We pointed out the importance of freedom of speech, and [the] KP meetings should not be an exception,” Asscher stated.
While there was progress at the intersessional, there was still no widespread agreement, Asscher said. He acknowledged that some governments wanted to delay the discussions to a later time.
“Even though consensus was not reached, the discussions allowed participants — governments, civil society and industry — to express their positions,” the president continued. “It is only through discussion and hearing everyone’s concerns that we will make progress towards a wider definition.”
This is not the first incident of this type. At the welcome ceremony of the 2017 intersessional meeting, Chinese delegates reportedly shouted in protest against the involvement of Taiwan, which it did not consider to be a state eligible to take part in such events.
“All delegations at the KP meetings have both a right to be heard and a right to respond to any representations made, which is absolutely fundamental,” a spokesperson for Russia’s KP operation said this week. “Yes, sometimes listening to each other and trying to reach consensus is not an easy task and requires commitment and engagement from all parties around the very large and diverse KP table, and yes, sometimes people do get emotional. But we are confident that this cannot serve as an excuse for disarray.”
A blood diamond (also known as a conflict diamond) refers to a diamond that is mined in war zones and sold to finance armed conflict against governments. The term gained prominence in the late 1990s due to the civil wars in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and other parts of West Africa, where diamonds were used to fund brutal wars, exploitation, and human rights abuses.
Key Characteristics of Blood Diamonds:
Source of Conflict:
Blood diamonds are often mined in regions where armed groups take control of diamond-rich areas and use the sale of diamonds to finance their military campaigns, including the purchase of weapons and equipment.
These diamonds are typically mined under inhumane conditions, with workers, often including children, subjected to forced labour, violence, and abuse.
Impact on Local Communities:
The mining of blood diamonds often involves severe exploitation of workers. They may be forced to work in dangerous conditions without adequate safety measures, receive little or no compensation, and suffer physical violence.
In some cases, communities are displaced from their homes, and the profits from the diamonds are controlled by rebel groups, rather than benefiting local communities or contributing to economic development.
Global Response and the Kimberley Process:
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), launched in 2003, aims to prevent the trade of blood diamonds by requiring countries to certify that diamonds are sourced from conflict-free areas. The initiative was designed to create a global standard for diamond certification and ensure that diamonds sold on the international market are not financing conflict.
While the Kimberley Process has made progress in reducing the trade in blood diamonds, loopholes and weak enforcement still allow some conflict diamonds to enter the market.
Ethical Concerns:
The sale of blood diamonds raises significant ethical concerns in the jewellery industry. Consumers and advocacy groups have called for more transparency in the diamond supply chain to ensure that diamonds are ethically sourced.
Many jewellers and diamond retailers have pledged to sell only conflict-free diamonds, and some offer guarantees or certificates of origin to confirm that their diamonds were not sourced from conflict zones.
Impact on the Diamond Industry:
The term “blood diamond” has had a lasting impact on the reputation of the diamond industry, highlighting the need for ethical sourcing and responsible business practices.
Public awareness and consumer demand for ethically sourced diamonds have led to the rise of sustainable and conflict-free options, such as lab-grown diamonds and diamonds certified by organisations like the Responsible Jewellery Council.
Alternatives to Blood Diamonds:
Many consumers choose to buy ethically sourced diamonds or lab-grown diamonds as alternatives to blood diamonds. Fairmined and Fairtrade gold are also options for buyers seeking to ensure their jewellery is ethically produced.
Some jewellers also offer diamonds that have been certified as conflict-free through reputable certification schemes such as the Kimberley Process or RJC certification.
Cultural and Legal Implications:
The issue of blood diamonds has drawn attention to the human rights violations that can accompany the extraction of natural resources. The global trade in these diamonds has also led to legal challenges in various countries, with some governments and organisations advocating for stricter regulations and more robust certification systems.
The term “blood diamond” has become synonymous with the broader humanitarian crisis that can occur when natural resources are exploited for profit in conflict regions.
