That sham was laid bare when diamonds from Zimbabwe, where government forces are accused of killing 200 people, were approved for export by the KP despite protests from leading human rights groups and many in the jewellery business. Instead of an outright ban, diamonds from the Marange area of Zimbabwe were put under supervision by a KP monitoring team to ensure they complied with technical/administrative requirements of the KP regulations -- a faà §ade to create the illusion of KP action in response to alleged human rights violations by the Zimbabwean military for which the KP has absolutely no mandate.
The Zimbabwe affair exposed a serious fault in the architecture of the Kimberley Process. The scheme, designed by the diamond industry which "provided the blueprint for the certification scheme" and rubber-stamped by the UN, has a built in by-pass which allows blood diamonds that fund human rights violations by government forces to evade scrutiny. Attempts to close the loophole were resisted by some member countries fearing any broadening of the scope of the regulations could expose their diamond industry to sanctions.
Israel , the biggest beneficiary in dollar terms of the global diamond industry and the only member of the Kimberley Process that stands accused of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity by the UN Human Rights Council has most to lose if diamonds that fund human rights violations by governments are banned. Russia and China, countries with less than exemplary human rights records, also objected to the proposals.
The US chair of the KP, Gillian Milovanovic twisted and turned every lever in an attempt to come up with a "conflict diamond" definition that would garner support, but her efforts were doomed. Even her tightly restricted proposal: "rough diamonds used to finance armed conflict or other situations relating to violence affecting diamond-mining areas" couldn't persuade the naysayers. African countries saw through the double-standard which targeted their diamonds while diamonds funding the Israeli regime which has a far worse human rights record would continue to be given a pass.
Considering that Israel doesn't have any diamond mines some might have expected Israel to support a "conflict diamond" definition restricted to rough diamonds. But as well as being a big importer of rough diamonds Israel re-exports large quantities ($4.4 billion in 2011) of rough diamonds to Israeli companies in India and China where cheap labour makes the cutting and polishing of smaller diamonds a profitable enterprise.
In the wake of the Plenary it didn't take long for accusation to surface over the KP's failure to reform. The World Diamond Council slated the US chair Ms. Milovanovic , and the US State Department, accusing them of using "divide and rule" tactics and trying to introduce a two-tier diamond market.
The KP Civil Society Coalition (CSC) led by Partnership African Canada, huffed and puffed prior to the Plenary but failed to blow the house down. The CSC continues to prop-up the system, ignoring calls from members of civil society for them to follow the example of Global Witness and withdraw from the KP if it failed to ban the trade in all blood diamonds.
Quoted in The Independent, the head of the British Jewellers Association (BJA), Simon Rainer, attempted to claim the high moral ground. As he explained why the BJA tells their members "don't touch Zimbabwe's diamonds" he asked : "what if a democratically elected government is using diamond wealth to suppress indigenous populations?" His concern for indigenous populations smacks of hypocrisy. Where was the BJA's concern for the plight of indigenous populations two weeks previously as Israel's diamond-funded military mercilessly rained death, destruction and terror down on the defenceless, besieged civilian residents of Gaza?
Are BJA members not selling diamonds from Israel that are funding the Israeli war machine responsible for the death and destructions in Gaza? The BJA would rather sweep those uncomfortable facts under the carpet and keep them hidden from public scrutiny.
So, for this Christmas at least, most diamond-purchasers will remain blissfully unaware of the human rights violations being funded by diamonds that are labelled conflict-free even though a "great amount" of them are generating revenue used to fund the Israeli military regime which stands accused of war crimes, even before its latest pre-election murderous assault on Gaza - the largest refugee camp in the world. How many more murdered children will be laid to rest in the cold sands of Gaza before jewellers worldwide end the trade in Israeli blood diamonds?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
