The main news from the recent Kimberley Process (KP) intersessional meeting related to the organization’s definition of conflict diamonds. The African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA), which represents 15 countries, proposed a revised text extending this scope. Every KP member will have to approve it before it can go into effect.
The problem has been well-documented. The KP currently defines “conflict diamonds” as “rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance armed conflicts aimed at undermining legitimate governments.” This, by and large, means stones that fund violence by ruling authorities are allowed into the supply chain.
It is the reason Zimbabwe was only briefly suspended from the KP despite reports of human-rights violations at the Marange diamond fields. It has also made it highly unlikely that the group will act against Russia over its war in Ukraine.
Beyond rebels
The actual text of the proposed definition is still a secret. The ADPA and the World Diamond Council (WDC) — which represents the industry at the KP — both provided only a hint at the wording, saying the African group’s proposal had “moved us from the existing reference to rebel movements, with an understanding to include armed groups or individuals and entities under the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions.”
The long-awaited change would require ratification from all KP members at the annual plenary meeting in November. Any proposal would need to be acceptable to each participating nation. The efforts are therefore focused on an evolutionary change that will signal some progress, rather than a solution to every problem.
Instead of trying to outlaw specific countries — which would not fly under the current rules — the ADPA is aiming for a definition that would sideline diamonds that fund violence by criminal gangs and the like, even if they are not trying to overthrow a government. The current reference to “rebel movements” does not allow for this.
“If they’re armed and they act in a way to use diamonds to continue their nefarious activities, they will be in the definition, even if they are not fighting the government,” said a source with knowledge of the KP’s process.
Not a defining moment
This does not move the KP forward in terms of targeting diamonds from countries involved in controversial hostilities, such as Russia and Zimbabwe. The KP’s core document, which outlines its basic principles, emphasizes respect for state sovereignty. This means any country can veto a change. It is also expressed in the fact that the watchdog does not view the actions of governments and their contractors as being under its remit. The Russian state-controlled Wagner Group — which operates in the Central African Republic (CAR) — is, therefore, a tricky target.
The potential reference to UNSC sanctions would not have much practical impact, as they already apply to UN members, another market observer pointed out.
Broad interests
The challenges originate from the original purpose of the KP. The countries that founded the body in 2003 did so in response to civil war in countries including Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola. That’s why the definition of conflict diamonds focused on rebel groups. But, combined with the principle of sovereignty, it has left the KP powerless when faced with other types of conflict.
Practically any country involved in active conflict has an interest in maintaining that status quo. Russia, the world’s largest rough producer by value and volume, has been at war in Ukraine since February 2022. Israel is in an ongoing battle with Hamas in Gaza. India was on the brink of armed confrontation with Pakistan before their ceasefire earlier this month. Adjusting the approach to state sovereignty could mean litigating all these conflicts.
The diversity of interests is among the reasons why the WDC emphasized compromise in its reaction to the intersessional meeting, which took place in Dubai from May 12 to 16.
“At this point, a veto or a push for perfection is not just a procedural block,” WDC president Feriel Zerouki wrote on LinkedIn following the meeting, urging members to compromise and support the proposal. “It is a choice to keep a definition that only covers rebel movements, ignoring everything we have learned since.”
Changing the definition has been on the table for years. Countries have consistently vetoed it. Sometimes this is because the relevant government representative needs to get approval from a higher authority to give approval.
ADPA itself was going to propose a new text in 2019, according to a WDC press release from that year’s intersessional. Rapaport News understands this never materialized.
Just for show?
Reaction to the meeting was understandably skeptical, given the limited scope of any new definition. “It’s to accommodate the hashtag,” said a member of the African diamond mining industry.
The fundamental difficulty with the KP is not disappearing soon. But in this case, the aim appears to be to show that some change is possible, even if it’s small.
Image: Rough diamonds. (Shutterstock)
