The Kimberley Process, a United Nations’ backed supranational group that has fought conflict diamonds for nearly two decades, is stuck in a consensus paralysis that has led observers to question its relevance in keeping the global diamond industry clean.
Ahead of the week-long Kasane meeting, the United States, European Union (EU), Ukraine, and a leading non-governmental organisation had proposed including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the agenda, a move blocked by Moscow, Belarus and, reportedly, the Central African Republic. While the West has sanctioned Russian rough diamonds since that country invaded Ukraine in February, the stones are still flowing through the global diamond industry through Russo-neutral cutting and polishing centres such as India and China.
In Kasane, Mmegi is informed that Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Australia and Japan joined those pushing for action on Russia, the world’s biggest rough diamond producer, while Moscow and its allies were joined by another key player, China.
A debate on Russia at the Kimberley Process, known commonly as the KP, could have resulted in a more global censure of Russian stones, cutting off a key revenue flow for Moscow.
The major stumbling block for those who wanted action on Russia is the Kimberley Process’ requirement that all decisions secure absolute consensus, a founding tenet of the organisation that means a veto by any member effectively kills decisions.
Botswana, as chair of the KP for 2022, found itself at the centre of heated debate last Monday as the meeting began, with Diamond Hub coordinator, Jacob Thamage, who chaired the Kasane proceedings, battling to secure acceptable compromise between members.
Civic organisations, who are members of the KP, but importantly, do not vote on decisions, walked away disgusted with the proceedings in Kasane and the failure to take meaningful action against Russia.
“A small group of participants have blocked all others from discussing the elephants in the room,” Michel Yoboue, coordinator of the Kimberley Process Civil Society told the Kasane meeting’s closing session.
“These elephants are not only whether the KP can keep certifying Russian diamonds as conflict-free, but also more generally how this process and its certification scheme can be made fit for purpose in breaking the link between diamonds and violent conflict.”
He added: “We are leaving this meeting with big questions on which purposes this body still serves.
“It has a mandate to break the link between rough diamonds and armed conflict but cannot even engage in a discussion on whether and how it is doing that.”
The lobby group, which has perennially advocated for reform within the KP, had harsh words for the global conflict diamond group.
“It is a façade to pretend to the outside world as if the KP has matters under control and is addressing them.
“But the truth is that it doesn’t.
“The KP has no control. The ship is rudderless, or actually sinking.
“As long as the KP is not able to address its demons, it would be a waste of our precious time and resources to invest in a demanding reform process that would have no chance of success.”
One compromise that the KP did agree on in Kasane, was to kickstart work on the terms of reference for the reform agenda. Under its founding rules, the KP operates on a three-year review cycle, which has been in place since 2006.
However, as critics have noted, no meaningful reform has taken place over the years due to the consensus rule. This, in turn has impacted the critical issue of expanding the definition of conflict diamonds, which is currently restricted to mean rough diamonds used by rebels to finance wars against legitimate governments”.
That definition does not cover Russia’s actions in the Ukraine. Neither does it cover the Zimbabwean government’s alleged torture of citizens on the Marange diamond fields.
Relaxing or amending the consensus rule and addressing the definition of conflict diamonds are expected to top the reform agenda. However, in a cruel irony for civic groups, amending the consensus rule requires consensus, which could ultimately spell the failure of that endeavour.
The consensus rule was not always the stumbling block for the KP, Thamage tells Mmegi.
“In the beginning, when the founding members negotiated the KP, the consensus rule was put in place to protect the smaller countries,” he says.
“The smaller members were concerned that when there’s debate or a vote, the richer members could use their strength to ‘buy” the vote.
“The idea was to manage that fear and in a way, it helps so that where there’s no consensus, other members do not ride over the smaller members.
“It is a necessary evil.”
From the original 16 countries who met in Kimberley, South Africa in 2000, the consensus rule would have appeared either benign, useful or necessary. However the KP has since grown to 85 member states and critics say the consensus rule means the organisation’s twice-yearly meetings could fail to agree on matters as trivial as whether to use blue or black ink pens.
Thamage, who convened unplanned, separate bilateral meetings with the EU and its allies as well as Russia in searching for middle ground last Monday in Kasane, acknowledges the consensus paralysis.
“It can be a nightmare because it hamstrings the process,” he tells Mmegi.
“You may have two or so refusing on the consensus.
“It’s one person but it only takes one person and consistently there are countries that block the consensus.
“However, there is growing agreement within the KP that these reforms are required, but the question is to what extent.”
The road to agreement on the reforms is a rocky one. The chairs of the KP’s six working groups are due to work on the terms of reference for the reforms and table these before the organisation’s plenary due for Gaborone in November. However, even agreeing on these will be quite a task. Russia and China are the chair and vice of the influential working group called the Committee on Rules and Procedures, which is responsible for the development of rules and procedures within the KP.
Members of that group include the A-Z of the KP, being states such as Angola, Belarus, Botswana, Canada, European Union, India, Israel, South Africa, Switzerland, USA and Zimbabwe.
Thamage says for the broader KP, agreeing on the reforms to be taken is an uphill task.
“Some countries may feel that they are being targetted such as Zimbabwe on Marange.
“Even in Botswana, we should be cautious on the reforms because today it’s someone else and tomorrow it’s us on whatever issue.”
Other experts say expanding the definition of conflict diamonds will be highly difficult as it involves individual member states weighing their own self-interests against whatever definition is proposed. For instance, Arab member states of the KP are believed to be in favour of a definition that would censure diamonds coming out of Israel, for that country’s misdeeds against Palestinians.
Additionally, the KP’s definition of conflict diamonds comes directly from the United Nation’s General Assembly resolution, upon which the KP is backed. It is currently unclear whether changing the definition would require the KP to go back to the General Assembly and request a new resolution.
For observers such as the Kimberley Process Civil Society, the debate on the terms of reference and the planned reform agenda, is a smokescreen over the KP’s immediate challenges.
“We are very concerned that diving into a review and reform cycle, without being able to discuss why reform is so pressing or why the previous reform cycle was such a failure, is a distraction,” Yoboue told the Kasane meeting.
“It would be an effort doomed to fail and only serve to divert attention away from the KP’s inability to genuinely break the link between diamonds and violent conflict.”
The plenary scheduled for Gaborone in November appears set for yet another showdown in the KP.
