Diamond producers have set new measures to stem the trade in “conflict diamonds” blamed for fuelling war and rights abuses in Africa. But Bethan Brookes, ActionAid’s delegate at a recent Kimberley Process conference in South Africa, says the steps fail to go far enough to help millions caught up in civil war and poverty.
Like all casino complexes, Sun City in South Africa exists in a strange half-world where the lights are permanently dimmed and shadowy figures spend their time pumping slot machines. It is a fitting place to discuss what has traditionally been one of the world’s murkiest and most secretive of industries -- the global diamond trade.
On 28 October, rubbing shoulders with the gamblers, were 300 diamond traders, government negotiators and representatives of campaigning organisations. They were meeting to discuss the challenge of so-called conflict diamonds – the rough diamonds that fund civil wars and human rights abuses in Africa.
The figures are stark. It is estimated that as a result of diamond-fuelled civil wars, over half a million people have been killed or mutilated in Sierra Leone, at least three million killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo and 1.5 million people – nearly half the population – made homeless in Liberia.
In January 2003, the Kimberley Process, an international certification system, was introduced to stop this evil trade. Diamond shipments would be made in tamper-proof containers accompanied by certificates of origin. Participating countries also agreed they would trade diamonds only with other participants.
While this U.N.-brokered agreement has been a huge leap forward, the scheme lacks teeth. The Kimberley Process needs a compulsory, impartial monitoring system of all members. It was this issue that the Sun City meeting was supposed to resolve.
Immediately before the conference, the signs were good. The big hitters -- the European Union, the United States, Russia, Israel, Canada and the industry trade body itself, the World Diamond Council -- all came on board. They agreed to propose a strong, impartial system of regular monitoring for all member countries.
But by the third day of the meeting that proposal had been watered down. Compulsion had been kicked off the negotiating table. Countries could now choose whether to be monitored or not.
While a voluntary code may be a first step in the right direction, ultimately, no regulatory trade or environmental agreement is credible without a mandatory monitoring system. The Kimberley Process is no exception.
This is a loophole through which conflict diamonds can slip, and that would be a tragedy for the victims of civil wars in Africa and for African governments themselves. They should be using the income from diamond production to help develop their countries.
In Sun City, they keep the lights low because if you don’t know whether it’s night or day you gamble more and you lose more.
And that is the danger with a voluntary agreement. By failing to rise to the challenge and adopt a strong monitoring framework, the Kimberley Process is potentially gambling with millions of poor people’s lives.
Views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not of Reuters.
