Efforts to End Conflict Diamond Trade Deteriorating

Ben Richardson

Professor Craig

World Politics

12 December 2011

Efforts to End Conflict Diamond Trade Deteriorating

International NGO Global Witness has just removed itself from the campaign to end the trade of conflict diamonds. Global Witness, which was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for its work curtailing the conflict diamond trade, was one of the biggest supporters of the efforts of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, a multinational organization that seeks to assure buyers of diamonds that they are not contributing to civil war or crimes against humanity. Global Witness accused the Kimberley Process of failing to “evolve and address the clear links between diamonds, violence and tyranny” (“Why We Are Leaving the Kimberley Process”).

The condemnation of such a critical member of the peace effort is casting worldwide doubt upon the legitimacy of the Kimberley Process and its progress. Global Witness cut ties with the Kimberley Process in response to a change in their policy toward the Zimbabwe diamond trade. The Kimberley Process lifted its ban on diamonds from Zimbabwe’s Marange fields about a month ago, and Zimbabwean diamond vendors have already begun selling the estimated two million carats of diamonds they mined under the ban. Diamond related violence near the Marange fields is estimated to have resulted in hundreds of deaths over the years (Gayle).

The Kimberley Process includes among its members the most powerful and influential countries in the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. So how can such an organization be so ineffective? For one thing African non-governmental organizations have been calling for African diamond-producing nations to withdraw their support from the Kimberley Process. The chairman of the African Diamond Council, Andre Action Diakike Jackson, has accused the Kimberley Process of “being ‘ineffectual’ and allowing [Zimbabwe’s] leaders to get away with gross human rights violations in pursuit of diamond riches,” basically of failing to accomplish their main goal in diamond certification (Chimunhu).

The problem that people like Jackson see is that in countries like Zimbabwe, the government is one of the major players in the conflict diamond trade. With the government backing them, Zimbabwean diamond smugglers have been able to hide conflict diamonds within shipments of legally-mined diamonds, undermining the certification process and potentially bringing Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe $1.7 billion per year. These could be the funds Mugabe needs to prolong his one-party rule. (Perry).

The problem facing the Kimberley Process is that the illegal diamond trade is supporting a handful of dictators like Mugabe, who, in turn, support the illegal diamond trade. It’s a vicious cycle, the byproducts of which are civilian deaths and crimes against humanity. Until African governments no longer back conflict diamonds or receive the profits thereof, it will be impossible for consumers to know for sure whether or not they are purchasing conflict diamonds. The Kimberley Process needs to separate the governments from the trade. Multinational institutions like the Kimberley Process can be effective, they have in the past.

Chimunhu, John. “Diamond boss blasts KP.” ZimEye 5 Aug. 2010. Web 11 Dec. 2011.

Gayle, Damien. “China and Mugabe set to benefit from Zimbabwe’s ‘blood diamonds’: Gems back on sale after international ban lifted.” Mail Online 7 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.

Perry, Alex. “Why Zimbabwe’s New Diamonds Imperil Global Trade.” Time 5 Dec. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.

“Why We Are Leaving the Kimberley Process - A Message From Global Witness Founding Director Chairman Gooch.” Global Witness 5 Dec. 2011. Web 11 Dec. 2011.