Global Witness Failed – KP and the Public

It takes a lot to leave an important organization that you helped to found and that is, in some ways, your brainchild. A deep disappointment and sometimes a feeling that matters are out of your hand are usually part of the departure process. All of these factors must have played a part when, last Monday, NGO Global Witness announced that it was washing its hands of the Kimberley Process, nearly nine years after the scheme was launched.

In a public statement, the NGO said KP's "refusal to evolve and address the clear links between diamonds, violence and tyranny has rendered it increasingly outdated."

Over the past couple of years, the NGO has been increasingly critical of the KP, mainly over the issue of exports of diamonds from the Marange fields in Zimbabwe. It was enough to follow a list of the organization’s press release headlines to understand in what direction the wind was blowing.

NGOs, by nature, are a pain in the side of governments and business. They are there to point out where wrongdoings are taking place to those in power, and to apply pressure to correct them. It's often a Sisyphean job, yet one that societies very much need.

But, in the past year, the criticism went both ways and Global Witness found itself facing some unpleasant allegations. The main issues included a claim (that Global Witness has denied) that they asked to receive a percent of the revenues generated by the sale of rough from Marange as part of an agreement to allow sales from that region of Zimbabwe.

In addition, the NGO was being criticized for its lack of flexibility. Its uncompromising stand at the KP meeting in Jerusalem in November 2010, when all the participants were willing to reach a compromise, bar one – the NGOs – led us to write about game theory's “Paradox Conflict,” an analysis of blackmail in negotiations (A Hard-line Stand That Hurts Those That Deserve Our Protection, June 24, 2010).

"No one wants to see Mugabe or his army grow rich off legally mined and KP approved diamonds," we wrote. "But aren't we losing sight of the plight of the real victims, the poor diggers that only have a shovel to make a meager living? Isn't protecting them the moral stand we should adopt? Haven't their neighbors been shot and killed?"

Lack of agreement led to another year of illegally mined diamonds, smuggled out of the country with no one ensuring that the weak and disadvantaged were protected. In other words, an irrational stand won over a fair compromise that was reached a year later anyway.

KP failed that week by following the lead of the NGOs. When at the time I asked a Global Witness executive why they did not demand that the army commanders who ordered the killings be brought to trial, she brushed me off. The NGO instead demanded that the legal exports of diamonds be stopped. That was a moral failure.

Instead of creating positive change, Global Witness allowed lasting harm. It failed to negotiate well or to reach its very worthy goals. It refused to negotiate in Jerusalem; it then refused to participate in the most recent talks in Kinshasa and consequently lost its ability to create change or even influence it. This failure ultimately led Global Witness out of KP. This is a massive failure for an organization formed to bring about change.

This does not exempt KP – its member countries and the diamond industry – from taking a hard look at itself. While it successfully addressed and blocked diamond mining by rebel forces, KP did not know how to evolve and address new challenges. Consumers' need to know that the diamonds they buy are not supporting oppressive regimes or mined in unethical ways. The industry is ethical – it just needs to know how to show it.

KP needs to address this and other current consumer demands, as well as be flexible enough to meet future challenges. It is a process, one in which Global Witness sadly will have no part.