Sunk: Another Bid to Redefine Conflict Diamonds
November 27, 25
At the end of the day it was the inclusion of state-armed actors that sank the latest KP attempt to redefine conflict diamonds.
Many Western nations said they should be included. Many African nations said they shouldn't.
And that's why five days of talks at the Kimberley Process plenary in Dubai last week ended in deadlock.
There was a fundamental split. Western nations - Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Ukraine, the UK and the EU (representing 27 member countries) - called for the broadest possible definition.
That would have included all violent actors, human rights abusers and, notably, state-armed actors.
The African nations, under the umbrella of the African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA), pushed for a definition that outlawed conflict and exploitation, but argued that the inclusion of state-armed actors would be beyond KP's scope, would politicize its activities, and would cause division among its members.
Both sides were firmly entrenched. KP can only amend the definition by consensus, which means not a single dissenting voice. In the event there were 32 dissenting voices, if you include each of the EU member countries.
The split goes to the very heart of what KP is and what it does.
Since its inception in 2003 its mandate has been to outlaw the trade in diamonds used by rebel groups to finance armed conflict against legitimate governments.
That's a definition that was agreed by the United Nations, in response to international outrage over diamond-fueled violence and human rights abuses in Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
KP has been largely effective in stemming the trade in conflict diamonds. Its certification scheme has, it says, reduced the market share of conflict diamonds from 15 per cent in the 1990s to 1 per cent today.
But those figures only cover rough diamonds in a narrowly-defined set of circumstances - rebel groups financing armed conflict against legitimate governments.
What about diamonds that finance mercenaries, criminal networks, organized crime, corrupt governments or government officials, people or organizations blacklisted by the UN Security Council for supporting human rights abuses, terror or war crimes? Or state armed actors?
If KP's supposed to outlaw one group of bad guys, then what about all these other groups of bad guys?
Why draw the line at rebel groups, as has been the case thus far?
Or why draw the line at all the bad guys listed above, but stop short of including state-armed actors (the ADPA position)?
The Kimberley Process Civil Society Coalition (KPCSC) acts as an observer rather than a participant at the KP, representing communities affected by diamond mining and trade. It joined the Western nations in opposing the ADPA's proposed definition.
"All the actors that perpetrate violence should all be held accountable, whether they are non-state or state-armed actors," KPCSC coordinator Jaff Bamenjo told IDEX Online after KP delegates failed to agree on a new definition.
"The problem is the lack of consensus from all the countries. The inclusion of state-armed actors was the only bone of contention.
"African countries, the Russian Federation and their allies don't want the inclusion of state armed actors."
It was in 2019 that the KP plenary last discussed a broader definition. Last week's bitter and protracted discussions arguably exposed a deeper rift.
The division back then was primarily about the scope and political implications of expanding the definition.
African countries were more focused on preserving state sovereignty and avoiding political conflicts within the KP.
That divide remained, along similar lines this time, but was more pronounced and entrenched, with the ADPA accusing Western nations of bypassing KP through the imposition of sanctions on Russia.
Last week's debate was the culmination of a three-year reform and review process.
The next formal opportunity to revisit the issue will likely be at the 2026 plenary, a year from now.
Many Western nations said they should be included. Many African nations said they shouldn't.
And that's why five days of talks at the Kimberley Process plenary in Dubai last week ended in deadlock.
There was a fundamental split. Western nations - Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Ukraine, the UK and the EU (representing 27 member countries) - called for the broadest possible definition.
That would have included all violent actors, human rights abusers and, notably, state-armed actors.
The African nations, under the umbrella of the African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA), pushed for a definition that outlawed conflict and exploitation, but argued that the inclusion of state-armed actors would be beyond KP's scope, would politicize its activities, and would cause division among its members.
Both sides were firmly entrenched. KP can only amend the definition by consensus, which means not a single dissenting voice. In the event there were 32 dissenting voices, if you include each of the EU member countries.
The split goes to the very heart of what KP is and what it does.
Since its inception in 2003 its mandate has been to outlaw the trade in diamonds used by rebel groups to finance armed conflict against legitimate governments.
That's a definition that was agreed by the United Nations, in response to international outrage over diamond-fueled violence and human rights abuses in Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
KP has been largely effective in stemming the trade in conflict diamonds. Its certification scheme has, it says, reduced the market share of conflict diamonds from 15 per cent in the 1990s to 1 per cent today.
But those figures only cover rough diamonds in a narrowly-defined set of circumstances - rebel groups financing armed conflict against legitimate governments.
What about diamonds that finance mercenaries, criminal networks, organized crime, corrupt governments or government officials, people or organizations blacklisted by the UN Security Council for supporting human rights abuses, terror or war crimes? Or state armed actors?
If KP's supposed to outlaw one group of bad guys, then what about all these other groups of bad guys?
Why draw the line at rebel groups, as has been the case thus far?
Or why draw the line at all the bad guys listed above, but stop short of including state-armed actors (the ADPA position)?
The Kimberley Process Civil Society Coalition (KPCSC) acts as an observer rather than a participant at the KP, representing communities affected by diamond mining and trade. It joined the Western nations in opposing the ADPA's proposed definition.
"All the actors that perpetrate violence should all be held accountable, whether they are non-state or state-armed actors," KPCSC coordinator Jaff Bamenjo told IDEX Online after KP delegates failed to agree on a new definition.
"The problem is the lack of consensus from all the countries. The inclusion of state-armed actors was the only bone of contention.
"African countries, the Russian Federation and their allies don't want the inclusion of state armed actors."
It was in 2019 that the KP plenary last discussed a broader definition. Last week's bitter and protracted discussions arguably exposed a deeper rift.
The division back then was primarily about the scope and political implications of expanding the definition.
African countries were more focused on preserving state sovereignty and avoiding political conflicts within the KP.
That divide remained, along similar lines this time, but was more pronounced and entrenched, with the ADPA accusing Western nations of bypassing KP through the imposition of sanctions on Russia.
Last week's debate was the culmination of a three-year reform and review process.
The next formal opportunity to revisit the issue will likely be at the 2026 plenary, a year from now.
Have a fabulous weekend.