Conflict Diamonds: The Elephant in the Room

There has been much excitement in recent days about conflict diamonds.

The Kimberley Process appears to have made a "significant breakthrough" towards broadening a narrow definition that currently recognizes only rough stones that finance civil war.

Feriel Zerouki, president of the World Diamond Council (WDC) was buzzing with optimism at the close of the KP intersessional in the UAE last Friday (16 May).

"We are almost at the finish line," she proudly announced. "Let us stand together. Let us keep the momentum. Let us get this done."
 
In a subsequent LinkedIn post she wrote: "I started the week feeling cautious.

"I was worried that our push to expand the definition of conflict diamonds was going to stall again, because some participants refused to compromise.

"So I called on the room not to let perfect be the enemy of progress. And something shifted."

The shift was a submission by the African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA), representing 15 member countries and five observers, that "moved the debate forward and brought many stakeholders back to the table".

Zerouki said: "It was a moment of leadership, unity and clarity. And now, I am optimistic."

But there's an elephant in the room. A big one, called Russia.

The Kimberley Process requires consensus - a unanimous vote - to redefine conflict diamonds.
 
Russia has strongly opposed any moves to even discuss the subject since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, prompting fresh calls for the term to be broadened.

There are many gaps in the current definition.

It doesn't cover human rights abuses committed by government forces and security personnel, or systemic violence against civilian populations in mining regions.

It doesn't cover environmental destruction and water contamination from diamond mining, child labor, hazardous working conditions or the violation of other labor rights.

And, crucially, it doesn't cover state actors using diamond revenues to fund armed conflict or commit human rights abuses.

Ukraine has, with the support of the United States and European Union, urged the KP to redefine conflict diamonds to plug this particular gap.

Other countries that have resisted a new definition - Zimbabwe and other African diamond-producing nations - now seem to be on board.

But Russia isn't. It insists, with backing from a small handful of other countries, that whatever's going on in Ukraine is none of KP's business and that it's "absolutely beyond the scope" of its certification scheme.

It has condemned attempts to recognize its goods as conflict diamonds, saying such a move would politicize KP and distort its basic principles.

Russia is, admittedly, one among 60 KP participants (the EU's 27 member states are counted as one). But it only takes one to torpedo the new definition.

The Kimberley Process Core Document, the KP's main agreement on rules and requirements, clearly states that votes must be unanimous - even a single state can block a decision.

Yes, there has been progress from African producers in terms of regulations, sustainable mining practices and balancing economic development needs with ethical considerations, which is all good.

But when KP participants reconvene in November in Gaborone to approve the final wording of the new definition, will Russia - a country so opposed to a key element of the new definition -  raise its hand in agreement?

Have a fabulous weekend.