Untying the Gordian Knot of Kimberley Process

With apparent deadlock at its June inter-sessional meeting in Tel Aviv over the issue of Zimbabwe, the Kimberley Process appears to be at somewhat of a crossroads. The inability of members to reach a consensus decision, despite hours of discussions late into the night, on the report by the KP monitor for Zimbabwe that diamonds from the disputed Marange area were in compliance with KP standards, brings several of the Kimberley Process’ flaws into focus.

Among them are the KP’s voting system, which some members see as in need of an overhaul. Then there was the issue of transparency, since the body’s closed meetings did little to persuade the media and other observers that decisions were being reached – or not being reached, as it so happened – in a fair and open manner. In addition, the Zimbabwe issue put the spotlight on the fact that the original definition of conflict diamonds does not always comply with current crises.

The next step for the KP is a special session to take place during the World Diamond Council Annual Meeting on July 14 in St Petersburg, Russia. Stephane Chardon, chair of the KP’s monitoring committee, has sent out invitations for committee members to meet in a bid to try and reach a decision on Zimbabwe. According to World Diamond Council President Eli Izhakoff, the St Petersburg meeting “could be a place of action regarding Zimbabwe because the monitoring committee can make the decision whether to send the Monitor back or to decide on a Review Mission before sending him back.”

The issue of diamonds mined at Marange and the report to the Tel Aviv meeting by the KP monitor for Zimbabwe, Abbey Chikane, that the stones from Marange should receive KP certification led to a split among members. Media reports suggested that while most African states, in addition to Russia, India, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates, were ready to support certification, others, including the United States, Australia and Canada did not feel that Zimbabwe had done enough. Even the European Union was divided, with some countries willing to support Chikane’s report and a small number opposing it. The consensus voting rule meant that, although there was a clear majority for ratifying the Chikane report, the situation stayed as it was prior to Tel Aviv. Marange goods remain embargoed for now.

Izhakoff, who proposed the adoption of majority-based voting by the KP at the Tel Aviv meeting, feels the impasse may have helped create an impetus for change. “In general, I believe that every large organisation needs a majority-based voting system to carry out its work more efficiently. I also appreciate why the consensus requirement was originally adopted, and the role it played in maintaining the KP coalition. But it also created a situation in which a single participant has the power to block progress,” he said.

“The Kimberley Process must consider methods of amending its system of voting so that, on the one hand it can act more decisively, and on the hand still maintain the greatest degree of harmony among participants. In the past there have been suggestions about a super-majority, such as a two-thirds or 75 percent rule. This could provide a viable solution,” Izhakoff added.

KP Chairman Boaz Hirsch said the consensus method is “at the heart” of the Kimberley Process. “It can be seen as a high price to pay on the one hand, but when you look at the extraordinarily wide range of countries and organisations that are members, the main feature that sustains the KP is consensus decision-making. So when you take into account the diversity of members and the constraints of the process, then finding a consensus is the only way of operating.”

“The KP has proven a success in spite of all the criticism and hardships caused by the consensus system. I would say it has served as a cornerstone of the entire Kimberley Process otherwise progress would have been impossible,” Hirsch stated.

Izhakoff said that explaining the deadlock produced at the Tel Aviv meeting was made even more difficult by the perceived lack of clarity in the organisation’s procedures. “The issue of transparency must be promoted,” he said. “The World Diamond Council plenary meeting in St Petersburg, for example, is open to anybody to attend. We have to be ready to open the KP proceedings to the media even when there are disagreements. In any case, the media hears about what has happened because it is difficult to keep proceedings secret when there are 200 people present. And, when the media does hears about it, the news is second-hand and often coloured by whatever position the reporting party wants to present. If we want the media to report events accurately, then they should be able to understand things in their full context.”

The World Diamond Council president also called for the establishment of a professional KP administration to manage the body’s daily operation. “The current system, by which the Kimberley Process requires the part time services of officials is inefficient,” he said. “And with the KP chair being transferred annually from country to country, it is even more important that a professional administration be maintained. Like a government whose civil service keeps the wheels turning even when the elected leadership changes, so should the Kimberley Process.”

Structural changes within the Kimberley Process may prove more simple to implement than solving the thorny issue of redefining conflict diamonds. Several countries and NGOs have said this should include human rights violations when the financing of civil war is not involved. Indeed, as De Beers Executive Director Jonathan Oppenheimer told CNN following the Tel Aviv meeting, while Zimbabwe’s diamond mining remains a concern, the country by definition is not in a conflict diamond situation.

“I am not certain that the media and other observers are fully aware of what can do and what we can’t do,” said a Kimberley Process insider. “There is a perception on the outside that we get together to decide policy, and then what happens on the ground is directly a result of the decisions we make or do not make. That simply is overstating the case.”

“The Kimberley Process as a legal entity does not have jurisdiction in any of the countries that are signatories. The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is implemented and enforced by the local KP authorities, each of which operates according to statutes that were ratified at the national level, or in the case of the EU at the European level. In other words, we in the Kimberley Process might choose to define conflict diamonds in one way, but that does not means that it will meet the definition of conflict diamonds being used by local KP authorities,” the insider said.

“Critics of the Kimberley Process do not generally appreciate what a monumental effort was required in order to get the whole thing up and running. We are talking about a multi-national regulatory system, in which general policy is discussed at the multi-lateral level, but implementation and enforcement has place at the local level and according to the laws of the country in question. We are talking today about 49 signatories, which in effect means 75 countries, including the members of the European Community. Change is possible, but you do need to achieve a high degree of political consensus in order that it permeates through the system,” the insider stated.

“The shame of it all is that all of this debate over Chikane’s report distracts public attention from the work that the Kimberley Process has done to hugely reduce the number of conflict diamonds being traded,” said another senior delegate at the Tel Aviv meeting. “In addition, the public is not hearing about the KP’s work which has helped stabilize fragile countries in Africa and support their development by boosting their revenues.”

Credit is Given to AntwerpFacetsonline by DiamondTopics.com