The intersessional meeting of the Kimberley Process (KP) began on Monday morning in Tel Aviv with a warning from Annie Dunnebackie of Global Witness who said the rights group had been finding it increasingly difficult to explain the work of the organisation due to developments in Zimbabwe.

She said the arrest and detention of Zimbabwean researcher Farai Maguwu “cast a dark cloud” over the work of civil society groups in the Kimberley Process. She said that if one-third of the Kimberley Process, with the other two elements being industry and governments, was not able to carry out its work, that would be a strong blow to the KP’s operations.

Saying that that Global Witness was sometimes called the KP’s “moral compass,” she said it had always been at the forefront of explaining the KP’s work, but that role had become more difficult in recent months due to developments in Zimbabwe.

“Many people do not understand why the KP is not doing more on the issue of Marange,” she said, referring to the diamond area in the east of Zimbabwe. Reports have said that the country’s security forces have carried out human rights violations against illegal miners.

“We will not be complicit in the trampling of human rights,” she said. “The KP is at a crossroads and has some difficult decisions to make.”

The Intersessional meeting, which runs from June 21-24, began with a welcome from Boaz Hirsch, the chairman of the KP in 2010. He said that all voices in the KP had to be heard, including that of civil society.

He said that the joint working plan the KP formulated last November in regard to Zimbabwe was not perfect but showed the complexity of the problems facing participants.

In the coming days, the KP had to decide how to deal with the issue of Zimbabwe in order to advance it as a legitimate diamond exporter. He called on all KP members to show maturity in finding a way of dealing with the issue.

Meanwhile, World Diamond Council Chairman Eli Izhakoff praised the work of the process, but said it was not above criticism. He said the KP’s decision making system, which is consensus based, needed to be looked at since one participant could prevent action being taken.

He suggested a system where a majority of two-thirds or three-quarters would be able to pass resolutions.

Credit is given to AWDC Antwerp by DiamondTopics.com