The Conversation (0)
The Guardian reported that under the Kimberley Process, conflict diamonds are defined as diamonds “sold by a rebel group to wage war against a government.” However, Human Rights Watch believes there is a “major loophole” in that description as it means that governments are not stopped from “committing abuses” when mining and selling diamonds. The publication fears that this week’s Kimberley Process meeting will fail to account for that fact.
The Guardian reported that under the Kimberley Process, conflict diamonds are defined as diamonds “sold by a rebel group to wage war against a government.” However, Human Rights Watch believes there is a “major loophole” in that description as it means that governments are not stopped from “committing abuses” when mining and selling diamonds. The publication fears that this week’s Kimberley Process meeting will fail to account for that fact.
As quoted in the market news:
The World Diamond Council has announced corporate members will help boost the process’s administrative capabilities while [Susan] Shabangu[, South Africa’s mineral resources minister] acknowledged some of the challenges ahead but commended the “common understanding on the merging of certain structures within the Kimberley Process geared to enhance the effectiveness of our organisation.”
These efforts will help, but they’ll count for squat if tyrants are allowed to reinforce oppressive regimes through selling the precious stones simply because they run the state. Sadly, there looks to be little of the political will needed. Shabangu was far keener to emphasise the importance of each member government keeping its sovereignty rather than each government refraining from using diamonds to abusive ends.