The Conversation (2)
Should the Kimberley Process Change its Definition of Conflict Diamonds?
Nov. 21, 2013 12:42PM PST
Gem InvestingWriting for Times LIVE, Sean Clinton reported that the Kimberley Process, which was set up to stop the trade of blood diamonds, has failed to do so and likely will keep failing to do so unless its definition of what constitutes a “conflict diamond” is opened up to “include diamonds that fund human rights violations by government forces.”
Writing for Times LIVE, Sean Clinton reported that the Kimberley Process, which was set up to stop the trade of blood diamonds, has failed to do so and likely will keep failing to do so unless its definition of what constitutes a “conflict diamond” is opened up to “include diamonds that fund human rights violations by government forces.”
Currently, the definition is “rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments.”
As quoted in the market news:
The success of the KP charade was most evident last week when Sotheby’s achieved a world record price of $83 million for a diamond crafted by a company that funds the Israeli military. Sotheby’s partner, the Steinmetz Diamond Group, through the Steinmetz Foundation, funded and supported a Unit of the Givati Brigade during the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2008/9. The Givati Brigade was responsible for the massacre of 21 members the Samouni family – a war crime documented by the UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Israeli human-rights organisation B’Tselem.
If a diamond generated revenue for any other regime accused of war crimes it would rightly be regarded as a blood diamond and shunned by all. Sotheby’s have come under pressure from human rights activists who have questioned how they justify claiming that diamonds crafted by the Steinmetz Diamond Group are conflict free when they generate revenue used to fund a military Brigade accused of gross human rights violations.