News / National
KP's definition excludes Zimbabwe as a 'conflict' agent
26 Jul 2011 at 00:18hrs | Views
The recent approval of Zimbabwean diamonds mined from the $800bn Marange fields by the Kimberley Process (KP) chair, the DRC's Mathieu Yamba Lapfa Lambang, has prompted a global "human rights" outcry with KP members such as Canada, the EU, and the US claiming there was "no consensus".
Meanwhile, other countries like China (the world's fastest growing diamond consumer market), and India (which cuts and polishes 11 of 12 stones) have all given the green light to Zimbabwe, removing any potential problems of surplus minerals from Marange, which has been described by Zimbabwean Finance Minister Tendai Biti as "the biggest find of alluvial diamonds in the history of mankind" writes Khadija Sharife.
With potential revenues pegged at $1-1.7bn annually, the support of neighbouring governments like South Africa, another major diamond producer, and "host" country to 3 million Zimbabwean political and economic "refugees", is not surprising. Nor is the potential KP rupture being shaped as a battle between politically "interfering" Western nations and cash-starved developing nations.
That Zimbabwe's diamonds are alleged to be mined under the direct surveillance of the country's military and controlled by Robert Mugabe is not in question. Since the discovery of Marange's diamonds in 2006, the military has largely supervised mining; mass looting by political, corporate and military elites has occurred, accompanied by violent displacement and human rights violations; companies based in secret jurisdictions such as Mauritius and Hong Kong have been granted "due diligence" approval; and there exists complete opacity over volumes extracted, exported and sold.
But to what extent does the vehement opposition stem from political objections to a nation controlled by the blatantly anti-Western Mugabe? More broadly, was the KP system - propagating that less than one per cent of global diamonds constitute "blood" minerals - built for the purposes of eliminating corporate and state-sanctioned exploitation, or normalising and sanitising it?
Arguably the best thing about the much-lauded and oft-applauded KP system, an international initiative created and backed by governments, multinationals, and civil society organisations to diminish the trade in conflict or "blood" diamonds, is that the KP's very definition of blood diamonds, by default, excludes the world's primary agents of "conflict": governments. It also excludes the private mining corporations that partner with the governments in developing countries to extract the diamonds.
By default, the KP's definition excludes Zimbabwe as a "conflict" agent.
According to the KP, "Conflict diamonds means rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments".
Meanwhile, other countries like China (the world's fastest growing diamond consumer market), and India (which cuts and polishes 11 of 12 stones) have all given the green light to Zimbabwe, removing any potential problems of surplus minerals from Marange, which has been described by Zimbabwean Finance Minister Tendai Biti as "the biggest find of alluvial diamonds in the history of mankind" writes Khadija Sharife.
With potential revenues pegged at $1-1.7bn annually, the support of neighbouring governments like South Africa, another major diamond producer, and "host" country to 3 million Zimbabwean political and economic "refugees", is not surprising. Nor is the potential KP rupture being shaped as a battle between politically "interfering" Western nations and cash-starved developing nations.
That Zimbabwe's diamonds are alleged to be mined under the direct surveillance of the country's military and controlled by Robert Mugabe is not in question. Since the discovery of Marange's diamonds in 2006, the military has largely supervised mining; mass looting by political, corporate and military elites has occurred, accompanied by violent displacement and human rights violations; companies based in secret jurisdictions such as Mauritius and Hong Kong have been granted "due diligence" approval; and there exists complete opacity over volumes extracted, exported and sold.
But to what extent does the vehement opposition stem from political objections to a nation controlled by the blatantly anti-Western Mugabe? More broadly, was the KP system - propagating that less than one per cent of global diamonds constitute "blood" minerals - built for the purposes of eliminating corporate and state-sanctioned exploitation, or normalising and sanitising it?
Arguably the best thing about the much-lauded and oft-applauded KP system, an international initiative created and backed by governments, multinationals, and civil society organisations to diminish the trade in conflict or "blood" diamonds, is that the KP's very definition of blood diamonds, by default, excludes the world's primary agents of "conflict": governments. It also excludes the private mining corporations that partner with the governments in developing countries to extract the diamonds.
By default, the KP's definition excludes Zimbabwe as a "conflict" agent.
According to the KP, "Conflict diamonds means rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments".
Source - aljazeera
