Are African states ready for the KP secretariat

Are African states ready for the KP SECRETARIAT?
AS Zimbabwe celebrates its Kinshasa victory there are pertinent questions that need probing lest the joy is short lived?

Looking back into history, reminiscing the graphic unfolding of the scramble for Africa at the Berlin Conference in the 1880s, paralleling it with the events at the Grand Hotel,  venue of the 2011 KP Plenary, the reform shown by our former colonizers is just too good to be true.

Shivers were sent through the spine of the African sons and daughters as early as the World Diamond Council President, Eli Izhakof made his opening remarks when he said: "Let me also offer thanks to the African countries and in particular the South Africans led by Minister Susan Shabangu for all that they did in enabling this progress.

"The Government of Zimbabwe and in particular, Minister Obert Mpofu, is also to be congratulated, not least for their insistence on staying the course and searching for an agreement within the framework of the Kimberly Process. So too is the United States, which also showed its flexibility in making progress possible."

This showed that despite their smiles the men and women in Kinshasa were of the same ideology and agenda as that of their forerunners of Berlin.

The only difference was that this time around unlike Berlin the match was being played away from home in Kinshasa with a complete different set of opponents ready to asset its dominion under the captaincy of  DRC and a lethal strike force led by Zimbabwe. The solid defense of Ghana and Namibia could not be overemphasized as Angola and the Central Republic of Africa and Guinea offered cover for the defense.

Those who have been following the KP debate will know that the mention of the trio of Zimbabwe, South Africa and the United States of America invokes a pregnant tale – bitter to stomach for some and sweat for others, which of course is the not the subject of this article.

In other terms only the African gods and the Almighty knows what the two Ministers from the aforementioned African states did in pursuant of the African values as espoused by the likes of our founding fathers that includes the likes of Kwame Nkrumah.

Those are the best judges on who deserves thanksgiving on the KP issue of our two African Ministers.

As to the role played by the US one is tempted not to say much suffice that the KP result becomes more worrisome when a superpower like America which by day lies that it abstained on the Zimbabwean issue when all who were there know for a fact that America partook in the correcting of the wording in one of the sentences of the EU-ZIM text whose details can be availed by the responsible authorities should the need arise.

More so the zeal with which the European Union fought for the breakthrough of the stalemate on the Zimbabwean issue leaves one wondering what ace these imperial men will now play.

This is not to say Zimbabweans and Africa at large does not appreciate the efforts of re-engagement as facilitated by the European Union in the KP.

All the same Africans are not fools and will never be, "fooled by people who are interested in what they can get from them but are not interested in their being. Vanhu vanosvinyanga mazamu etumandara vasingade kuroora."

This therefore means that whatever step the African states take they have to remember that the partners they are now with in bed can be dangerous if not well tamed as they were at the Berlin conference.

This therefore calls for the unrelenting Zimbabwean team, which has proven to be true stewardship of the African values when it matters most to be always on guard alongside their long standing partner Namibia.

For if what transpired at Kinshasa is anything to go by it is clear that within our midst as Africans, stands Judas Iscariot.

Africa has got to derive joy and strength from the fact that the former colonizers who shifted from the aggressive mode of the Berlin Conference to the  sweetest moment  of the Kinshasa KP Plenary have already clumsily drawn out their ace to hit back on the African sovereignty.

This has come in the form of the establishment of the proposed KP secretariat which the former colonizer began to sell before and during the opening of the KP plenary.

As he continued with his opening remarks Izhakof said:

"The reform of the Kimberly Process is among the most important of these issues. Among the reforms that we urge be considered is the appointment of a professional staff, whose task it will be to manage the daily affairs of the KP, and so provide the system with  a more sturdy management structure and a greater degree of continuity.

"The current situation, in which every 12 months the responsibility for both leadership and administration shifts to another country, is inherently disruptive. As I have said in the past, like a government whose civil service keeps the wheel turning even when the elected leadership changes so should be the case with the Kimberly Process.

"The fact that since the start of this year there was no KP vice chair underscores the fragile nature of the Kimberly Process in the absence of professional staff. As things stand right now, there is no real contingency for uncertain transfer of power, whatever the cause. We have to remedy the situation, by providing the KP with a more robust structure."

What does this mean for Africa?

Africa has the majority of the diamond producing countries making it the major benefactor of the diamond industry. But why is it that besides being the major benefactor, its partners continue to deny or accept African Diamond Producers Association (ADBA) as an independent partner to the KP.

Those close to the goings on say, ADBA have been refused on the basis that it will enjoy double representation in the KP once that is accepted. The very people who argue along those lines interestingly push for the acceptance of civil society into the KP and Africa blindly agrees to that.

The million dollar questions that Africa has got to ask today is who owns Global Partnership Africa?

In all fairness this is also a clear cut example of double representation of the KP which Africa has been denied.

Now to the secretariat.

Where will the secretariat be headquartered and who shall constitute of the staffers there and how will countries ensure that they are fairly represented.

Most of the secretariats world over have in some instances through hook and crook ended up assuming more power than member states.

Who is going to fund the operations of the secretariat? This has been the most undoing factor in that those who do fund assume the ultimate control of such bodies much to the detriment to other member states.

It is a fact that some people seating somewhere coming up with the consensus value system felt it was going to work in their favour but today that very system has worked in favour of the African values.

As such is the secretariat not being pushed to usurp the powers of member states?

All the same the manner in which the secretariat package has been presented makes it a bankable product hence the need for a robust scrutiny by the African states to ensure that their values and interests are protected if the new dispensation is to sail through.

In the same manner the western countries enjoy unlimited power in the UN body, the African countries have to be the superpowers of the KP body by their virtue of being the primary industry of the diamonds.

In short Africa has to be awake through and through as the secretariat is being established. Being the major producers of the diamonds, in the same manner Africa set conditions to the ascendancy of the U.S to the helm of the KP should be the case in so far as African interests are in line with the establishment of the secretariat.

---------------------
Dingizulu Mahlathini Moyo can be contacted on zulumahlathini@yahoo.com