A renewed push to redefine the definition of ‘conflict diamonds’ ended in uncertainty for the Kimberley Process in November, drawing criticism from the US, UK, and European Union.
In a column published by JCK Online, a former special adviser for the US State Department for conflict diamonds has outlined various perceived failures and limitations haunting the organisation.
Brad Brooks-Rubin criticised the organisation for a lack of transparency, suggesting that it no longer effectively prevents conflict diamonds from entering the market.
“The lack of transparency alone should frustrate the industry. Is that what hundreds of diplomats, technocrats, and industry reps flew to Dubai — twice — to do in 2024 (and are set to do again in 2025)?” he writes.
“With no transparency, and a world that has simply moved on, it is time for the KP to eliminate its much-debated, overly narrow definition of conflict diamonds — which the KP calls “rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments [as determined by UN Resolutions].”
He continues: “The governments, industry, and civil society organisations involved in the KP all have much better things to spend millions of dollars every year on than continuing to invest in and implement a now-outdated model to achieve supply chain responsibility.”
Brooks-Rubin suggests that the Kimberley Process scope should transition from preventing conflict diamonds to merely tracking statistics on global trade.
More reading
Conflict diamonds: Definition debate continues
War of words: European Union, Kimberley Process trade blows
Conflict diamonds: Debate over definition rages on
Welcome back: Kimberley Process membership expands
Diamond sanctions: Russia searches for new partnerships
Under fire: Asking more of the Kimberley Process
Conflict diamonds: Chaos at Kimberley Process meeting