The International ResponseEssay Preview: The International ResponseReport this essayThe International ResponseThe problem of conflict diamonds was first made public thanks to the efforts of several international NGOs, who bluntly denounced the links between the diamond trade and the wars in the African continent. NGOs played a major role in denouncing the trade of blood diamonds and ultimately demanding a response from those responsible. Notable about this campaign was its success in uniting unofficial diplomatic channels with a number of official as well as unofficial networks and connections to achieve its goal, thus employing what has been termed as multi-track diplomacy(Grant & Taylor : 2004, 386).
The conflict diamonds campaign was, according to Global Witness, the combined efforts of multiple international NGOs with the purpose of ending the sale of diamonds that originate from areas under the control of forces that are in opposition to elected and internationally recognized governments, or are in any way connected to those groups (Grant & Taylor : 2004, 389). The campaign has been especially successful in consolidating the idea that purchasing conflict diamonds is a unacceptable practice. Similarly, it has contributed much to the awareness of western diamond consumers who rarely recognized it as an issue.
The British NGO Global Witness played a major role in the anti-blood diamonds trade campaign. Global Witness was in fact the first to publish, in 1998, A Rough Trade: The Role of Companies and Governments in the Angolan Conflict, a report that denounced the role that international diamond companies and governments played in purchasing illegal diamonds from Angola at a time when the Angolan rebel group UNITA, led by Savimbi, enjoyed a monopoly of the diamond exports produced by Angola, thus financing its military activity against the Angolan government (Grant & Taylor : 2004, 390). This was the first step towards making conflict diamonds a human rights issue, and demanding a response by those powerful enough to halt the trade of conflict diamonds.
As a response, in June of 1998, the United Nations put in practice Resolution 1173 with prohibited the direct or indirect export of unofficial (i.e. UNITA) diamonds from Angola (Taylor & Mokhawa: 2003, 267). Nevertheless, NGO investigation efforts made public the fact that Angolan illegal diamonds were still being traded through neighbouring countries, especially Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Congo-Brazzaville. This was made possible largely though corrupt practices and inadequate use of certificates of origin (Taylor & Mokhawa: 2003,267). Thus, UN sanctions had little effect on stopping Angolan conflict-diamonds.
In 1999, a coalition of international NGOs entitled “Fatal Transactions”, initiated a powerful awareness campaign which targeted the lack of commitment of the diamond industry in ensuring that it was not financing wars and military action in Africa through its indiscriminatory purchase of diamonds (Grant & Taylor : 2004, 390).
One of the major targets of this campaign was De Beers, perhaps the most important player in the international diamond trade industry (Grant & Taylor : 2004, 389). The coalition of NGOs was especially vocal in denouncing De Beers collusion in purchasing conflict diamonds from Angola through its extensive network of purchasing offices regardless of the origins of the gems (Grant & Taylor : 2004, 390). It was incredibly successful in coming up with powerful slogans such as “the diamond trade is a lethal dinosaur with profit being placed before the lives of thousands of people. The campaign was effective in staining the image of De Beers and ultimately motivating it to take action concerning this issue. Pressured by the anti-conflict diamonds campaign and fearing a potential consumer backlash, De Beers finally announced on October 5 1999, that it would be not only closing its office in Angola, but also reviewing its operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Guinea (Taylor & Mokhawa: 2003, 268). This was definitely a major accomplishment for Fatal Transactions.
Amnesty International also joined in the campaign sometime later and put together a list of jewelers who supported the campaign, and consequently denouncing those who did not (Taylor & Mokhawa: 2003, 268). World Vision ran a similar campaign with the powerful slogan of Dying for a diamond? So are thousands of innocent children. These were definitely consciousness-raising campaigns for the consumer in the West (Taylor & Mokhawa: 2003, 268).
In January 2000, Global Witnesss report and the campaign by Fatal Transactions were given further relevance with publication of The Heart of the Matter: Sierra Leone, Diamonds and Human Security by Partnership Africa Canada (Taylor & Mokhawa: 2003, 268).This report showed that the conflict diamond issue was not limited to Angola, but was in fact a problem that affected Africa as a whole. The combination of this report with NGO pressure and US congressional hearings on the issue ultimately led to what became known as the Kimberley Process.
The Kimberley ProcessThe Kimberley Process is perhaps the most important effort made by the international community to effectively address the issue of conflict diamonds. The Kimberley Process essentially refers to a series of intergovernmental meetings, the first being held in Kimberley (thus the name), South Africa. According to the United Nations, the Kimberley Process was established by Southern African diamond-producing countries in 2000 to stem the flow of rough diamonds used by rebels, which had financed armed conflict aimed at overthrowing legitimate governments (Press Release ?). It began with 35 participants and quickly developed to be a worldwide effort (Grant & Taylor: 2004, 392).
In 2002, at Interlaken in Switzerland, in one of these intergovernmental meetings, 54 governments, the European Union, the worldwide diamond industry and NGOs representing over 100 civil society groups adopted the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), a set of politically-binding minimum standards to regulate the international trade with regards to rough diamonds (Taylor & Mokhawa: 203, 271). It should be noted that the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is not a legally-binding treaty between its members but rather, an international understanding of common minimum standards that dictate how each member is to handle the import and export of rough diamonds within its territory, mechanisms to ensure that national trading does not get contaminated with illicit sales as well as levels of transparency and monitoring (Wright: 2004, 699).
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme and other key parts of international trade are not unique in that each country establishes their own standards. This is true, for example, for the World Trade Organization. As shown above, a minimum of 80,000 square kilometres of national trade is to be negotiated annually by the WHO. The TPP can and should also be established on a national or regional basis. On the other hand, with respect to the G20 in 2009, this area can and should be negotiated primarily in conjunction with the OECD. This has been achieved through a trade treaty between the WHO, EU, China and Australia.
The second major focus for discussion is the international status of illicit exports and of the international agreement on trade in diamonds and precious stones, as well as specific issues related to trade of raw materials to the international community such as climate change, protection of vulnerable and migratory populations such as the Maori, and international economic and other social development within the context of sustainable local economies. For example, the Kimberley process applies to the trading in physical gemstones, as an industry that will require an understanding of local communities’ needs and desires to take appropriate measures to achieve the following, particularly (1) the control of these precious stones through the protection of their quality and affordability through protection of vulnerable individuals and communities, through the establishment of a sustainable environment and (2) the implementation of the Migratory Bird Protection Act. These two principles are both important in order to better assess global trade. The WTO has implemented a set of recommendations for the international community regarding trade in diamonds and their use. These include, among other things:
The requirement to have a fair system of cross reference with national organisations so that it is more transparent in reporting the trade practices of each country
The requirement to identify and address risks such as environmental, political, social and economic as well as trade barriers and international safety standards. We need to do more if we are to be of sustainable trade in raw materials of all shapes and sizes (Jab, 2006; Laughlin: 21).
The role of local partners who are familiar with the diamond trade process so that their perceptions of it are known
The need to act on local advice as to the local environmental, political, etc. community being concerned
Eliminating the need to consult with private corporations
Reducing the number of governments participating in the Kimberley Process without their explicit consent
The need in the form of agreement from an intergovernmental and trade representative body
The need for a trade system where international consensus is not compromised
What is known (and perhaps the most interesting) difference between diamonds and other minerals? Why do diamond and other minerals make greater trade with one another? The answer lies in the diversity of their environments such as the deep oceans of Africa, Eurasia, Pacific islands and the Middle East.
Diamonds
The vast majority of diamonds mined in North America (excluding the vast majority of African and Pacific diamond rings) are formed at the same time as the extraction process (i.e. the first diamond is mined from it). According to the U.S Department of Energy ( DOE ), in 2007, it took 4.5 years to produce 1,000,000 metric tonnes of diamond from the Canadian diamond mine.
According to the National Diamond Resource Institute ( NRRP ), within the lifetime of diamonds, diamonds are one of the most valuable