The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (Kimberley Process) is an international governmental certification scheme that was set up to prevent the trade in diamonds that fund conflict. Launched in January 2003, the scheme requires governments to certify that shipments of rough diamonds are free from blood diamonds.(2) As of November 2008, the Kimberley Process (KP) had 49 members representing 75 countries, with the European Community and its Member States counting as an individual participant.(3) Diamonds have fuelled decades of conflicts in countries such as Angola, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.(4) As such, the Kimberley process is instrumental is in halting the circulation of diamonds that emanate from, or fuel conflicts.

The sale of Zimbabwe’s diamonds has become a contentious issue for the Kimberley process. Under immense pressure from human rights organisations, the organisation is being pushed to suspend Zimbabwe from the process, as its diamonds reportedly are a direct cause of human rights abuses. However, members within the Kimberley Process are also pushing for the Zimbabwean diamonds to be certified, as they contend that Zimbabwe meets the ‘minimum’ requirements stipulated by the organisation. This article will look at what the Kimberley Process is and how it operates and then at the Zimbabwean case. By investigating the diamond trade, human rights and the economic state of the nation, it will become apparent that there is a web of factors to be considered with relation to the Zimbabwean diamond trade. The choice to certify or not to certify is not a simple as it seems.

The Kimberley Process: What is it?

In 1998, the United Nations (UN) placed the UNITA government of Angola under strict sanctions with the aim of halting the civil war and civilian suffering in the nation. However, a historic investigation by Robert Fowler revealed how the UNITA government was able to continue its rule through diamond sales on the international market. The UN, under limited power, had no authority to act further, therefore the Fowler report set out to name and shame individuals, governments and companies that were trading with UNITA and fuelling the suffering of so many innocent civilians in south-central Africa.(5) As a result a meeting of southern African diamond producing states in Kimberley, South Africa agreed to establish an international standard of trading only conflict free diamonds. In December 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/55/56, supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds, and every year since, the General Assembly has renewed its support for the KP - most recently in December 2009.(6)

The Kimberley Process participants (Governments) and observers (the diamond industry, NGOs) meet once a year to discuss the implementation of the scheme. Working groups monitor participants’ implementation of the scheme, assess applications to join, gather and analyse statistics, and discuss technical issues. Global Witness, Partnership Africa Canada (PAC), and other NGOs have had an unusual level of involvement in developing and building support for the scheme, helping to write the Kimberley Process Technical Document, and playing an active role in negotiations and implementation.(7) According to the guidelines provided by the founding Kimberly Process document, in order for a country to be a participant of the Kimberley Process, it must ensure that any diamond originating from that country does not finance a rebel group or other entity seeking to overthrow a United Nations (UN)-recognised government; that every diamond export be accompanied by a Kimberley Process certificate; and that no diamond be imported from, or exported to, a non-member of the scheme.(8) This is a simplistic interpretation of the KP criteria.  The Kimberley Process has managed to decrease the proportion of conflict diamonds from 15% before 1990 to 0.4% in 2009.(9) This progress has not been made without criticism.

As there is no KP central authority, accountability has become a primary issue. The ‘chair’ of the organisation rotates annually from one state to another, effectively rotating issues from one year to the next without conclusion, undermining the efficacy of the process. Consensus is another problem. The running protocol of the KP requires them to reach absolute consensus on all issues, thus even one dissenter can hold up the entire process.(10) The lack of ‘hard authority’ undermines the effects of the process. As the regulations of the KP are considered as ‘soft law’ they are not legally binding, thus compliance is voluntary. The inability of the KP to enforce its regulations leads to nations like Venezuela and the DRC voluntarily pulling out to avoid criticism for non-compliance. The area of the KP site reports is particularly contentious. These reports, when finished on time are never published, thus NGOs, states and diamond companies are not fully aware of all the factors that led to a nations' diamonds being certified or denied. This lack of transparency weakens the integrity of an otherwise noble initiative.

Zimbabwean diamonds: Marange

Geographically, Zimbabwe sits on what is called the ‘Zimbabwe Archaean Craton’ and theoretically diamonds can be found across the nation as it sits on land conducive to kimberlite deposits. The craton stretches from the northeast of the country to the south and western areas, extending into Botswana which also has vast deposits of diamonds. Prior to 2004, diamond mining was minimal, until the Marange strike of June 2006. The Marange diamond fields are an area of widespread small-scale diamond production in Chiadzwa, Mutare West, Zimbabwe. They are the fields fuelling widespread dispute.(11)

The mine fields are controversial for two main reasons. Firstly, their ownership is under dispute. After DeBeers‘ lease expired in 2006, a British owned company, African Consolidated Resources (ACR) took over. ACR has been in a legal wrangle with the Zimbabwean government since 2006.(12) The second and most publicised point of contention are the alleged human rights abuses taking place in Marange. After failing to control illegal mining and smuggling of the Marange diamonds, the Zimbabwean government initiated Operation Hakudzokwi, which is Shona for ‘you will not return’. Global Witness reports that this operation appeared to have two goals, one of which was to ensure control of the diamond deposits for the ZANU PF elite and the other to reward the army for its loyalty to this clique.(13)

More than 800 soldiers were deployed alongside helicopter gunships, allegedly killing over 200 people. Following this operation, soldiers took over mining syndicates previously run by the police, and forced local people, including children, to mine for them. Global Witness further says that the military was also central to facilitating the smuggling of these diamonds out of Zimbabwe to neighbouring countries, including Mozambique, a non-member of the Kimberley Process, and South Africa, a founding member of the Kimberley Process. Once again, civilians were found digging for diamonds independently of the syndicates were severely beaten or killed as a warning to others.(14)

Farai Maguwu a human rights activist in Zimbabwe was arrested for giving ‘false’ information to the Kimberley Process Monitoring Group that visited Zimbabwe in March 2010. "There have been reports and overwhelming evidence of serious human rights abuses taking place in the Chiadzwa diamond fields," he asserts. "Soldiers have been accused of illegal panning activities and they are primarily responsible for mining the diamonds, which are being exported through undesignated points to neighbouring countries and the rest of the world."(15) In addition, Mr Maguwu revealed that the soldiers in Marange are known for gang-raping women who are forced to work on the mines. It was to the alarm of media and human rights organisations that the KP monitoring Group declared the Marange gemstones were ‘clean.’(16) This monitoring group was headed by South African Abbey Chikane, after the initial appointee, a British citizen, was rejected by the Zimbabwean government.(17) Chikane is the brother of former president Mbeki’s director-general and his impartiality has been questioned due to his close relations to Mbeki’s administration, which was also criticised for taking too soft an approach to Zimbabwe’s crisis. Considering the human rights atrocities taking place, the choice whether to certify Zimbabwe’s  diamonds’ seems simple.

Diamonds versus sanctions

Zimbabwe has been under unilateral sanctions from the United States government since 2001in the form of The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, 2001. (ZIDERA) Through this enactment, Zimbabwe’s access to finance and credit facilities were effectively incinerated. ZIDERA empowers the US to use its voting rights and influence (as the main donor) in multilateral lending agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank, and the African Development Bank to veto any applications by Zimbabwe for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling, and international debt cancellation. The US cites Zimbabwe’s human rights record, political intolerance and absence of rule of law as the main reasons for the imposition of sanctions.(18) In essence, ZIDERA aims at squeezing out President Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF from power. However the effects of ZIDERA are far reaching. Essential departments of the Government like education, housing and health are suffering due to this bill. The cholera epidemic that killed 3300(19) people by January 2009 was due to the collapse of the public health sector.

If Zimbabwe’s Marange diamonds are certified by the Kimberley Process, they will give the Zimbabwean government an avenue to bypass the disastrous effects of ZIDERA. The argument behind certification is that the Zimbabwean Government of National Unity is not a rebel group. It is a legitimate and internationally recognised Government, and though the rule of ZANU-PF is far from reproach, there is no evidence that it uses the revenue from the diamond trade to enact violence against the MDC or its supporters.(20)

With regard to the human rights abuses in Marange, commentators in support of certification emphasise that the legal mandate of the Kimberley Process has limited reach. While the aim is to halt conflict diamonds from circulation, if a nation meets the ‘minimum requirements’, the KP has no justification for suspending that state. While the reports of human rights abuses are widespread, the only sources of information are sensational news reports from international media houses whose reporters have never been to Marange and whose attitudes toward Africa have been continuously labelled as biased. Upon reading the 2009 Partnership Africa Canada Report, entitled ‘Zimbabwe, Diamonds and the Wrong Side of History’ one automatically picks up on the political bias of this ‘impartial’ report.  As the KP report on Zimbabwe remains classified, one has no real impartial source of information.

It is apparent that human rights organisations and states alike are awaiting the downfall of Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF. However, adding fuel to the already collapsed economy of Zimbabwe is unjustified. It is wrong to conflate Zimbabwe with the personality of Mugabe. They are two distinct entities and it cannot be said that economic support will be provided to the country once its leader is out of power.(21)

The Marange diamonds are the only hope the Zimbabwean state has of gaining revenue to revive its ailing apparatus. If not, the desperate Zimbabwean Government will undoubtedly pursue other avenues to gain revenue. In addition, one cannot ignore the countless lists of basic human needs not being met by suspending the Marange gems. Social welfare institutions in the Zimbabwean government are unable to meet basic needs due to sanctions and other factors.  This does not ignore the abuses happening in Marange, however, opening up the mines to KP certification could increase transparency, forcing the Zimbabwean army to leave the fields. What is definite is that suspending Zimbabwe from the KP will perpetuate the situation in Marange. This is to the detriment of the Zimbabwean state, the Zimbabwean people and the Kimberley Process itself.

Conclusion

This analysis shows the dense network of factors surrounding the diamond trade in Zimbabwe. Recognising the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, the Kimberly Process cannot stand by and watch. However, legally it has no jurisdiction over Zimbabwe, which meets its ‘minimum requirements.’ Suspending Zimbabwe would abandon their mandate as these diamonds will undoubtedly find their way into mainstream circulation.

The Zimbabwean government already crippled by corruption, mismanagement and the adverse effects of ZIDERA is desperate to trade its diamonds. Its aspirations for KP certification should be met with optimism rather than contempt. The numerous human rights organisations criticising the Kimberley Process must rather direct their concerns to other organisations that have legal jurisdiction over Zimbabwe, like the United Nations Security Council or the Human Rights Commission. Placing the task of fixing all of Zimbabwe’s diamond problems on the KP is a burden the organisation cannot bear. Already riddled with its own structural defects, the multi-faceted crisis surrounding Zimbabwe’s diamonds is a situation too complex for the KP to handle alone.

It also remains that the Kimberley Process’ mandate is too important to fail. It does not need to be redesigned; rather its provisions must be enforced. The KP requires strategic partnerships to aid its mandates and increased participation from its members. As the situation in Zimbabwe shows, the question of whether to certify or not to certify is more complex than presupposed. Only strategic collaborations between the KP, the Zimbabwean government, and impartial NGO’s can find an answer to this question.

NOTES:

(1) Shingirai Maparura is an External Consultant for Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Africa Watch Unit ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
(2) Global Witness (2006). The Kimberley Process at Risk. http://www.globalwitness.org.
(3) The Kimberley Process website, http://www.kimberleyprocess.com.
(4) Melik, James. ‘Diamonds: Does the Kimberley Process Work?’ BBC. 28 June 2010. http://www.globalpolicy.org.
(5) Fowler, Robert. 2000. Final reports on the UN Panel of Experts on Violations of Security Council Sanctions Against Unita. The "Fowler Report". Global Policy Forum. http://www.globalpolicy.org.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Faurie, Jonathan. ‘Zimbabwe dividing Kimberley Process member countries’. Mining Weekly. 2 July 2010. http://www.miningweekly.com.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Partnership Africa Canada. 2009. Diamonds and Human Security: Annual Review 2009.  http://www.pacweb.org.
(11) Partnership Africa Canada. 2009. Zimbabwe, Diamonds and the wrong side of history. Occasional paper 18.
(12) Ibid.
(13) Ibid.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Thornycroft, Peta. ‘Zim’s Blood Diamonds to Become Legal’ Sunday Independant. 4 April 2010, http://www.globalpolicy.org.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Hondora Tawanda. ‘Economic sanctions undermine Zimbabwe's economy.’ NewZimbabwean.com. 11 December 2009. http://www.newzimbabwe.com.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid.