The WDC and The Southern Times highlight two opposing viewpoints fueling the current conflict in the diamond world as it pertains to, um, “conflict”, and a possibly expanded KPCS.
The Kimberley Process limits its scope to addressing the problem of “conflict diamonds”, which are defined as “rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments”. Violence committed by “legitimate” governments and polished diamonds are beyond the KP’s scope. That the diamonds are ethically sourced, that their production is free of human rights abuses, or that they have not been used to assist in money laundering is unaddressed.
The strictness of this definition and scope has not gone unnoticed, and a rift has seemingly developed in the diamond industry about whether the KP should retain its original focus on strictly-defined “conflict diamonds”, or expand it to include violence of all forms, as well as addressing issues related to money laundering and terrorist financing through trade in diamonds (documented by the FATF).
My initial reaction is of disbelief: “With abysmal consumer confidence, and a shrinking share of the luxury customers’ wallet, they’re really arguing about whether ‘conflict’ diamonds are only ‘conflict’ diamonds if they’re used to help rebels, and whether or not steps should be taken to limit their use in money laundering or terrorism? What the …”
But is it not coincidental that a country’s position in the value chain, and whether they stand to benefit or feel targeted from an expanded KPCS, seem to imply its position on the matter? Is it not in the interest of the entire industry encourage consumer confidence?
If the industry is intent on retaining the status quo, it does appear that, long-term, there should be multiple product lines, just like we have in the grocery store, and the industry should get over it. Generic “eggs” at $3/dozen still sell quite well in the market alongside “cage-free”, “free range”, “organic” and “cruelty free” products (at $8/dozen at my local market), and from what I gather, consumers will happily pay for that assurance. CanadaMark exists. Forevermark has a (tiny) premium. Brilliant Earth has a premium. It’s nice that there are options out there, but why risk contaminating the reservoir? Correlation doesn’t imply causation, and if another conflict in a major diamond-producing area erupts, will the KPCS be enough to keep suspect diamonds out of the mix?