The future of the meaning of ‘conflict’

It didn’t take very long after the World Diamond Council (WDC) and the Kimberley Process (KP) expressed their support for broadening the definition of “conflict” diamond for the first sign of resistance to surface.

The day after the news emerged from Vicenza, The Times of India ran a story stating the Indian gems and jewelry industry is ready to “lock its horns” over the proposal. An unidentified “senior functionary” from India’s Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) interviewed by the Times is quoted as stating the U.S. is trying to “control” the KP, including African countries such as Zimbabwe, by “implementing such vicious laws.”

“Indian industry will oppose it tooth and nail,” the unnamed source said.

(Another interesting note from the Times story is that it states that “leaders of the industry” oppose the U.S.’s plan to establish a permanent administrative office for the KP. I didn’t know establishing a permanent secretarial-type body for the process -- which seems both logical and benign -- was that controversial. Who is opposed to this and why?)

While I know this is just one article that was not particularly well written (see: the huge factual error in the fifth graph regarding the U.S.’s involvement in the origin of the KP), it did bring to the forefront a question that had been lingering in my mind: How much support, outside of the KP chairwoman and the WDC, neither of whom gets a vote, does a broader definition of conflict have?

It’s a change that definitely needs to happen and one that some say is the most pressing need for the KP right now. As it stands, the process defines conflict, or “blood” diamonds, as rough stones that are used by rebel movements to fund wars against legitimate governments. Calls are to broaden that definition to include diamonds that are linked to violence of any kind.

As we all know, the KP requires complete consensus to pass any issue. All it takes is one country saying “no” to prevent change from taking place.

“We’ll see,” one industry player commented when I asked him about the proposal’s chance of passing.

He says the intersessional, scheduled to take place June 4 to 7 in Washington, will be very telling of which members are on board with revising the definition of conflict diamonds and which ones aren’t.

He does note, however, that having a country