When “conflict” isn’t conflict?

ConflictThe Kimberley Process Intersessional is being held this week and it appears unlikely the KP will reform the definition of “conflict diamonds” this year.  As we’ve mentioned in previous posts, the definition of a “conflict diamond” under the KP’s working language is so limited that it fails to take into account any violence or bloodshed that occurs outside of that committed by “rebel movements” with the specific aim of “undermining legitimate governments.” 

According to KP Chairman Welile Nhlapo the process wasn’t created to end human rights abuses or take retributive action against sovereign states. (Ironically, most jewelers will erroneously tell you their diamonds aren’t blood diamonds specifically because of the Kimberley Process.) In the next breath he advocated for the US to lift their ban on Zimbabwe’s diamonds, despite the fact some of the worst violence and corruption has been associated with Zimbabwe’s diamond trade.

One can easily tell on which side his bread is buttered.

At Leber Jeweler, we offer Canadian diamonds because they are the one sure guarantee the diamond you are purchasing did not fund any violence. This is a promise the KP is failing to fulfill. We remain committed to our long-held belief that until the Kimberley Process sees fit to include all forms of conflict in their definition of a “conflict diamond,” one should see the KP as nothing more than a marketing device for the global diamond trade, and not a joint initiative “to stem the flow of conflict diamonds” like they claim.