Martin Rapaport Begins 3 Day Protest Fast

[Regular Guy]

Press release from today, June 20, 2010...

Martin Rapaport Begins 3 Day Protest Fast
Outside Kimberley Process Meeting

RAPAPORT PRESS RELEASE, June 20, 2010, Tel Aviv: Martin Rapaport, Chairman of the Rapaport Group has begun a 3 day fast outside the Kimberley Process (KP) Meetings. The water-only fast began at sundown Sunday, June 20 and will continue until sundown Wednesday, June 24 following the close of the KP meetings in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Rapaport is fasting to protest the issuing of Kimberley Process Certificates for blood diamonds and to draw attention to the fact that it is unethical for the diamond and jewelry trade to rely upon the Kimberley Process Certificate Scheme or System of Warranties to ensure that diamonds are not involved in severe human rights violations such as murder, mutilation, rape, and forced servitude.

Martin Rapaport statement:

“The Kimberley Process (KP) is aiding and abetting severe human rights violations as it certifies, legalizes and legitimizes blood diamonds. Corrupt governments have turned the KP on its head. Instead of eliminating human rights violations the KP is legitimizing them.

"The diamond trade and consumers cannot trust the Kimberley Process, its system of warranties, or those that promote the Kimberley Process as an assurance of the legitimate source of diamonds. We must face the fact that the Kimberley Process is a politicized government-controlled initiative that is incapable of eliminating human rights violations in the diamond sector. It’s time for the World Diamond Council and responsible NGO’s to withdraw from the KP.

“The solution is outside the KP. The diamond trade must take full responsibility for how and where it buys its diamonds. It must stop hiding behind the KP and recognize that it has moral and ethical obligations that transcend national and international laws. While governments cannot enforce international human rights standards due to sovereignty issues, diamond traders can use their purchasing power to enforce such standards. The key to understanding this issue is that, in the end, our diamonds are only as good as we are.”

Comments and messages for Martin Rapaport can be sent to Martin @ Rapaport.com.

 

[Gayletmom]

Wow. I don''t know Martin Rapaport other than to be familiar with his name but I''m pretty impressed that he is taking such a strong stance. Way to stand up for your beliefs!

 

[kenny]

This stinks.

So the Kimberly Process is broken and blood diamonds are getting KP certified?
So every diamond for sale in countries that participate in KP may be blood diamonds?
This includes the US and every diamond from all PS vendors.

I wonder if any of my diamonds are blood diamonds.

How can WF, GOG etc be sure they are not selling blood diamonds if the KP itself is broken?
Should everyone stop buying diamonds till this is fixed.

This is really upsetting to me; I don't want my dollars supporting rape and murder, and I don't want a diamond I feel guilty about!!!

Or, could Martin Rapaport be wrong or up to something?

 

[Callisto]

That''s really interesting. Does anyone know more about the issue, like how it came out that these KP certified diamonds were blood diamonds?

I really hope they make some significant changes if Martin Rapaport is correct about his claims. Anyone know more and want to give a sparknotes version of what''s going on? (I''d research it myself but I''m a bit behind on some homework that needs attention.)

 

[denverappraiser]

The heart of the problem is that ‘blood’ diamonds are defined in KP as things that are mined and/or distributed by criminal or ‘rebel’ elements and the whole KP system was designed to prevent or at least inhibit THAT. The current abuses are being committed by governments themselves and the 'rebels' may turn out to be the good guys. Zimbabwe and Congo, in particular, both of which are KP signatories, are being accused of official abuses that are every bit as bad as the problems a decade ago in Sierra Leone and Liberia that were the reasons for implementing KP in the first place.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Callisto]

Thanks Neil, I appreciate you shining some light upon the issue.

 

[Gayletmom]

There''s an article in the Weekend WSJ about this very issue. It basically says what Neil described with a bit of detail.

 

[Gayletmom]

And I''m with Kenny-I won''t be buying a diamond if I can''t get more comfortable with it''s provenance. As much as I love the little sparklies, I can''t stomach the though that someone was hacked to death so that I could have it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is not a simple problem, and KP was designed as Neil explained, to solve a problem that was current a decade ago.
But few nations wish to impose human rights standards because so many knowingly breach them. The same issues surround almost every product we consume - the coal (with the worst OHS records) that fired the power station in China that made most of the compnents in your computer. The rare earths in your cell phone, etc.
Check this video with Martin - it is the 2nd row left side
Video from 2006

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

When we were in Vegas there was a heralded KP meeting in Israel that was going to attempt to address the complex issues raised. Previously I had been unimpressed with Eli Izhakoff, but in a KP diamond related panel MC'd by Dorothee ??? from the Diamond Development Initiative, I was impressed by this man. I also overheard him a few times in the Press Room, where Andrey, Coati and I had passes. Below is a relevant release that just came.
PS I have had 1:1 conversations with several parties involved in these issues and they are all about shades, not B&W. So please try to understand the complex issues. Martin is an idealogically motivated, deeply religious and family oriented man. But I am not sure that he can be as effective as an adept politician.
Read on:


The following is the address delivered by Eli Izhakoff, President of the World Diamond Council to the participants of the 2010 Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Kimberley Process that is being held in Jerusalem, Israel, today - June 21, 2010.

Quote

Mr. Chairman, delegates, distinguished guests:

It is my pleasure to be able to address you here in Israel at this important meeting of the Kimberley Process. At the outset, I would like to thank our Israeli hosts for organizing this event. In particular, I would like to congratulate the new KP Chairman, Mr. Boaz Hirsch.

Yesterday, as a prelude to this Inter-Sessional Meeting, a group of us - including representatives of government, industry and the NGO community - met to consider the manner in which the Kimberley Process should evolve, so that it continues to meet the challenges thrown up at it more than 10 years after the conflict diamond crisis first raised its ugly head. The role that will be played in this regard by the KP Chairman will be critical. Since he has assumed the KP post I have been impressed not only by Boaz's rapid mastery of what clearly is a complicated subject, but also at his open mind and his readiness to consider and implement change.

To bring about change, we require decisive but deliberate leadership, where the goal is to amend what is necessary, without undermining those qualities and elements that have brought us success in the past. Boaz, I am confident, is cognizant of this and I believe that, under his chairmanship, the KP will be ready to meet the challenge.

Before I fully address the issue of change and evolution, let me first comment on what clearly has been the most pressing issue of the past year, and that is the situation in Zimbabwe.

Our goal as human beings is to ensure that the citizens of Zimbabwe are able to go about their lives without their basic rights being violated. It is for this reason that the World Diamond Council raised its voice to demonstrate against the recent detention by the Zimbabwe authorities of NGO activists. This clearly was an uncalled for and patently unjust attempt by the country's government to suppress criticism. Such actions need to be condemned clearly and without equivocation.

We call today for the immediate and unconditional release of Farai Maguwu.

The World Diamond Council issued its statement as an organization that is concerned both about what is happening in Zimbabwe and with the provision of basic human rights in diamond producing countries. The Kimberley Process will continue to pay dividends if we keep our eyes on the ball, and in the case of Zimbabwe that means monitoring carefully what is happening in Marange. We will not rest until this diamond producing area is operating for the benefit of all the country's citizens.

There are those who feel that the Kimberley Process is not fulfilling its mission, or possibly that its mission is not properly defined. I will say this: I do not for one moment suggest that the KP is above criticism, nor that the KP cannot be improved. Indeed, I believe that there is much to be done, and I will elaborate about that in just a moment. However, we should never overlook what has been achieved, nor should we underestimate how much skill was required to create this delicate coalition involving government, business and civil society, which in the space of just a few years managed to cut the percentage of conflict diamonds in the market to just a mere fraction of what it once was.

Yesterday we discussed the evolution of the Kimberley Process, and the choice of the word "evolution" was deliberate. Beings evolve in nature because of environmental changes, and, when they do, they maintain those elements that ensure their stability, while eliminating or changing other elements that were ineffective or detrimental to their survival.
The same must be true of the Kimberley Process.

I received this week a very comprehensive working paper that had been put together by my good friend Ian Smillie. On a personal note, I am so delighted that Ian has chosen to remain involved in this subject to which he has already made such a very significant contribution.

In his paper, Ian makes a number of proposals. Several involve issues that we at the World Diamond Council having been raising for the past couple of years at least.

These are our recommendations:

First, it is imperative that the administration of the KP be strengthened, and this requires the establishment of a professional staff that will manage its day to day affairs. The current system, by which KP is managed on a part-time basis by, admittedly, a very talented and committed group of individuals, does not properly serve a mechanism on which so many people depend. Furthermore, because the KP chair is transferred annually from country to country, is important that a professional administration be maintained. Like a government whose civil service keeps the wheels turning even when the elected leadership changes, so should operate the Kimberley Process.

Second, we should look at amending the current decision-making process which at present requires absolute consensus for a resolution to pass. We understand that the consensus requirement has played a role in maintaining the KP coalition, but it also has created a situation in which a single participant has the power to block progress, without even having to declare the reason for doing so. The Kimberley Process should consider methods of amending its system of voting so that, on the one hand it can act more decisively, and on the hand still maintain the greatest degree of harmony among participants. In the past there have been suggestions about a super-majority, such as a two-thirds or 75 percent rule. This could provide a viable solution.

Third the KP should reform its rules on the publication of internal reports, with the goal being full transparency of all its actions and conclusions. I would note that at the Kimberley Process panel discussion that took place at the JCK Show in Las Vegas at the beginning of this month, criticism was voiced about a decision to close the Inter-Sessional Meeting to the press.

I do not suggest that we have anything to hide, but with a closed door policy we do give the impression that we are concealing something. I appreciate that there may be instances in which matters are best handled discreetly, but the general approach should be one of openness. I would point out that all meetings of the World Diamond Council, including the upcoming one in St. Petersburg, are open to the press. Not only do we not keep the media outside, but we invite them in to follow our proceedings.

Fourth, we urge our constituents - and here I refer to the diamond industry leadership and the members of the various diamond centers around the world - to vigorously enforce the chain of warranties which is an integral part of the Kimberley Process. In this respect we call for the involvement of key industry bodies, like the World Federation of Diamond Bourses, the International Diamond Manufacturers Association and CIBJO, as well as the governments in the various countries, to oversee this effort.

In summary, we call on all participants to support the Kimberley Process so that it continues to fulfill successfully its most precious mission. At the same time we urge a careful review of the KP system, so that it is properly equipped to meet the challenges thrown up at it seven years after it was first implemented. We also emphasize that, whatever amendments are introduced to the KP system, they be evolutionary. Our environment has changed, and so should the KP, but whatever is introduced should serve to strengthen the alliance between government, business and civil society that provided the Kimberley Process with its strength right from the very beginning.

I thank you.
Eli Izhakoff, President of the World Diamond Council

 

[yssie]

Thank you for posting that Garry.


Seeing those suggestions implemented would be quite the revolution for any bureacracy, efficient and effective or less so

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/21/2010 7:19:54 AM
Author: yssie
Thank you for posting that Garry.



Seeing those suggestions implemented would be quite the revolution for any bureacracy, efficient and effective or less so

There are several bureacracy''s in the trade Yssie.
Here is another email from an another umbrella org that came overnight:
CSR and sustainability under the spotlight
at first WJCEF Executive Course in Antwerp

Antwerp, Belgium: June 21, 2010 - The World Jewellery Confederation Education Foundation (WJCEF) inaugurated its first ever Executive Course in Corporate Social Responsibility in Antwerp on Sunday, June 20, emphasising the connection between CSR and the promotion of sustainable economic, social and environmental activity in countries in which the jewellery industry is active.
"The jewellery industry has come a long way since the year 2000, and the understanding that we cannot allow our business to cause injury to innocent people is well and truly imbedded in our consciousness. But the demand that we do no harm is only side of the CSR coin. Our goal here is to consider the other side of that coin, and that is how the jewellery business acts proactively to bring about sustainable economic and social development in the countries in which we operate," said Gaetano Cavalieri, president of CIBJO and WJCEF.
The general focus of the Executive Course was set on the first day of the proceedings, with the team of lecturers directing participants to the United Nation''s eight Millennium Developments Goals, which are meant to provide solutions to the most acute challenges to human society. Outlining the mission were Dr. Hanifa Mezoui, president of UN-ONG-IRENE; Dr. Francois Loriot, vice president of AIFOMD; and Dr. William Gunn, president of the International Association for Humanitarian Medicine.
Attending the course is Jocelyn Fenard, chief of Partnerships and Resource Mobilisation of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). "This first training session organised through WJCEF by CIBJO, an NGO accredited to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, conducted by renown experts and trainers, is an important milestone for advancing corporate social responsibility in the diamond and jewellery industry, as a way towards supporting the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and promoting Global Compact principles. The level of interactivity and engagement shown by the participants, all worldwide executive managers, is really impressive. It furthermore demonstrates their commitment as well as the need for further training," he said.
During the second and third days of the course, the participants, who come from the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, India, Italy, Switzerland, Israel, Canada and Madagascar, will study the application of CSR principles to small and medium-sized companies, together with CSR consultants Michael and Ivor Hopkins of MHC International, and will receive a special overview of Corporate Social Responsibility presented by Dr. M.J. (Mimi) Marroco and Ron Knowles, experts from the CSR Certificate programme at the University of St. Michaels''s College in the University of Toronto.
"What we examining here in Antwerp is the challenge to find feasible applications for CSR and sustainability in the jewellery and gemstone sector," said Charles Abouchar, president of the Stone Dealers Association of Switzerland, a participant in the course. "We have committed ourselves to these principles, but we are looking for practical tools that we can apply in our own businesses."
"We have been hearing members of the United Nations talking about global social and environmental issues that affect the lives of millions of people across the developing world in Africa and elsewhere," said, course participant Moshe Mosbacher, president of the Diamond Club of New York. "The fact that we are here indicates our belief that is much to learn. However, in my opinion the diamond and jewellery industries have been further ahead of the game than almost any other business sector regarding CSR. We have been less successful in letting the world know what we are doing and how far we have come. "
"CIBJO, along with other bodies like World Federation of Diamond Bourses, find themselves in the unique position of leading our community to achieving full compliance with CSR standards and promoting sustainability. This will benefit our industry, but we also would like to serve as an example to others. The gemstone and jewellery sector should act as a guiding light in the areas of CSR," Mosbacher stated.
WJCEF was established by CIBJO, the World Jewellery Confederation, in December 2008 with the purpose of instilling the principle of Corporate Social Responsibility in the international jewellery industry and trade. The course is being hosted in Belgium by HRD Antwerp.

* * * * *



Participants in the first ever Executive Course in Corporate Social Responsibility in Antwerp on Monday, June 21, 2010.


The participants in the first ever Executive Course in Corporate Social Responsibility in Antwerp, June 20-21,2010.
CIBJO is the international jewellery confederation of national trade organizations. CIBJO''s purpose is to encourage harmonization, promote international cooperation in the jewellery industry and to consider issues which concern the trade worldwide. CIBJO''s chief mission is to protect consumer confidence in the industry. Click here to go to the CIBJO website for more information.

 

[coati]

"Trying to Process Kimberley" by Rob Bates
-posted June 21, 2010

http://www.jckonline.com/blogs/cutting-remarks/2010/06/21/trying-to-process-kimberley

His JCK "Cutting Remarks" blog entry below...

"I am told that “positions are very firm” at the current Kimberley Process Intercessional in Tel Aviv, and tensions are high, but there is a lot of talking going on as the powers that be look for a way out of the current stalemate. Here are some of my thoughts:

- Under current circumstances, Zimbabwe should not be allowed to export stones from Marange.

As long as there are credible allegations of human rights abuses in the region, as well as reports that the military has not withdrawn from the fields, Zimbabwe will not have done what it agreed to under the “joint work plan,” and the moratorium should remain in effect.

For it to be lifted, a monitor (whoever it may be; the current one is controversial) should return to the region and address all the issues surrounding Marange, particularly the human rights questions. Let’s not again have a situation where Zimbabwe may pass a technical audit but fails in every other aspect.

Along those lines ..

- Since last year’s Plenary, Zimbabwe has: rummaged through the KP monitor’s luggage, and published the confidential documents it found in there (ironic, given events to come); arguably violated late year’s embargo (in private); threatened to violate it even more (in public); and arrested an internal critic of its human rights record.

The KP cannot do its job when a country behaves like this. Whether Zimbabwe should be punished for its behavior with complete suspension is an open question. But certainly it should not be rewarded by having the current Marange moratorium lifted. At the very least, it should release the detained NGO worker as a requirement for non-suspension.

- A few thoughts spurred by the Wall Street Journal article, “The Return of the Blood Diamond” on Saturday. (If the article isn't showing up for you, go here.)

We have heard reports of human rights abuses around Angolan mines for some time. On the one hand, we would all love if the Kimberley Process managed to shut out not just conflict diamonds – by the conventional definition – but blood diamonds, meaning diamonds associated with any and all human rights abuses.

On the other hand, people at the World Diamond Council are already nervous about Zimbabwe being booted from the KP, because if a decent-sized producer is able to sell its stones successfully outside the system, that makes the KP pretty meaningless.

To follow up this Zimbabwe circus with, as the Wall Street Journal seems to want, a public debate centered around Angola, a far bigger producer – well, let’s just say, it won’t be easy.

(That said, the industry’s most important constituency is probably the NGOs and media. And if the NGOs insist on these things, the industry may have to go along with it, even if the KP ends up hurt in the long run.)

Which brings me to my final point: The KP isn’t a cure-all. And it was never meant to be. Amid all the bad publicity over the Blood Diamond movie four years ago, some in the industry argued (or were accused of arguing) that if a stone had a KP certificate, that stone was perfectly okay. But that wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. It might signify that the stone is conflict-free, but that’s it. Even if you clear up all the human rights issues, you still have alluvial diggers working in horrendous conditions. The KP was always the beginning of the industry’s efforts to reform itself, not the end.

So if the KP doesn’t really work as the industry’s all-purpose Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, what good is it? As I always understood it, it is meant as a mechanism to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the main supply chain, and therefore decrease the profits earned by rebel groups that gain control of diamond areas. One of the reasons it’s been considered successful – and despite what critics say, it is considered successful – is because it’s so narrowly focused. No one should underestimate the importance of trying to stop conflict diamonds – millions of people were killed in wars related to diamonds.

Which is why retailers and others who adhere to the KP should be commended. Not because every diamond they sell is produced under perfect circumstances; they aren’t. But because they are supporting an important system, which, one hopes, will prevent another diamond-fueled civil war like the one in Sierra Leone from re-occurring.

There is still a lot to change in how this industry runs. Serious people acknowledge that. What the trade may have to do is develop other systems and codes of conduct to deal with some of these questions. The Diamond Development Initiative is currently doing some good work around the issues around alluvial diggers. We may also have to come up with rules regarding how mining companies and governments handle illegal miners. Needless to say, murder, rape and torture would be out.

The KP should (and likely will) be reformed where possible; the World Diamond Council all but endorsed yesterday some of the NGO’s suggestions for change. But we need to really be clear about what the KP can, and cannot, do. And if the KP isn’t suited for dealing with certain things, let’s find out ways to deal with them."

 

[yssie]

Garry - what exactly is the point of that entire speech, 'cause I'm missing it.. Though I certainly agree that A) large corporations do have social responsibilities, and B) acknowledgement of that has come a long way since 2000, it reads like one long pat-on-the-back and doesn't actually say anything.. or maybe I'm just a cynic.


Coati - that's a very honest appraisal, which an interested consumer can appreciate - a clear (mostly agreed upon, I suppose, which would no doubt require some negotiating) outline of what the kp was designed to do, what it does, what it could do, and what is simply out of its scope and should be addressed elsewhere would simplify matters exponentially. But I have to say that I think publishing that outline would shatter lots of consumers' illusions

 

[coati]

Date: 6/22/2010 4:02:05 PM
Author: yssie
Coati - that''s a very honest appraisal, which an interested consumer can appreciate - a clear (mostly agreed upon, I suppose, which would no doubt require some negotiating) outline of what the kp was designed to do, what it does, what it could do, and what is simply out of its scope and should be addressed elsewhere would simplify matters exponentially. But I have to say that I think publishing that outline would shatter lots of consumers'' illusions

Perhaps, but consumers would have to care to have their illusions shattered. The aim of organizations like Diamond Development Initiative and Responsible Jewellery Council-is to create awareness and ultimately facilitate change. So another question is, how can you care if you are unaware of what''s happening? Popular media isn''t going to highlight this information. Awareness is the first step in enacting change, no?

 

[yssie]

Awareness..

I would say the vast majority of PSers care. As do the many people seeking Canadian diamonds, though most won''t have the full story.
But PS is one fish in an ocean.

I''m glad the DDI will receive the proceeds from the PS project, and I very much hope their endeavours to create awareness of the many issues involved are successful

 

[Gayletmom]

Thanks, Coati and Garry for the informative discussion. I read the WSJ article last week and then got so much more info here. We appreciate your time and efforts.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

CSR is the new buzz acronim in diamond and jewelry company and association press releases.
Coporate Social Responsability.
Here are 2 that I woke to this morning:
http://www.antwerpfacetsonline.be/rosy-blue-commits-further-social-responsibility-launch-2009-report
http://www.antwerpfacetsonline.be/un-body-invites-cibjo-take-part-shanghai-world-expo-csr-event

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

As Garry said, the situation is complicated, and I have taken my time to try and reduce it to the essential, while trying to remain complete.

The issue at hand is basically that of Zimbabwe. I see Congo (the Democratic Republic) being mentioned, but as far as rebel groups are concerned, they are apparently active in areas of mining of gold, coltan and tin. I have attended a presentation at last JCK, where NGO''s were explaining how they are fighting that exploitation, and they were positive about their progress.

As for Zimbabwe and diamonds, the problem-area is the Marange-fields. This area is under the control of the Zimbabwean government, who have chased away in a very brutal manner (involving about 200 deaths) the illegal artisanal miners in 2008. Of course, this artisanal activity had suddenly become illegal because government decided in that way. Exploitation is now in the hands of two shady private companies, supported by government, and probably co-owned or with kickbacks to government or particular persons in government.

This situation obviously is inacceptable, but the fact of it occurring is not surprising given the history of the Mugabe-regime, who first chased away most of the white farmers to the benefit of their cronies, turning a food-exporting country into one with severe food-shortages and hyperinflation.

Looking at the Kimberley Process, this is a co-operation between the industry, NGO''s and governments. Considering that the Mugabe-regime has been under severe criticism for years (mostly from the west), but has always received the support from neighboring countries (with South-Africa being the strongman in the region), can we really expect these same governments reaching a negative decision on Zimbabwe within the Kimberley-Process? Unfortunately, I fear that regional politics will not allow this.

Luckily, diamonds from the Marange-fields are relatively easy to identify, and I see a lot of people in the industry avoiding them actively. We personally do this because of personal conviction, but the Rapnet-boycott and the implicit way in which De Beers'' forbid their sightholders to deal in these goods definitely have their effect on the actions of others.

Still, we will need more political pressure so that the Mugabe-regime in Zimbabwe can be ended. I think that diamonds have a minor effect on the regime, and any action within the Kimberley-Process will not lead to the desired solution. We simply need more pressure on that regime, so that Mugabe does not keep his people hostage anymore. In that sense, for our industry, it does not help that Zimbabwe is considered a very promising country for further diamond-exploration.

In that regard, I do have a problem with the actions of Mister Rapaport. This seems to be the personal hungerstrike of a journalist, appalled at the situation in Marange. Through his own journalistic channel, he reports about that, but in such a generalizing way that he does not mention Zimbabwe in his report and he equals all Kimberley-compliant diamonds to blood diamonds. It is weird to see a journalist clouding his information instead of detailing it at the occasion of such an important meeting. It is also new to me to see a journalist on hungerstrike when his knowledge of the proceedings should teach him that the chances of the Kimberley-Process reaching a decision on this are close to zero. But it becomes shameful if the journalist is also the businessman Rapaport, who has been trying to set up a business in fair-trade-diamonds for the past three or four years. Then, cloudy journalism and spectacular actions become business-tactics, which do not serve the poor people of Zimbabwe in any way.

I hope that this information was in some way clarifying.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/24/2010 6:20:14 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
As Garry said, the situation is complicated, and I have taken my time to try and reduce it to the essential, while trying to remain complete.


The issue at hand is basically that of Zimbabwe. I see Congo (the Democratic Republic) being mentioned, but as far as rebel groups are concerned, they are apparently active in areas of mining of gold, coltan and tin. I have attended a presentation at last JCK, where NGO''s were explaining how they are fighting that exploitation, and they were positive about their progress.


As for Zimbabwe and diamonds, the problem-area is the Marange-fields. This area is under the control of the Zimbabwean government, who have chased away in a very brutal manner (involving about 200 deaths) the illegal artisanal miners in 2008. Of course, this artisanal activity had suddenly become illegal because government decided in that way. Exploitation is now in the hands of two shady private companies, supported by government, and probably co-owned or with kickbacks to government or particular persons in government.


This situation obviously is inacceptable, but the fact of it occurring is not surprising given the history of the Mugabe-regime, who first chased away most of the white farmers to the benefit of their cronies, turning a food-exporting country into one with severe food-shortages and hyperinflation.


Looking at the Kimberley Process, this is a co-operation between the industry, NGO''s and governments. Considering that the Mugabe-regime has been under severe criticism for years (mostly from the west), but has always received the support from neighboring countries (with South-Africa being the strongman in the region), can we really expect these same governments reaching a negative decision on Zimbabwe within the Kimberley-Process? Unfortunately, I fear that regional politics will not allow this.


Luckily, diamonds from the Marange-fields are relatively easy to identify, and I see a lot of people in the industry avoiding them actively. We personally do this because of personal conviction, but the Rapnet-boycott and the implicit way in which De Beers'' forbid their sightholders to deal in these goods definitely have their effect on the actions of others.


Still, we will need more political pressure so that the Mugabe-regime in Zimbabwe can be ended. I think that diamonds have a minor effect on the regime, and any action within the Kimberley-Process will not lead to the desired solution. We simply need more pressure on that regime, so that Mugabe does not keep his people hostage anymore. In that sense, for our industry, it does not help that Zimbabwe is considered a very promising country for further diamond-exploration.


In that regard, I do have a problem with the actions of Mister Rapaport. This seems to be the personal hungerstrike of a journalist, appalled at the situation in Marange. Through his own journalistic channel, he reports about that, but in such a generalizing way that he does not mention Zimbabwe in his report and he equals all Kimberley-compliant diamonds to blood diamonds. It is weird to see a journalist clouding his information instead of detailing it at the occasion of such an important meeting. It is also new to me to see a journalist on hungerstrike when his knowledge of the proceedings should teach him that the chances of the Kimberley-Process reaching a decision on this are close to zero. But it becomes shameful if the journalist is also the businessman Rapaport, who has been trying to set up a business in fair-trade-diamonds for the past three or four years. Then, cloudy journalism and spectacular actions become business-tactics, which do not serve the poor people of Zimbabwe in any way.


I hope that this information was in some way clarifying.


Live long,

Thanks Paul.
an excellent report. but i would not be me without one little pick.
"Looking at the Kimberley Process, this is a co-operation between the industry, NGO''s and governments."
The KP was the first and only industry raised and initiated UN succesful policy. Some 70 countries signed on to ban importation of diamonds that were not sealed by a diamond mining and exporting governemnt that was one of participants.
NGO''s are part of the monitoring system, but not part of the system itself, they are observers with no other rights than banging drums. It is a UN construct. As such it has the UN veto system and any nation can veto any directive - you need 100% agreement, so passing a change to a human rights issue is impossile because at least 1/3rd of the nations know they could not pass such a test that would be held over Zimbabwae.

 

[John P]

From Zimbabwe Metro

6/22

b]

Zimbabwe has threatened to walk away from the Kimberley Process (KP), if it does not get approval from the international diamonds trade watchdog to export rough diamonds from Chiadzwa in Marange.

The KP is currently holding a meeting in Israel and is due to make a decision on whether or not to certify Zimbabwe’s diamonds for export.

Members at the meeting told SW Radio Africa that the Zimbabwean delegation, led by Mines Minister Obert Mpofu, have been ‘acting like spoilt brats’ and threatening to pull out of the Kimberley Process if the ban on diamond exports from Chiadzwa is not lifted.

Zimbabwe has failed to meet the required conditions set out by the watchdog to allow certification. These include: providing quarterly reports on mining efforts or updates and the demilitarisation of the Chiadzwa area; providing a forensic audit of all stockpiles of diamonds and show efforts to address cross border smuggling.

The decision by the KP members is made by unanimous consensus. So far several countries from the west, organisations in the diamond industry and members of the international civil society, are concerned that the work plan set out for Zimbabwe has not been met. But there are some countries, especially from Africa, who want Zimbabwe’s diamond exports approved. However the situation in Tel Aviv is said to be very fluid and positions by the various members is likely to change.

A delegate who spoke on condition of anonymity said: “It looks like Zimbabwe will not get its way tomorrow and will likely walk. The country has a right to voluntarily suspend itself but it will not be legally allowed to sell diamonds on the market. There is a growing concern from the KP that the Zimbabwean diamonds will be sold on the black market, especially in Asian markets, if it is not able to sell diamonds on the market. This is why the Kimberley Process was formed to stop illegal diamond sells.”

Rights groups have accused the Minister of Mines of blocking access to companies which are controversially mining in Chaidzwa, by imposing his allies as board members. He is also accused of accumulating much personal wealth through the exploitation of the Chiadzwa diamond fields. >>

 

[John P]

From JCK Online

Today 6/24


[/b]The high-profile Intersessional Meeting of the Kimberley Process ended June 24 without a consensus reached regarding the implementation of the Joint Work Plan in the Marange diamond fields in Zimbabwe. The work plans calls for diamond sales from Marange to only take place with the approval of the KP monitor. While the monitor had recommended exports go ahead, the larger body could not come to an agreement on that recommendation. Zimbabwe had been accused of violating the work plan.

The meeting also sought to address a number of initiatives—including creating an office for administration and consolidating the KP’s decision-making process—however, the situation in Zimbabwe took precedence in light of the controversial arrest of NGO activist Farai Mguwu and his treatment by the Zimbabwean authorities. Zimbabwe threatened to leave the KP if it did not get approval to export rough diamonds from Chiadzwa in Marange, according to a news report.

Israel will host the Plenary meeting in Jerusalem between the 1st and 4th of November of this year.[/i] >>

 

[diagem]

Date: 6/24/2010 6:20:14 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
As Garry said, the situation is complicated, and I have taken my time to try and reduce it to the essential, while trying to remain complete.

The issue at hand is basically that of Zimbabwe. I see Congo (the Democratic Republic) being mentioned, but as far as rebel groups are concerned, they are apparently active in areas of mining of gold, coltan and tin. I have attended a presentation at last JCK, where NGO''s were explaining how they are fighting that exploitation, and they were positive about their progress.

As for Zimbabwe and diamonds, the problem-area is the Marange-fields. This area is under the control of the Zimbabwean government, who have chased away in a very brutal manner (involving about 200 deaths) the illegal artisanal miners in 2008. Of course, this artisanal activity had suddenly become illegal because government decided in that way. Exploitation is now in the hands of two shady private companies, supported by government, and probably co-owned or with kickbacks to government or particular persons in government.

This situation obviously is inacceptable, but the fact of it occurring is not surprising given the history of the Mugabe-regime, who first chased away most of the white farmers to the benefit of their cronies, turning a food-exporting country into one with severe food-shortages and hyperinflation.

Looking at the Kimberley Process, this is a co-operation between the industry, NGO''s and governments. Considering that the Mugabe-regime has been under severe criticism for years (mostly from the west), but has always received the support from neighboring countries (with South-Africa being the strongman in the region), can we really expect these same governments reaching a negative decision on Zimbabwe within the Kimberley-Process? Unfortunately, I fear that regional politics will not allow this.

Luckily, diamonds from the Marange-fields are relatively easy to identify, and I see a lot of people in the industry avoiding them actively. We personally do this because of personal conviction, but the Rapnet-boycott and the implicit way in which De Beers'' forbid their sightholders to deal in these goods definitely have their effect on the actions of others.

Still, we will need more political pressure so that the Mugabe-regime in Zimbabwe can be ended. I think that diamonds have a minor effect on the regime, and any action within the Kimberley-Process will not lead to the desired solution. We simply need more pressure on that regime, so that Mugabe does not keep his people hostage anymore. In that sense, for our industry, it does not help that Zimbabwe is considered a very promising country for further diamond-exploration.

In that regard, I do have a problem with the actions of Mister Rapaport. This seems to be the personal hungerstrike of a journalist, appalled at the situation in Marange. Through his own journalistic channel, he reports about that, but in such a generalizing way that he does not mention Zimbabwe in his report and he equals all Kimberley-compliant diamonds to blood diamonds. It is weird to see a journalist clouding his information instead of detailing it at the occasion of such an important meeting. It is also new to me to see a journalist on hungerstrike when his knowledge of the proceedings should teach him that the chances of the Kimberley-Process reaching a decision on this are close to zero. But it becomes shameful if the journalist is also the businessman Rapaport, who has been trying to set up a business in fair-trade-diamonds for the past three or four years. Then, cloudy journalism and spectacular actions become business-tactics, which do not serve the poor people of Zimbabwe in any way.

I hope that this information was in some way clarifying.

Live long,

Thank you Paul for this info..., nicely written & to the point.

Me too I am a bit disappointed at Rapaport''s personal PR agenda, but am glad it was kept generaly quiet in the media.
I also dont understand why he never once mentioned Zimbabwe in his report when the pure focus of the issue is clearly Zimbabwe!

I just read an interesting memo, Edahn Golan who took over Chaim Even Zohar''s weekly memo column on Idexonline used a good example incorporating " game-theory analysis".

"...Two guys are put in a room with a suitcase full of cash. They are told they will not be allowed to leave the room until they decide on how they will divide the cash between them. Alternatively, they can leave the money in the suitcase and walk away with nothing. The door closes and Abe immediately offers to split the money 50/50 and go home. Berry offers him in return a dirty look and replies, "I''m taking 90 percent of the money. If you don''t like the idea, I''m OK with walking away with nothing at all. The choice is yours." After a heated back and fourth, Abe sees that Berry is not budging, and concludes that the only way for him to get any money is by accepting Berry''s hard-line stance...."


For the rest of the memo: http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp

 

[Regular Guy]

Paul and Yoram,

So, I did pluck this item to begin with, so don''t be surprised to see me back.

Whether it was original with Pirkei Avot, or Edmund Burke...the sensibility of what follows should be understood on it''s face:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

It is one thing for a party to commit a crime, and another to witness it and take no action when one is able to do so.

I believe Mr. Rappaport has come from this sensibility, personally. That he also invests himself by his action in what he believes...for this additional involvement with his life, although I could choose to quarrel for lack of bias, I instead choose to say thank you.

Garry, I hold harmless, because the issue is absolutely complex, and it is reasonable to see the problem for the nuanced issue that it is. Truly, it is upon all of us to seek to find the "biggest" truth...in both this concern, and in every day of our lives. Determining the greater good, and seeking to bring this forward...one cannot find fault with this.

 

[diagem]

Date: 6/25/2010 9:55:11 AM
Author: Regular Guy
Paul and Yoram,

So, I did pluck this item to begin with, so don''t be surprised to see me back.

Whether it was original with Pirkei Avot, or Edmund Burke...the sensibility of what follows should be understood on it''s face:

''All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.''

It is one thing for a party to commit a crime, and another to witness it and take no action when one is able to do so.

I believe Mr. Rappaport has come from this sensibility, personally. That he also invests himself by his action in what he believes...for this additional involvement with his life, although I could choose to quarrel for lack of bias, I instead choose to say thank you.

Garry, I hold harmless, because the issue is absolutely complex, and it is reasonable to see the problem for the nuanced issue that it is. Truly, it is upon all of us to seek to find the ''biggest'' truth...in both this concern, and in every day of our lives. Determining the greater good, and seeking to bring this forward...one cannot find fault with this.

RG, you''ve been virtually around this industry for quite a long time..., what would your suggestion be?

 

[Regular Guy]

Thank you, Yoram,

I do not feel bad for making noise where I see trouble, while not being in possession of a solution. I read where this is complex, and am reluctant to offer unready answers. I do appreciate Garry's offering caution where some answers might otherwise seem straightforward.

I have been on the same train, saying Canadian is not the answer.

From reading press reports recently, in the spirit of good ideas...sorry guys...and I can't yet endorse them without more substantive information (I've been trading messages with them), for the shopper on the ground, I will say that "The Clarity Project" people seem to have their head on straight.

I have been to the Facebook page, and have asked the Kimberley Process people to account for the decision to have the decision making process one of consensus. I think, similar to many other organizations (I'm mindful of Conservative Judaism's system...but virtually every system of organization will have a strategy for counting and deciding based on each member having a vote), not insisting that everyone agrees on a decision would help to rationalize the process.

In terms of lowest hanging fruit...if the Kimberley Process is seen to be a tool that can assist, making consumers more fully aware of its existence even, such that consumers ask for it...such activity might at least coincide with efforts to get it right.

The effort to create a fair trade system so that progressive shoppers can draw their attention to it, and be less concerned about whether Kimberley finally gets it right...

....these are some of the ideas I have.

But, niche answers do not allow the tail to be grabbed, and I realize that that it the bigger question on the table. Sometimes, though, if after a period of time, and having tried to get your parties to behave, and the process fails, from the point of view that you want to separate out the good from the bad...I think it may be reasonable to "cut lose" the offending party. But, I respect the need to do the math. And, if it is possible that someone with a bigger view has an idea that allows a bigger tent to remain, I will want to hear their voice at the table.

While keeping an open mind, we should be willing to keep light on the problem. It's in this spirit I engage the discussion.

 

[diagem]

Date: 6/25/2010 11:28:41 AM
Author: Regular Guy
Thank you, Yoram,

I do not feel bad for making noise where I see trouble, while not being in possession of a solution. I read where this is complex, and am reluctant to offer unready answers. I do appreciate Garry''s offering caution where some answers might otherwise seem straightforward.

I have been on the same train, saying Canadian is not the answer.

From reading press reports recently, in the spirit of good ideas...sorry guys...and I can''t yet endorse them without more substantive information (I''ve been trading messages with them), for the shopper on the ground, I will say that ''The Clarity Project'' people seem to have their head on straight.

I have been to the Facebook page, and have asked the Kimberley Process people to account for the decision to have the decision making process one of consensus. I think, similar to many other organizations (I''m mindful of Conservative Judaism''s system...but virtually every system of organization will have a strategy for counting and deciding based on each member having a vote), not insisting that everyone agrees on a decision would help to rationalize the process.

In terms of lowest hanging fruit...if the Kimberley Process is seen to be a tool that can assist, making consumers more fully aware of its existence even, such that consumers ask for it...such activity might at least coincide with efforts to get it right.

The effort to create a fair trade system so that progressive shoppers can draw their attention to it, and be less concerned about whether Kimberley finally gets it right...

....these are some of the ideas I have.

But, niche answers do not allow the tail to be grabbed, and I realize that that it the bigger question on the table. Sometimes, though, if after a period of time, and having tried to get your parties to behave, and the process fails, from the point of view that you want to separate out the good from the bad...I think it may be reasonable to ''cut lose'' the offending party. But, I respect the need to do the math. And, if it is possible that someone with a bigger view has an idea that allows a bigger tent to remain, I will want to hear their voice at the table.

While keeping an open mind, we should be willing to keep light on the problem. It''s in this spirit I engage the discussion.

Agreed!

Clarity Project might be one of many Companies with genuine attempts to deliver a clean & ''fair'' (as they describe it) product.
I for one still genuinely believe that close to 100% of Diamonds are conflict free so I have a hard time seeing a Company attempting to show they are "a needle in the haystack" in this industry. They have a nice concept with a nice tune.
Every industry professional I know is genuinely attempting to show & try proving that he/she deals with ''fair Diamonds''. echoing Rapaport just doesnt do it for me.

I would though advice them to change the following picture (on their contact us link) as it has different connotations as well.

But yes RG, we must keep an open mind.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here is an interesting and assertive take from Edahn Golan - editor of IDEX
http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp?id=34176

It shos more of the complexity of this issue.

I have taken the liberty of posting the entire release here:-

A Hard-line Stand That Hurts Those That Deserve Our Protection
Two guys are put in a room with a suitcase full of cash. They are told they will not be allowed to leave the room until they decide on how they will divide the cash between them. Alternatively, they can leave the money in the suitcase and walk away with nothing. The door closes and Abe immediately offers to split the money 50/50 and go home. Berry offers him in return a dirty look and replies, "I''m taking 90 percent of the money. If


you don''t like the idea, I''m OK with walking away with nothing at all. The choice is yours."


After a heated back and fourth, Abe sees that Berry is not budging, and concludes that the only way for him to get any money is by accepting Berry''s hard-line stance.


The KP talks this week bare resemblance to this story. Prof. Robert Israel Aumann, who won a Nobel Prize in economics for his work on understanding conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis, offers three points to improve Abe''s bargaining position.


First, Abe must let go of the state of mind that made him feel that he must have some of the money. In the diamond industry traders say, ''never fall in love with the goods on the table.'' Abe''s inability to let go was the first step in allowing himself to fall victim to blackmail.


Next, he must take into account "repeat games." Abe treated this occurrence as a one time opportunity, to have or have not. If he would have been willing to walk away from the money, Berry would learn that his stand does not pay and in the long run, as the situation repeats itself, would seek to cooperate with Abe.


Finally, Aumann claims that belief in oneself is an important element in this kind of situation. If one has a strong belief in himself, the other will eventually accept it and be convinced by it. Abe, despite his rational desire to arrive at a fair compromise, caved in to an irrational and uncompromising stand.


On Monday I walked among the delegates at the KP Intersessional, asking them all the same question: What compromise are you willing to accept in order to resolve the Zimbabwe imbroglio? All but one indicated willingness to compromise. The one that didn''t, the one that demonstrated a strong belief in her stand, was an NGO representative.


The NGOs represent the moral stand of the diamond industry at large, and serve as a moral compass for us all. It''s right to follow their lead in many issues. But all of us know that life is not perfect. We need to give a little to gain some, instead of losing it all. The problem begins when one player decides to not compromise.


I would hate to think that the U.S., the diamond industry, and others, decided to make the irrational decision and adopt the uncompromising stand as if this week''s meeting was a one time occurrence. It''s not. The NGOs apparently were not willing to accept what most everyone else was willing to accept and as result we got nowhere.


Is this bad? Maybe it’s the Zimbabweans that are the hardliners, unwilling to remove the military from Marange, unwilling to release Farai Maguwu on bail. I''m told that Zimbabwe''s speech at the conference expressed willingness to make concessions. After that speech many delegates moved closer to a compromise.


The NGOs keep asking us "what will the consumer say? How will they understand a compromise?" This almost sounds like a veiled threat. Is that what the NGOs have to offer? Accept our stand or else?


No one wants to see Mugabe or his army grow rich off legally mined and KP approved diamonds. But aren''t we losing sight of the plight of the real victims, the poor diggers that only have a shovel to make a meager living? Isn''t protecting them the moral stand we should adopt? Haven''t their neighbors been shot and killed?


Here is what we have now and until a solution is found: illegally mined diamonds, smuggled out of the country and into India via Dubai, with no one ensuring that the weak and disadvantaged are protected. And that is only in the short run.


In the long run, these diggers and their families are not benefiting from clean water, decent education, health services or job training. I''m not naïve about these expectations: Rio Tinto is making that a living reality right now at a different part of Zimbabwe – by the Murowa diamond mine.


Basically it is a choice, and KP did not choose well.


KP failed this week. It failed diamond consumers and diamond digging villagers alike because it failed to arrive at a resolution that could have right the wrong. In Judaism we call it Tikun Olam, a series of small actions that improve the world. In game theory it''s called the Paradox Conflict, where we yield to an irrational stand and lose most everything. Or at least so goes the theory.

 

[Karl_K]

I have been following this with interest and increasing anger.
I do not get those that think shades of pink are ok, there are no shades, either the entire lot is clean or the entire lot is bloody if just one piece of the rough in it was sourced at the expense of an innocents life.

It is really that simple the entire industry is being tested will it live up to its marketing? or will it bow to the $$$$?

So far it looks like $$$ is winning.

 

[Karl_K]

$$$$ follow the $$$$
http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullNews.asp?id=34186