Can we help you find something?

Content type
Organization Type

Brad - Thanks for bringing up consumer growth, which is shifting from the North Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, like many other aspects of African trade. Given your experience, how have you seen that shift play out in KP deliberations over the last few years? 

It's interesting that gold producers are considering a KP-type initiative. I have not been following it closely, but I trust they can learn from KP for a more robust system of certification from scratch. 

By the way, both of you may be interested in this video which looks at International Relations as a Flow of Natural Resources:


Brad: I only picked those countries as examples of likeminded countries..gotta start somewhere. I agree more leverage will be with countries where demand is greatest.  We need to find ways to link guiding principles to other initiatives.
Again, a quick devil's advocate/non-official USG point -- why should the U.S. work with Canada and EU only on these issues?  What effect would that really have?   Why take what are clearly declining consumer markets in the West and only work there on standards for mining?  DeBeers predicted this week that by 2015 the combination of China, India, and Middle East markets will outpace the U.S.  The more we exacerbate the North-South divide, the more we may be undermining true development and respect for human rights. 
These are important points.....  all I am saying is that we need a better more consistent multinational approach to ensuring that mining does not undermine human rights.  The US should work with Canada and the EU on a broad brush approach. i fear our current piece meal approach is having unanticipated spillovers--Canada/Russia share of diamond trade growing; decline in trade of conflict minerals from Africa etc...No one can anticipate spillover effects, but we need to think more effectively of how to encourage trade without undermining human rights.
I think we have reached a point, though, where the question is whether that's for the Kimberley Process to evolve into.  To play devil's advocate a bit, the international community (though an UNGA resolution in 2000) called for (some would argue created a very specific and limited mandate for) the establishment of a system for a very specific purpose -- rough diamonds sold by rebel groups to fund conflict.  There is a WTO exemption enabling this to be a "monopoly system" of sorts tied to that specific purpose, with 50 participants creating their own implementing legislation also linked to that purpose alone.  It was birthed with a consensus-by-unanimity decision-making structure.  The KP is thus not set up to evolve, either in construction or operation.  In fact, it could well face legal action if it tried.  But maybe that's okay -- settng up governance systems to prevent rebel groups from selling diamonds to fund conflict a la RUF is a sufficiently important issue to leave it be just that.  If the world, or individual governments or industries, wants to deal with repressive governments mining diamonds, then the KP may well not even be the best model to build upon for such other purposes.  Leave the KP be the KP and do its work on this one key issue -- if there is more to do, then let it be done elsewhere.  (Again, this is a devil's advocate position and not official USG policy).  
Brad makes a good point--that the Kimberley process can be linked to other strategies that can empower small miners and people in the communities affected by mining. But perhaps Kimberley needs to evolve to ensure that repressive governments do not undermine human rights as they mine diamonds (or allow diamonds to be mined).