[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13650-13651]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           KIMBERLEY PROCESS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to express my concern about the 
future of the Kimberley Process, the global voluntary initiative to 
stem the flow of conflict diamonds. Last week, key members of the 
Kimberley Process, including governments, industry representatives, and 
civil society groups,

[[Page 13651]]

met in St. Petersburg to break the deadlock over whether Zimbabwe 
should be certified to export its diamonds. A year ago, a review 
mission of the Kimberley Process traveled to Zimbabwe and documented 
extensive smuggling of diamonds and abuses against civilians by police 
and army forces at diamond sites. This rightly led to Zimbabwe's 
suspension from the process. However, Zimbabwe has threatened to 
continue with its exports regardless, and there has been a push by some 
Kimberley Process members to reinstate its certification.
  Last week's meeting resulted in an agreement allowing Zimbabwe to 
export a limited number of diamonds on the condition that a new 
Kimberley Process Review Mission is permitted to return to the country 
and monitor conditions. This may be a workable agreement on paper, but 
it can only succeed with the good faith efforts of all parties, not 
least the Government of Zimbabwe. I am disappointed that members of the 
Kimberley Process did not take a stronger stand against certifying 
Zimbabwe's diamonds for export. Without proof that the government in 
question has changed the conditions that resulted in suspension, 
granting certification may be undermining the core components of the 
process. The onus should be on a government to prove such change has 
occurred before it is reinstated, not after. Now if this agreement is 
not implemented, I worry that it will be a significant blow to the 
credibility of the process.
  Zimbabwe is not the only country raising issues that threaten the 
credibility of the Kimberley Process. Last month, the Wall Street 
Journal reported that there continue to be abuses and killings by 
soldiers and private security guards in Angola around diamond mines. 
Angola is reportedly the world's fifth-largest diamond producer in 
terms of overall value. Meanwhile, the United Nations Expert Group on 
Cote D'Ivoire has reported for years on how groups in northern Cote 
D'Ivoire continue to extract and smuggle diamonds through neighboring 
countries in violation of UN sanctions. Diamond smuggling is also 
reportedly rampant in Venezuela, while the government there continues 
to evade the Kimberley Process. Across these countries and many others, 
weak government controls and limited enforcement options are enabling 
illicit diamonds to continue to enter the legitimate trade.
  The inability of the Kimberley Process to effectively address these 
problems has exposed significant loopholes within the process. To begin 
with, the Kimberley Process defines ``conflict diamonds'' as ``rough 
diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict 
aimed at undermining legitimate governments.'' While this definition 
may have made sense in light of the civil wars in countries such as 
Sierra Leone and Liberia, it does not capture abuses and violence 
perpetrated today by government forces in diamond-producing areas 
around the world. In addition, the process lacks a clear, agreed-upon 
approach for dealing with cases of noncompliance like Venezuela or 
Zimbabwe. As we move into the 10th year of Kimberley's existence, we 
need to take a serious look at how we can best ensure the certification 
scheme has real power to investigate, monitor, and curb the illegal 
flow of diamonds, including ensuring serious consequences when a 
country does not live up to its commitments.
  Since its inception, I have strongly supported the Kimberley Process 
as a vehicle to stop the trade in conflict diamonds and protect 
consumers and legitimate diamond producers from unwittingly 
participating in abuses. And the Kimberley Process has achieved a great 
deal in this respect, despite being a voluntary process and thereby 
having obvious limitations. But now I strongly believe we need to see 
the Kimberley Process recommit to its human rights agenda at the same 
time that it deals with the technical and procedural challenges that 
hamper its effectiveness. We still have a long way to go in curbing the 
flow of conflict diamonds and ensuring they do not make their way into 
our markets.
  For these reasons, I believe we must look seriously at the 
effectiveness of the Kimberley Process and consider revamping its 
framework so it has real teeth. Doing so will require strong 
leadership, and I believe the United States as the world's largest 
consumer of diamonds and a key player in the creation of the process is 
well positioned to provide that leadership. Senator Leahy and I have 
urged the Obama administration to put the United States forward to be 
vice-chair of the Kimberley Process for 2011 and thus chair in 2012. It 
is in our national interest to have a strong Kimberley Process, and it 
is a critical moment for the United States to exhibit leadership to 
that end.

                          ____________________