Naomi Campbell diverts attention from bigger issue

A supermodel, her former agent and an actress turned human rights campaigner all appearing at a war crimes trial. What’s not there for the media and a sensationalist-driven society to like?

Such is our obsession with celebrity that the trial of Charles Taylor, who is accused of 11 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, has been largely ignored since it began in 2007.

That ended when Naomi Campbell was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing over alleged blood diamonds she received from Taylor in 1997. Then came Carole White, the ex-agent, and Mia Farrow.

But it seems the media’s interest will only remain so long as a juicy angle involving Campbell can be squeezed out of the case.

Attention has now turned to covering the aftermath of the testimonies of the model, White and Farrow and what happened to the small number of diamonds.

But it’s a sideshow. While this goes on, the media is missing a much more important issue: thousands of dubious diamonds are currently flooding the market. And the regulator supposed to stop this from happening is incapable of doing anything meaningful.

Last week Zimbabwe began selling diamonds from its Marange field, which for two years has been the scene of rampant human rights abuses by the military against civilians.

As Human Rights Watch noted in its report, Deliberate Chaos, in June this year: “Police and soldiers, deployed by the government, massacred some 200 people as they seized control of the area. They beat and raped locals, forced them to mine for diamonds, and carried out other human rights abuses. Those responsible have not been held accountable.”

A 2009 report, Diamonds in the Rough, cited forced labour of children and adults, torture and claims of miners being buried alive.

Surely the atrocities were enough for the diamond regulator, the Kimberley Process, to take effective action.

Its role is to monitor the diamond trade to stop blood diamonds - those mined in conflict zones - from entering the market. Its membership is made up of 75 countries, including Zimbabwe.

Yet members only agreed in November 2009 to impose a short-term ban on the African nation. It was lifted on July 15 this year on the basis the abuses had ended.

According to the chair of the KP, Boaz Hirsch, the decision showed the scheme had “teeth” and “is able to achieve results” because exports would now be supervised by a monitor from the regulator.

“If this is a victory for anyone, it is a victory for the Kimberley Process,” he said last month.

It’s anything but. No one has been brought to justice for the crimes committed and the case of Zimbabwe has raised serious doubts as to whether the regulator can fulfil its role.

Under the KP provisions, Robert Mugabe’s regime has technically done nothing wrong: “Conflict diamonds means rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflicts aimed at undermining legitimate governments” (emphasis added).

And as Human Rights Watch points out: “The abuses committed by Zimbabwe’s police and army did not occur in armed conflict …”

It is incredulous that diamonds from Marange are not considered blood diamonds.

Yet the current structure of the scheme means any real action against Zimbabwe, or any other country that follows its lead, is unlikely to be taken.

“… the KP’s reliance on consensus among members has allowed regional allies to veto tough decisions on Zimbabwe, which remains a member despite the state-sponsored murder of hundreds of diamond diggers,” Annie Dunnebacke, a diamond campaigner for human rights group Global Witness, says.

The KP cannot effectively deal with governments that commit abuses because it was established as a response to conflicts involving rebel groups such as in Sierra Leone. Ad-hoc penalties such as temporary bans are hardly an effective response to murder, rape, forced labour and so on.

Zimbabwe is the latest in the number of incidents that cast serious doubt over whether the KP can do its job.

Back in 2007, Global Witness found illegal trade in diamonds worth more than $10 million was happening between KP members and non-members.

The group exposed serious failings in the KP’s ability to detect illegal trading. In 2006, the United Nations revealed the Ivory Coast smuggled US$23 million of blood diamonds out of the country.

Venezuela was expelled in 2008 from the Kimberley Process for failing to certify its diamonds. Yet its ability to get its goods to market hasn’t been harmed.

Diamonds are now smuggled through Guyana and Brazil and falsely certified as coming from conflict-free zones, effectively showing that countries can do away with the checks and balances and still prosper.

It’s clear reform is vital. If the KP cannot respond with appropriate measures to stop diamonds from blood-soaked mines or non-participant countries from entering the market then what is it good for?

Global Witness has repeatedly issued recommendations to strengthen the regulator by improving its ability to detect non-compliance and ensure all parties meet their obligations.

In its Diamonds in the Rough report, Human Rights Watch called for the definition of a blood or conflict diamond to be broadened to include diamonds mined amid serious human rights abuses. It also wants KP members to develop effective responses to those who violate the scheme.

Sure, reform will won’t be easy. There will be resistance from those with a less than flattering human rights record. There will attempts to water down any binding resolutions or strict control measures.

But the actions of Zimbabwe and a failure of the certification process show doing nothing is not an option. While the KP might not hold public or media attention like a model in the witness box, there are vital questions that must be answered.

Do we want a diamond trade that effectively does nothing to penalise countries that commit atrocities against its people? Or do we actually care how diamonds are mined, where they come from and if they reach us at the expense of human life?