Accountability for all

Sifting through the quagmire that is our twenty-four-hour news cycle, you wouldn’t be remiss in thinking we are living through some dystopian reality, and this coming from a year that started with Australian bush fires wiping out over a billion animals and flash floods in Indonesia displacing more than 36,000.

Against the backdrop of the Coronavirus pandemic and its impending second wave of global economic turmoil, the re-energisation of the #BlackLivesMatter movement in light of the obscene murder of George Floyd at the hands of his own police department in Minneapolis has led to riots and protesting on the streets of many major capitals, further propelling the question of whether many imperialistic countries, particularly the U.S, Britain, France, Belgium and The Netherlands, should be re-examining the monuments of their past with greater scrutiny – more on this another time.

It occurs to me that the unifying problem in so many of our political, economic and social issues is a total lack of accountability. In the wake of such a widely spread disease, for which many members of the global scientific community would agree, originated from irresponsible wet market practices in China, it seems extraordinary that the international community has remained mute on the country returning to its old habits. Similarly, if you really want to address the issue of police brutality, there needs to be a federal law passed that requires all police officers, without exception to pass more frequent mental health examinations and reviews of their personal and professional conduct before being allowed to wear the uniform; not to mention making the practice of kneeling on a suspect’s neck illegal.

What is often overlooked is the fundamental principle of the institution and to what extent it has improved or devolved over time. For example, having a location where people can interact, buy and sell commodities remains the basis of our global economy – it only becomes a problem when used in a way that repeatedly causes death and disease on a global scale. In the same way, having an identifiable civil service of extremely brave individuals who are prepared to protect its public from criminality and violence is something the vast majority of the world is grateful for – it only becomes a problem when people unworthy of wearing the uniform are able to do so.

In my current position as executive chairman and CEO of DMCC I’ve encountered similar examples of ‘good ideas gone bad’, but it wasn’t until I took my position as chairman of the Kimberley Process in 2016 that one particular set of organisations started to stand out as a group that had not only lost their way, but their purpose.

For those of you who are unaware, the Kimberley Process is a multi-stakeholder initiative created in 2003 to address the issue of conflict diamonds. Established as a tripartite agreement between governments, civil society organisations and the diamond industry, the KP’s origins were forged under public pressure after a series of NGO reports, widely known as the Blood Diamond Campaign brought greater awareness of the colossal human rights abuses occurring in Africa, financed by the sale of rough diamonds to the international community in order to fund civil conflict in countries such as Angola, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia.

Having a non-profit organisation, which unites people through a task-oriented interest, often in the name of humanitarian purposes is a great idea, as clearly demonstrated by NGO’s such as Global Witness, Partnership Africa Canada and Fatal Transactions; each of whom had a leading role in stemming the flow of conflict diamonds and preventing the needless suffering of millions – it only becomes a problem when NGOs use their high degree of public trust to make unsubstantiated claims as and when it suits them, while failing to hold themselves accountable to the same standards as everyone else.

While the Civil Society Coalition, which was comprised of the aforementioned NGOs amongst others, had a history of disagreements with the Kimberley Process since 2011, I didn’t encounter it directly until my chairmanship in November 2015 when it decided to boycott my role on the grounds of valuation concerns. In the spirit of which the KP was born, I asked the coalition to document its concerns with precise and reliable facts about the pricing mechanisms used in the United Arab Emirates and detailed comparisons of the valuation process in comparison to other countries to illustrate how they could be harmful. To this date, no specific evidence has been produced and no explanation given as to how our practices could hurt other countries. To paraphrase Franziska Bieri, a senior researcher at the University of Basel, NGOs are able to “play the role of moral guardians, keeping states and corporations honest,” while acting as experts through the use of “strict information gathering rules and careful documentation.” I fully support this methodology, however in their accusations against the UAE, both information gathering and careful documentation were woefully absent. In spite of their credibility being damaged, the UAE outlined several proposals to increase the participation of NGOs in the different activities of the KP during the last plenary meeting, in the belief that when operated correctly, they are fully capable of bringing positive change.

Unfortunately, the UAE’s experience as part of the KP wasn’t an isolated incident. In a letter addressed to Kaloti Precious Metals, a DMCC-based operator with over 25 years’ experience, Global Witness made a broad range of unsubstantiated general claims without reference to any specific breach of conduct, nor failure to meet anti-money laundering requirements or relevant industry standards. The sloppy accusations even went as far as citing a UN report as part of their speculation, apparently not knowing that Kaloti had in fact been one of the entities from whom the UN had gathered intelligence in preparation for said report.

Not only is this tack highly unprofessional, it totally defeats the NGOs underlying purpose. By inaccurately speculating about a business in such broad terms, brand damage becomes an automatic by-product, not to mention an immediate expense in having to engage a legal team to deal with the accusations through the correct channels. This doesn’t even begin to cover the potential damage caused to the regions where the accusations are being directed, potentially costing those most vulnerable with their livelihoods.

 While I cannot prove the motivation behind the actions of NGOs such as Global Witness or Partnership Africa Canada, I will say this. When your primary purpose is to solve a problem that has virtually been solved, the requirement to justify financing diminishes, along with your relevance. To make unsubstantiated claims in order to justify your existence is not only morally bankrupt, it fundamentally undermines the credibility and outstanding work accomplished by your predecessors.

 In the same way that Dubai has fought to emphasise its due diligence and financial transparency to gain a seat at the table of the world’s top financial and trading centres within a matter of decades, it should be common sense that a non-profit organisation, that shields the source of its donations while it attempts to damage the reputation of an industry or country without evidence should not only be at the front of the line when it comes to transparency, but furthermore be held accountable for its actions.

 While the increasingly frequent protests around the world may alarm some people, I take comfort that people are beginning to wake up. The action of peaceful protestors on a global scale is a glaring sign that enough is enough. Accountability and action are required in the form of functional reforms to repair the distorted institutions that once served the people as they were designed – perhaps if this is the only good thing to come out of 2020, it will all be worth it.