Kimberly Process Certification Scheme: Regulation that Balanced Diamond Smuggling!

Dear Beloved Readers,

With this article, I am presenting to you, my analysis of the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme and the continuation of Diamond smuggling. Since the subject and matter inside are sensitive, please remain open.

?

The phenomenal affairs that happen around us aren't as fascinating internally as they appear on the outside. The picture that we see sometimes has underlying layers of other pictures.

Most of us know that Kimberly Process Certification is mandatory to ship rough diamonds across international borders and has eighty-one countries as active members. This is currently the sole worldwide mechanism for tracing the provenance of rough diamonds.

?

Time and again, the effectiveness of the scheme is questioned and criticized. Global Witness, an international NGO that works to break the links between natural resource exploitation, conflict, poverty, corruption, and human rights abuses worldwide, pulled out of the scheme in December 2011, claiming it had failed in its purpose and did not provide assurance that the diamonds were not conflict diamonds and free from human rights violations.

?

In March 2000, on the recommendation of the "Fowler Report," the United Nations learned the sanctions on the "National Union for Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) had no effect since UNITA was able to continue its brutal war efforts through the sale of rough diamonds in the international market.

?

Robert R. Fowler, a Canadian diplomat, led an investigation that brought the diamond-producing and trading states from around the world to Kimberley, Northern Cape, in May 2000, which was followed by a ministerial summit during September in Pretoria, from which the KPC scheme originated.

?

The policy's architects were powerful diplomats, business leaders, and government officials.

?

Was the UN's restricted ability to impose sanctions the rationale for adopting the so-called defective clause as an international certification scheme, or was this the only alternative, or was this a provision with no loopholes?

?

Didn’t each of them, then, know Diamonds are transparent to the X-Ray screening technology that is used at international borders now and then to identify things inside packets, parcels, luggage, pockets, and living bodies? Didn't each of them, then, know that transporting undocumented diamonds and under or over-valuing was an open practice to save taxes and launder money?

?

Yes, the people of Angola were in tremendous danger and suffering worse than a life can, but UNITA's exposure to the world market posed an unacceptable risk to the diamond trade's freedom and longevity.

I am imagining how a group of people that can slaughter their own?would have treated traders, used weakness, and forced them to submit to their terms and conditions to trade. To many of us, KPCS seems to be a police force for the illegal shipment and trading of rough diamonds; thus, our expectations from it were never fulfilled.

?

KPCS was a security guard protecting diamond traders from mafias, goons, and forces that used fear to procure and trade rough diamonds. Basically, the UN empowered traders through KPCS to safely disagree with threats. As a result, KPCS will never be beneficial if its implementers, the traders, disapprove to refrain, since the mechanism for protection ran on the idea of "traceability".

?

What happened then was a different circumstance. Today's world is very different from those days — we live in the age of social media. Knowing the origin of the diamond wasn't as important before as it is today. If I include myself, I know ten startups working to solve today's traceability issue, of which a few have already failed.

?

Why has traceability become so important today? Fighting against human abuse and crime fuels the drive, but what is required to be protected? Is it the heartfelt violations and exploitation that have been a family member of the industry since long before, or again, the diamond itself must be protected?

?

The lab-grown diamond has challenged the natural diamond on "sustainability" grounds. Almost every article that promotes lab-grown diamonds quotes LGD as sustainable and nature-grown diamonds as enemies of nature. Sorry LGD Lovers!

?

A statement was made by Donald Trump in the 1980s: he pointed out the safety concerns for PAM Am to win over the competition for Trump Shuttle, though he was cautioned by his company associates. However, this stunt backfired on him making it a lesson for many.

?

The question to Natural Diamond: "Whether a mined diamond is sustainable?" is a question to the entire mining industry, which covers colored gemstones and precious metals that are the components of the same beautiful jewelry that LGD fits into.

?

To answer the question and clear the doubt, evidence needs to be brought forward each time. And, to do so, "traceability" has to come back in its new form. This time, legitimate trade is the threat to the existence of the mined gems.

?

But why are startups on this front failing? Why couldn't blockchain, a technology that turned nothing into a currency, resolve this issue?

?

Thank you! Your response will assist Linkedin's algorithm in determining whether to post this content on the newsfeeds of others. Wouldn't you like others to know about the other side of KPCS and your thoughts about it?

Please leave your remark!

Also, please subscribe to the Gleaming Gems Gazette to conveniently remind yourself, immediately or for later reading, of thought-provoking topics in the gems and jewelry worlds. Probably the next write-up is "The three enemies that might murder you in real for your effective gem tracing technique."

Thank you in advance for subscribing!