JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 14 Jul 2010

Conflict Diamonds and Zimbabwe: Discussion with Partnership Africa Canada

Chairman

At today's meeting we will discuss the militarised control of diamonds and power in Zimbabwe. I welcome Mr. BernardTaylor, executive director, Partnership Africa Canada, PAC, to discuss the diamond mining industry in Zimbabwe. Mr. Taylor is accompanied by Ms Caitriona Doyle from the Africa desk at the Department of Foreign Affairs. Ms Doyle is also very welcome. Partnership Africa Canada is a not-for-profit organisation involved in building sustainable human development in Africa. Partnership Africa Canada has a particular focus on the issue of conflict diamonds and the Kimberley process. Conflict diamonds are defined as rough diamonds used by rebel movements to finance wars against legitimate governments. Partnership Africa Canada’s main task is to seek to ensure that revenues from diamonds and other extractive resources contribute to development in their countries of origin. Since 2007, Irish Aid has provided €600,000 in funding to Partnership Africa Canada for its work relating to Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola.

The joint committee has previously discussed the political and human rights circumstances in Zimbabwe. In December 2009, the committee met Ms Jestina Mukoko, human rights activist and director of Zimbabwe Peace Project, following her release from detention. In April of last year, the committee met Ms Eithne Brennan and Ms Mala Roche of Trócaire, together with Mr. Harrison Nkomo, a human rights lawyer who represented Ms Mukoko at that time. In addition to discussing Ms Mukoko's case, the committee discussed the wider humanitarian question in Zimbabwe following its long history of colonisation and exploitation and its recent years of societal upheaval, political mismanagement and economic collapse.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins deeply regrets not being able to attend. He is indisposed today. If he could be here, he certainly would be. Deputy Higgins is a representative for the Labour Party and has long had an interest in the extractive industries and associated matters. Deputy O'Hanlon and the other members I mentioned also apologise for not being present.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice, or long-standing ruling of the Chair, to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are now protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons, or entity, by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

These directions are based on legislation from late in 2009. I hope they will not upset Mr. Taylor's style. I invite Mr. Taylor to make his contribution.

Deputy Frank Fahey

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport traditionally meets at 3.45 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon. Many meetings are now clashing, unfortunately. Could meetings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs be held earlier as the clash affects me considerably? I apologise because I will have to attend the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport at 3.45 p.m. This can be discussed on another occasion.

Chairman

As the Deputy knows, we normally start at 3 p.m. but today's starting time was affected by members' availability. I am sorry the meeting will clash with that of the Joint Committee on Transport. We have discussed the most appropriate starting times and the committee has made a decision thereon. I have already tended Deputy Fahey's apologies.

I invite Mr. Taylor to address the committee. He will appreciate that there is other business taking place in the Seanad and committees and, therefore, members may leave and return.

Mr. Bernard Taylor

I thank the Chairman for the invitation and for the privilege of being allowed to speak to members this afternoon about a subject that is very dear to my organisation and which is also of great interest of the Irish Government. As the Chairman said, we have received support from Irish Aid for several years. Our relationship with the Government of Ireland dates back many years.

My organisation began its work in the area of conflict in national resources in Africa in 1998, at which time we sought to understand the conflict in Sierra Leone and make a contribution towards addressing it. Members will remember that the war in Sierra Leone dragged on for some ten years. It was similar in many ways to the war in neighbouring Liberia and the wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola. These four wars, which one could call rebel wars or civil wars, were fuelled by the diamond trade. They represented a major humanitarian disaster throughout Africa in the 1990s.

Our work, research and advocacy regarding Sierra Leone came to a head in 2000. Similar efforts were being made by others, including the United Nations and other NGOs. These efforts came together in 2000 when South Africa, which has a direct political and commercial interest in this issue, invited stakeholders to meet in Kimberley. This was the beginning of the Kimberley process, which continues today. This multi-stakeholder initiative is to control the diamond trade and ensure it does not fuel conflict. Our contact with Irish Aid stems from our discussions over Sierra Leone, on which we worked a great deal in the early 2000s when Ireland was renewing or refreshing its aid programme for that country.

I will make some remarks on the Kimberley process, particularly making reference to Zimbabwe. One needs to understand the successes and weaknesses of the Kimberley process to understand the difficulties associated with its handling of the Zimbabwe case today. The Kimberley process came into effect in January 2003 and has succeeded broadly in regulating the diamond trade. Prior to that date, the trade was unregulated, often with very limited paperwork. Often the words "origin" and "provenance" were confused, such that one could have been importing diamonds from Switzerland when in fact they were not produced there.

The Kimberley process is a mechanism to determine and guarantee the origin of diamonds. It has succeeded in this regard throughout the world. Some 49 countries, including EU members, are now signed up to the process. It embraces all the major diamond importing and producing countries. It has succeeded in reducing to almost zero the incidence of conflict related to the diamond trade. One could say 99% or more of the diamonds produced and marketed worldwide are conflict free. There is still a considerable amount of diamond smuggling, but this constitutes a relatively small part of the trade. Whether the proportion is 5% or 10%, it is difficult to say. However, in a sense that is the nature of the product in that it is very easy to transport diamonds as they are very small and highly valuable. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the Kimberley process has had a major impact on the diamond industry.

As for some of the Kimberley process's spin-offs, it has, for example, helped in the creation of something called the diamond development initiative, which is an initiative to help focus attention on the poorest in the diamond trade, namely, the artisanal diggers or those who dig, in some countries. One must remember that the Kimberley process is directed towards trying to regulate the origin of diamonds to ensure where they come from. It does not deal with issues of labour conditions, labour rights or environmental issues. However, by the very nature of its existence, it has brought attention to these issues with which other initiatives are now dealing. This has been a highly positive secondary contribution. Third, I mention its influence in respect of other minerals. If one considers the Great Lakes region of Africa, minerals such as cassiterite, coltan and gold continue to fuel conflict to this day. Rebel groups, such as the former Interahamwe from Rwanda known as the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda, FDLR, in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, survive by mining cassiterite and by selling it to become tin. The aforementioned minerals are highly important in the communications technologies and are to be found in our cell telephones and computers. There still is conflict in eastern DRC caused by these minerals and the countries of the region, which have come together in a grouping called the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, ICGLR, have, in the spirit of the Kimberley process, created something called a regional mechanism for minerals for these high-value minerals and this will be implemented quite soon. As we are collaborating with the authorities in central Africa because of our experience in the Kimberley process, I mention this as an important impact.

Some major challenges are faced by the Kimberley process today and I mentioned that smuggling continues. The Kimberley process structure is a little unusual when compared with other structures in that the head of the Kimberley process, which normally is a country, changes from year to year. This year, Israel is at the head of the Kimberley process and it has brought a new rigour into the management of the Kimberley process. In particular, it is paying attention to the issue of enforcement. Consequently, not only are representatives from the natural resources ministries of different countries meeting in the Kimberley process but they are bringing together representatives from the enforcement side, including customs and the police. This is a positive response to the continuing problem of smuggling.

The Kimberley process also has structural problems. It does not have a secretariat and consequently is managed by a figurehead chairmanship for a rotating one-year term and by committees that are created. Perhaps the most important such committee is the committee on monitoring how the Kimberley process is implemented, which is chaired by the European Union each year and this has not changed. The European Union monitors how the Kimberley process is implemented. At present, the committee on statistics is chaired by the United States of America and there are other committees as well.

It will be important for the Kimberley process to develop a secretariat to make its work more professional and more thorough and I will give one example. As part of the monitoring of the Kimberley process, review visits are made to participating countries at least every three or four years. Those reviews are short visits, lasting for four or five days, carried out by a team made up of governmental, non-governmental and industry representatives. However, one cannot review a country's operations, particularly when the matter is complicated, such as in the case of Zimbabwe and other countries, within a three or four-day visit. Even though monitoring of statistics and trade figures is ongoing, more than that is needed and a secretariat with an independent monitoring system would go some way towards making the Kimberley process more professional in how it operates. However, I will return to some of these issues presently.

Moving on to Zimbabwe, some countries within the Kimberley process pose greater challenges from time to time. Those that have experienced conflict in the past are continually faced by the challenges of internal controls. How does one control an artisanal industry, such as the diamond industry, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? It is very difficult. As members are aware, the Government of the DRC has its own challenges and it has some difficulty in monitoring what happens in rural areas where diamonds are exploited artisanally. In the case of Zimbabwe, there are different challenges. The Zimbabwean diamond industry is fairly recent. There are three main areas of diamond production at two of which, namely, Murowa and River Ranch, mining is industrial. In other words, companies at those sites mine industrially with equipment. The other main area is more artisanal, which is to say that the diamonds are found spread out near the surface and in 2006, a new diamond mining area was found in the Marange area that led to a diamond rush of panners and diggers going to this artisanal mining area.

The response of the authorities in Zimbabwe to this was quite shocking, in that they understood the significance of this find and, given the economic and political realities in Zimbabwe, the authorities took a decision to expel the diamond panners and diggers from the region. Moreover, they did so in a highly violent way whereby in 2008, the military moved in and cleared the diamond diggers from this area and it is alleged that approximately 200 people were killed during that process. Human Rights Watch has drawn up a highly detailed report on this matter. Others, including ourselves, also have drawn up reports and members recently have been given a copy of a report based on the work of a researcher from our office on the ground in eastern Zimbabwe, who spoke to people who have suffered as a result of the actions in 2008.

However, these actions still continue, albeit at a less violent level. Human rights violations of people continue to take place in the area, including panners who continue to try to earn a living, given the desperate conditions in Zimbabwe at present. Smuggling continues from this area. The Zimbabwean authorities cannot and do not control the diamonds coming from this area and smuggling continues across the border into Mozambique. There are approximately 30 buying houses in the border town of Manica on the Mozambiquean side of the border. The authorities in Zimbabwe do not recognise the relevance of this and will not accept that human rights violations occurred in 2008 and continue to occur. I refer to an internal document produced by the military in Zimbabwe, which has become quite commonly available in the last month or so and which is the subject of some dispute, having led to the arrest of a human rights activist in Zimbabwe. While I will mention the latter development in a moment, the document confirms that human rights violations continue there.

These different reasons, namely, the military control of the area from which diamonds come, the continuing smuggling and the human rights violations, are matters that are central core elements of the Kimberley process's responsibility. We have argued that Zimbabwe should be expelled from the Kimberley process until these matters are dealt with adequately. However, it is clear there are differing opinions within the Kimberley process. It is an organisation that works by consensus and not by vote and consequently there is inaction until a broad consensus is reached, if not complete agreement with all members. However, the situation in Zimbabwe is boiling for different reasons. Its authorities are trying hard to gain the Kimberley process's approval to export diamonds from the new area. Dealing with the situation is difficult for the process, as governance in Zimbabwe is problematic, in that internal interests close to the Government want the diamonds exported for personal reasons, namely, their direct influence in the diamond trade. This situation is unusual. Countries that are politically and economically close to Zimbabwe also want diamonds exported. The political and commercial interests involved comprise one of the difficulties facing the Kimberley process. This point reverts to my original argument that the process must be strengthened and made more professional instead of dependent on the input of governments and the diamond sector.

It is important that the situation in Zimbabwe be handled clearly, firmly and fairly because of the country's needs and those of the Kimberley process. Events could quickly spin out of control in Zimbabwe. Its President is growing old and he will leave us one of these days. There is a struggle for power and the Zimbabwean authorities have few resources to hold elections and to do the kinds of thing governments like to do. The key resource the authorities would like to control and use for collective and personal benefit are the diamonds. Therefore, it is important that the matter be managed directly. The Kimberley process must either deal with it fairly or be diminished, leaving it unable to deal well with such matters in future.

I will mention one or two issues in respect of which Ireland can play a role. Ireland is a member of the EU and the latter, rather than individual countries, has a voice in the Kimberley process. Via the EU, Ireland should request that the process be strengthened. Zimbabwe must be obliged to meet its minimum requirements under the process. If judged to be non-compliant or unwilling to meet those requirements, it should be expelled and endure the consequences. This test case will make the process work and require its component parts throughout the world to implement measures that prevent illegally exported diamonds entering the market.

As the EU is chairing the working group on monitoring, one sometimes feels it is taking a prudent role and trying to be objective so that dialogue continues. However, it has a responsibility to take a lead independently of its position.

Zimbabwe has been a test case for the Kimberley process, which must strengthen itself and undertake reforms. They have been discussed on and off for several years. Prior to the recent six-monthly meeting in Tel Aviv, Partnership Africa Canada produced a document, entitled "Paddles for Kimberley", which is being made available to the committee. In it, we proposed an agenda for reform, which was discussed at a special workshop prior to the Tel Aviv inter-sessional in June. Governments, the industry and civil society held a positive discussion on the way forward in terms of review visits, transparency, improving decision making, which can be ineffective because it is consensual, and a secretariat to make the process more professional. We hope that, after such a meeting and with Israel in the chair, there can be some forward movement. Ireland can encourage the EU to take a greater leadership role on these questions.

A particular issue on which the process should move forward is that of affording protection to civil society, which is one of its pillars. In Zimbabwe, a leading human rights activist working in the field of conflict relating to the diamond trade was arrested recently for giving information to the Kimberley process monitor. We cannot discuss many details of that arrest, but that he was targeted for arrest and, prior to that, harassment is serious. Irrespective of the Zimbabwe case, this is the type of matter on which the process should develop a protocol. Through the EU, Ireland could argue for that development.

Moving beyond the Kimberley process, I point out the importance of natural resources to Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo and many other countries in Africa in terms of their development, conflicts and human rights. I mentioned the international conference on development in the Great Lakes region and the four minerals targeted. The Kimberley process focuses on diamonds and members will be aware of other problems, such as oil in the Niger delta. Unfortunately, natural resources are often accompanied by conflict. What is needed is good governance in the natural resources sector. Members will be aware of the international extractive industry transparency initiative, but there is also a parallel civil society movement called Publish What You Pay. What these call for is specific, but the broader areas are those of business and human rights.

The issue of corporate social responsibility needs greater attention from all interested parties. I am unaware of the detailed work undertaken in Ireland at Government, civil society and industrial levels, but I encourage members to do more. Ireland has a great history in promoting peace throughout the world via the UN and would be well positioned to play a role in multilateral initiatives, even though its extractive industries are small compared with those of some other countries, such as Canada, a case I obviously know well. This matter will have increasing importance and the question of human rights as they relate to the natural resources of Zimbabwe and so on, which is obviously one of the committee's concerns, makes a strong argument for further Irish work on the matter.

Chairman

We will take questions from members.

Senator David Norris

I welcome Mr. Taylor's timely contribution. Many of us are aware of the trade in blood diamonds, which are well named. I would like to know more about the particular case in Zimbabwe to which Mr. Taylor referred. He did not mention the name of the man involved, but I have received comments upon the situation. His name is Farai Maguwu. The prosecutors in the case argue that Mr. Maguwu, the head of the Centre for Research and Development, who has been cataloguing human rights abuses in the Marange mines in the east of the country since 2008, could interfere with witnesses being interviewed by investigating police officers for their case — an extraordinary comment. It is a very strange country and there is still tyranny. However, it is important that this committee support people like this who, in a conscientious way, become involved in dangerous situations.

As Mr. Taylor said in his remarks to us, diamonds are interesting in that, just like drugs, they are of small volume and immense value, and it is easy enough to smuggle them across borders. I know this because I am, curiously, a native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I was born on the equator in what was then the Belgian Congo, and I was recently involved in the 50th anniversary — I am not quite sure whether to call them celebrations — of its independence. In the course of this, one of the things that came up was the extraordinary exploitation by various countries — including, in the beginning, the European countries, but also now extending to its neighbouring countries — of its natural resources, so that the wealth of the country in terms of minerals, diamonds and so on has in fact become a curse.

I would certainly support anything Partnership Africa Canada feels it could do for this gentleman in the very difficult circumstances that pertain in Africa. It is a continent with great promise, but there are great difficulties, particularly in terms of the human rights of people such as those supported by the Front Line organisation in Ireland.

On a related subject, I wonder whether Mr. Taylor had the opportunity to see a programme on Channel 4 two nights ago called "Dispatches: Africa's Last Taboo", which was about the involvement of the Christian churches in fomenting hatred against gay people in Zimbabwe, Uganda, Malawi and other countries, and the appalling fate that was visited upon gay people, who were beaten, arrested, sentenced and held to contempt. A crowd was incited against them who called for their death and said they were quite happy to burn them, before pouring petrol over them. This is quite extraordinary from a Christian perspective, I would have thought. It is unfair to load extra issues on to somebody who is campaigning bravely on one issue, but I just thought I would mention this to add it to the basket of difficulties that exist in that region.

Senator Ann Ormonde

I thank Mr. Taylor for his very informed presentation. My knowledge about the Kimberley process is limited because I read about it only just before I came in to the meeting. The idea of the Kimberley process, in terms of regulation and monitoring, is excellent and to be welcomed. There is smuggling, as Mr. Taylor said, and that is difficult to control because of the nature of the product. Human rights seems to be the problem. There must be reform of the Kimberley process. There is no secretariat; it is a figurehead who decides how the job should be monitored. If I have picked Mr. Taylor up right, it is not transparent enough and, therefore, a secretariat is needed.

What would the secretariat do to improve things? What would be the composition of the secretariat? How would it work on the ground in terms of human rights? Would civil society have a role in this secretariat? Is this being talked about? It seems the question of reform was brought up in 2009. What stage is it at? Will it happen shortly or will there be a long talking shop before anything happens? Naturally, Ireland will always play a big role in the protection of human rights, and anything we can do in that area——

Senator David Norris

Perhaps it is a question of support for the judges.

Senator Ann Ormonde

Exactly.

Senator David Norris

The judge in that case was extraordinarily courageous. From outside we could give support to members of the judiciary who take a principled position.

Senator Ann Ormonde

Absolutely.

Senator David Norris

I am sure my colleagues would agree.

Senator Ann Ormonde

If we are to talk about reform, we need to know the composition of that reform, because there is no point in having a change if the same kind of people will be back to do the job of monitoring and control. It was a most interesting presentation and we will take an interest in the ongoing evolution of the process.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan

The document provided by Partnership Africa Canada, Diamonds and Clubs: The Militarized Control of Diamonds and Power in Zimbabwe, made for horrifying reading, detailing the extent of the human rights abuses, the political complicity, the nepotism of the various boards and the dubious past of some of the people who have benefited from the industry. I was struck by the contradiction in the Kimberley process. For example, the monitor issued a report concluding that Zimbabwe had satisfied the minimum requirements but, at the same time, there were reports from civil society calling for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the process. Like my colleagues, I wonder about the composition of the process. Mr. Taylor said Israel is chairing it at the moment; for how long will this be the case? Who dominates the Kimberley process and is therefore preventing the reform that is so badly needed?

I see there is a mini-summit today in St. Petersburg. How realistic is the prospect of reform from this? I was also struck by the recommendations in the document. How likely are these to be successful in their implementation? Will they be discussed in St. Petersburg?

Senator Mark Daly

I thank Mr. Taylor for his presentation and the recommendations on what Ireland can do. The EU is chairing the process at the moment. As Mr. Taylor described it, it sounds slightly neutral, although I do not want to come down hard on anybody. The reforms in the document are worth pursuing and Ireland should consider them. The committee could write to the Minister with recommendations on how we can use our influence in the European Union to improve the Kimberley process.

One of the things that struck me when I researched this was that diamonds are exported from some countries in Africa in which they are not naturally found. Whether that is true I do not know. It seems they are brought across borders from countries in which diamonds are mined, such as the DRC. For some bizarre reason, these countries are selling diamonds they do not have as a natural resource. Does Mr. Taylor have any thoughts on this? How is it that the world can turn a blind eye to this when these diamonds are obviously illegally sourced and are used in the arms trade? Diamonds are the most famous aspect of such trade; Mr. Taylor also mentioned the use of tin and even timber. All resources are used by rebel forces in civil wars; in fact, in many cases the civil wars are caused by the resources themselves and control of the funds they provide.

Is there a list of diamond-exporting countries? For example, if Ireland started to export diamonds people would start to ask questions because we do not have any diamond mines. They would wonder whether somebody was profiting from it and whether some warlord in another country was selling the diamonds to a guy in Ireland who was then selling them on the open market. Is there a list of countries that have diamonds and can therefore legally sell and transport them? The European Union should not buy diamonds from any country other than the ones that have diamonds as a natural resource. The name of the country which, for some bizarre reason is selling diamonds it does not have, escapes me. I would like to hear the delegates' views on that.

Chairman

Before I return to Mr. Taylor we can agree that through the European Union we would seek to have the Kimberley process strengthened, in particular the provision that Zimbabwe be urged to meet the minimum requirements set out in it. If it fails to do so, sanctions, including expulsion, should be considered. We will write to the Minister, who represents us in the European Union and outside it, along those lines. We are a sovereign country and will act accordingly. We will make our own representations, in addition to what the European Union might do. We fully support it and will do our work there.

We are reasonably familiar with the stories about diamonds. We know diamonds are often used to buy arms and are a serious part of that problem. They are used to dominate citizens, in particular during elections. They are used for repression and corruption. I refer to the current situation in Zimbabwe. We have seen the reports. One of the underlying issues is the fact that no taxes are paid on the diamonds because many of the diamonds are exported under the table rather than over it. Nobody likes to pay taxes and we would be happy if we did not have to pay them but the countries involved have no public services.

That is what Irish Aid is trying to do to help the situations and HIV and AIDS. A lot of work in that area was done by Irish Aid and I am glad it is supporting the delegation and the work it is doing. It is fundamental to the issues. Diamonds are power in Zimbabwe and if people have control of the diamonds they are able to exert that power at all sorts of levels, which is happening in a very substantial way. It is not something to which somebody can turn a blind eye.

The comment on the secretariat is very true. It needs a secretariat which is constantly monitoring and pursuing the issues in an independent way. Anything that can be done to strengthen that situation would be better. I have spoken to various people over the years about the Kimberly process. I met some of those who went to do the reviews. I was glad to see it and wondered how they conducted a review with so few of them in large countries. They turn up in the system. Many of them may go outside Europe. On the other hand, I would be surprised if a lot of the product is not going into Europe.

As they come out as rough diamonds, once somebody can process them professionally they can be like most other diamonds except that some of the ones from Zimbabwe happen to be as big as one's fist which is fairly rare. It is a very interesting subject but it is also politically important, especially because they can be and have been used to promote rebels in certain situations for particular reasons, in particular during election times. They are used to influence the elections. Obviously the level of income at a grass roots level is so low, compared to the kind of money that comes from diamonds, that even if one is only getting a portion of the money one can have enormous influence with ordinary citizens locally, especially in rural areas.

One can also influence the formation of the Government, which is a major factor, and frustrate the work which is taking place to develop a fully democratic system in what was a great country that was once highly developed. It has descended into a basket case which is a tragedy. The work done by the delegation is tremendously important. I invite it to respond to the points that were made.

Mr. Bernard Taylor

I will respond immediately to the Chairman's comments and return to the others point by point. I agree that the diamonds of Zimbabwe have the potential to be very beneficial for the country, which is why the Kimberley process is so important. It can help that process. Obviously, the country is sovereign, like every other country, and how it uses its resources is its own decision. The Kimberley process can bring good governance to the trade because its principles mean that there must be security surrounding the diamond trade. The diamonds cannot be smuggled. There needs to be good internal controls.

All these issues came out of the problem of diamonds being smuggled or used to pay for weapons, to which the Chairman referred, in the diamond wars of the 1990s. If Zimbabwe was able to benefit directly today from its diamonds, that would be excellent and the Kimberley process can help it to do it. The Minister for Finance, Mr. Biti, said that the last few years he has been in government and since the global political agreement not a cent has come from the diamond trade into the coffers of the treasury. When the question is asked about where the money has gone, it is an open question.

Reference was made to the problems from the diamond trade in terms of arms being bought. In the 1990s and early 2000s it was the case in many places that the diamond trade was fuelling conflict. In the case of Zimbabwe, smuggling is very important and it is fuelling bad governance. It has the potential to fuel conflict in Zimbabwe. There are human rights violations which are being caused because of the diamond trade there.

Senator Norris raised the issue of the human rights activist who was arrested. Mr. Farai Maguwu, who is the director of the Centre for Research and Development, was the main civil society activist recording the difficulties in human rights in a diamond producing area. He was arrested, having given evidence to the Kimberley process special monitor for Zimbabwe, Mr. Chikane, in early June. We know Mr. Maguwu well. He is part of the civil society coalition which is a member of the Kimberley process. A member of the civil society coalition who attends Kimberley process meetings was arrested by his own Government. I liken it to a reporter who reports on crimes being committed in his country and rather than arresting those who commit the crimes, one arrests the reporter, which brings it home.

He is accused of giving false information to foreign people. I am not sure of the exact terms of the accusation as they seem to have changed over the period in question. He was released on bail after a long spell in detention on Monday but he faces prosecution and clearly this is a politically motivated case. Amnesty International has declared him a prisoner of conscience. Anything that can be done to have the charges, which we believe are politically motivated, dropped should be done. I did not see the Channel 4 programme referred to and therefore I cannot comment on that.

Senator Ormonde spoke about the secretariat, which was referred to by others also. The slide shows the structure of the Kimberley process, KP. The chair of the KP changes each year but underneath the chair there are working groups and most of them do not change. The European Union is responsible for the working group on monitoring, which monitors the way the KP is functioning. That does not change.

There is a structure in place that is involved. What we are arguing for is a secretariat which will serve both the KP chair and the working groups to make them work much better. The KP monitoring group would not depend on those occasional visits which are short and can only go to a certain depth in their analysis. A secretariat would provide a thorough, ongoing, more professional, independent input into the Kimberley process to make the structure work.

The structure itself does not necessarily have to be changed, although we would argue for the chairs to remain in place for two years, for example. Obviously, they need to change to keep the balance within the Kimberley process but one year is too short. Our view is that a secretariat would be a framework for a much stronger professional operation.

Civil society, private sector, the industry and all the governments would maintain their existing roles. They would be members involved in the running of the Kimberley process. We are members of the committees. We discuss issues and work together closely.

In terms of whether it will happen, it is moving in that direction. It is a negotiating matter and therefore the more pressure in one direction from the stronger members of the Kimberley process, the better.

The point was raised as to who the strong members of the Kimberley process are. Industry has an important position. The United States, which is the main importer of diamonds — it imports more than half of the world's gem diamonds — is an important player. Russia is a major producer and has a major voice from a commercial point of view but politically as well. South Africa, being a leading African nation with big production, is important too. Canada has an important voice, although as a producer more than an importer.

The European Union has a major voice and it is important that it be heard. Belgium is a major centre for the distribution of diamonds, as is the United Kingdom where De Beers is partly based. There are other players also. India is becoming an increasingly important member of the Kimberley process because of the cutting and polishing industry in India. It will be the major centre for that in the world.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the contradictions in the monitor's report and the position of some members, including civil society. The KP monitor was hired by the working group on monitoring to do the work of monitoring the implementation of the joint programme of Zimbabwe to allow it try to meet the KP's current requirements. There was a review of it last year, which underlined many difficulties, and then there was a joint programme of work that Zimbabwe should undertake. A KP monitor was hired to review that. Mr. Chikane from South Africa, who was the first chairperson of the Kimberley process in 2003 and helped construct the Kimberley process, was hired to do that work.

We believe Mr. Chikane was very particular and partial about his analysis in his report. He limited himself to talking about two companies in the Marange area where the new diamonds have been found and their ability to mine diamonds in a correct manner. We are not disputing the way they are behaving, although some difficulties have arisen. We are disputing the fact that he has overlooked the continued militarisation of the entire area, the smuggling and the human rights position. He paid almost no attention to that in his work. We believe he gave a very partial report and we argued that it should not be accepted because of that.

The Deputy raised the question of the chair, which is currently Israel. The chair changes each year. Israel is playing a positive role, particularly on enforcement, which I mentioned earlier. It has brought together for a special workshop other actors not normally at the table to talk about the Kimberley process, including police and customs people.

In terms of control, there are many forces in the Kimberley process and the secretariat will help diffuse the potential for politicisation and prevent those who have commercial interests having too much influence.

The St. Petersburg meeting has been called in parallel with the World Diamond Congress's annual meeting. As several actors will attend that meeting, which begins tomorrow, the KP chair invited members of the working group to attend a special meeting today to continue the dialogue on Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe authorities will attend also. That meeting will continue that dialogue and it is hoped some sort of compromise will be achieved and a way forward arising from that.

The discussion on reform of the KP will continue in the working groups and, it is hoped, will come to some preliminary conclusion at the annual meeting in Israel at the end of October. Some of us certainly will work to that. If members have time they might read the "Paddles for Kimberley" document which illustrates the main issues and arguments for reforming the KP.

Senator Daly mentioned diamonds coming out of countries in Africa. The slide presentation gives a list of the members of the KP. In theory, no imports can be made into a KP member country from a country that is not a member of the KP. In other words, regarding the main importing centres, such as Belgium, if diamonds appear at customs in a box marked "Exported from Mozambique", where quite a few diamonds from Zimbabwe are going currently, they would be officially impounded.

The Senator did not mention the countries from which diamonds are coming. Diamonds continue to be sold and may go from a country that is not in the KP to another country that is not in the KP and over which the KP has no control. We are aware that diamonds are going directly to cutting and polishing centres such as those in India, where controls may be more difficult to impose because the cutting and polishing is extensive, with small shops often cutting and polishing small cheaper diamonds. It is difficult to control that but I am certain that diamonds are passing under the counter in Europe and in other diamond centres of the world. They are going through the back door, so to speak. That is why enforcement is important. If measures are taken not only to impound those diamonds but also to widely publicise that, which is not happening, it would be beneficial. Perhaps the enforcement workshop, which has just taken place in Israel, will be a move forward in that direction. Officially speaking, no country that is not a member of the Kimberley process can officially export diamonds to a country that is a member of it. They would be impounded immediately and that does happen. Have I answered the main points I noted?

Chairman

Yes. I would like to thank Mr. Taylor very much for an interesting and informative contribution and for the work he is doing. It is hugely important work and we will give him every support we can. We are anxious to see Zimbabwe progress and we want there to be such development. We have been involved with Zimbabwe over the years and we continue to be involved with it. This is a problem in the field in regard to democratic developments and what is happening in regard to money. We are concerned about that. Therefore, we would like to keep in contact with Mr. Taylor and to follow up on this. He can be assured that we will be in touch with the Minister, as promised. We will follow this up with the Minister.

We recognise and welcome the contribution Mr. Taylor's organisation is making and we also thank Irish Aid for its involvement and the support it is giving his organisation. Irish Aid is particularly involved in dealing with HIV-AIDs and other projects. It also gives Mr. Taylor's organisation support and we are happy about that.

We have to go into private session for a short time. If Mr. Taylor has the time we could see him in a few minutes hopefully. I thank him again.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.40 p.m. and adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until noon on Tuesday, 24 August 2010.