The ongoing debate over how to redefine conflict diamonds intensified last week when the African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA) publicly identified the six Kimberley Process (KP) members that vetoed a proposed expansion of the current definition. The move followed a crucial vote at the KP plenary, where unanimous agreement is required for any change to be adopted.

According to the ADPA, the countries that opposed the revised wording were Australia, Canada, the European Union, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. This opposition came despite broad support from the Kimberley Process Ad Hoc Committee on Review and Reform (AHCRR), including major diamond-producing nations that have long advocated for a more contemporary and inclusive description of conflict diamonds.

The existing definition, enshrined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/56, limits conflict diamonds to rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflicts aimed at undermining legitimate governments. While effective two decades ago, this framing no longer captures the diverse and evolving risks associated with modern conflict financing.