By Donald Nyarota
The statement by Ahmed Bin Sulayem, delivered under the authority of the Kimberley Process, is polished, confident, and deeply incomplete. From the perspective of skeptics it reflects a narrative built on selective truths, strategic omissions, and a persistent refusal to confront the structural failures of the global diamond governance regime.
The United Arab Emirates statement at the UN general assembly meeting on the role of diamonds in fueling conflict, was delivered on 15 April 2026.
At its core, the statement rests on a claim that the Kimberley Process (KP) has “broken the link” between diamonds and conflict. This is, at best, a partial truth. The KP’s narrow definition of conflict diamonds, limited to stones financing rebel movements against “legitimate governments” is not just outdated; it is politically convenient.
It excludes state-sponsored violence, private security abuses, and systemic repression linked to diamond extraction. In countries like Zimbabwe, where communities in Marange have endured militarisation, forced displacement, and human rights violations, diamonds remain deeply entangled with violence, just not the kind the KP is willing to recognise.
It is this selective lense which is at the core of the flailings of the speech and the broader failings of the KP system.
The UAE’s acknowledgment that efforts to revise this definition failed is framed as “regrettable,” but the statement avoids naming the real issue: a lack of political will among powerful participants. For over a decade, the Kimberly Process Civil Society Coalition, including CNRG has called for a broader, human rights-based definition of conflict diamonds. The failure to achieve consensus is not a technical glitch; it is evidence of a governance model captured by state and industry interests.
Hans Merket Researcher and Policy Manager at the International Peace Information Service (IPIS), sharply observes, the gap between official rhetoric and reality is not incidental, it is structural. “What strikes me about these kinds of public statements is how far removed they are from the reality of Kimberley Process meetings, which are still closed to public scrutiny.”
This lack of transparency fundamentally undermines the credibility of claims that the KP is a model of openness.
Equally troubling is the assertion that the diamond sector is a “vital catalyst for economic and social development.” This language echoes a familiar extractivist promise, one that rarely materialises for affected communities. Across Africa, diamond-rich regions continue to exhibit the classic symptoms of the resource curse: poverty, underdevelopment, environmental degradation, and elite capture.
The claim that the KP has “improved the lives of millions” is not backed by transparent, community-level evidence. It is a sweeping generalisation that obscures lived realities.
Merket goes further, warning that such narratives are not merely misleading but actively harmful: “That kind of messaging isn’t harmless. It gives people the wrong impression and takes away the pressure needed to push for real reform; reform that has been talked about for years but never happens. By selling an inflated ‘success story,’ it ends up protecting the KP from the accountability it actually needs.”
This critique cuts to the heart of the UAE’s statement, which leans heavily on self-congratulation while sidestepping unresolved structural flaws.
The statement’s emphasis on governance reforms and “best practices” also warrants scrutiny. While administrative decisions and technical adjustments may signal activity, they do not necessarily translate into accountability. The absence of a Final Communiqué in 2025 is downplayed as inconsequential, yet it reflects deep divisions within the KP and an inability to reach political consensus on critical issues. Rebranding this paralysis as “flexibility” risks normalising dysfunction.
Perhaps most revealing is the strong focus on digitalisation and technological innovation, particularly the promotion of the Verifico platform. While traceability tools and AI-driven compliance systems may enhance efficiency, they do not address the fundamental weaknesses of the KP: its voluntary nature, lack of enforcement mechanisms, and limited mandate. Technology cannot substitute for political accountability. In fact, there is a risk that digital solutions will be used to create an illusion of transparency while masking unresolved governance gaps.
Merket captures this contradiction with striking clarity: “Anyone who participates in these meetings, or has a solid understanding of the diamond trade, knows that claims like ‘the fundamental purpose and importance of the Kimberley Process has only been growing stronger’ just don’t match reality. The same goes for calling a process that operates behind strict confidentiality rules ‘a global example of transparency and accountability.” His assessment exposes the dissonance between the KP’s public image and its internal functioning.
The UAE’s framing of the KP as a “global example of transparency and accountability” is therefore misleading. The tripartite structure, governments, industry, and civil society—is often cited as a strength, but in practice, civil society voices have been marginalised, and dissenting perspectives sidelined. The withdrawal and suspension of key civil society actors over the years point to a shrinking space for genuine oversight.
Moreover, the statement’s repeated emphasis on continuity and stability raises an uncomfortable question: continuity of what? If the system being preserved is one that fails to prevent abuse, excludes key forms of violence, and prioritises market confidence over human dignity, then continuity becomes part of the problem, not the solution.
In conclusion, the UAE’s address to the United Nations General Assembly presents the Kimberley Process as a success story in need of modernisation. CNRG sees it differently: as a system in urgent need of transformation. Without a redefined mandate grounded in human rights, binding enforcement mechanisms, and genuine accountability to affected communities, the KP risks becoming exactly what the statement warns against, a museum of good intentions.
What is required is not better messaging, nor more sophisticated technology, but political courage: to confront uncomfortable truths, to centre the voices of those most affected, and to reimagine diamond governance beyond the narrow confines of certification and compliance.