Proposition 53K2747

Proposition de résolution visant à soutenir le processus de Kimberley.

General information ¶

Author

LE Georges Dallemagne

Submission date

April 15, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign policy precious stones raw material resolution of parliament clearing of land human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 30, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will briefly report on the discussions held in the committee on 11 June 2013, 19 November 2013 and 15 January 2014. We also visited the Antwerp World Diamond Center.

Given the extensive discussions and the many interventions, I would like to refer to the written report on the draft resolution in support of the Kimberley Process.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to immediately come to my response on behalf of the N-VA Group. The draft resolution that is under vote will not be supported by the N-VA Group. It makes no sense to discuss the whole debate here, but I would like to repeat a few comments and put the points on the i.

There is no doubt that the Kimberley Process is of enormous importance. If the trade in conflict diamonds has been addressed in the past decades, it is primarily thanks to the Kimberley Process and thanks to the involvement of the Antwerp diamond trade, which is also a player in the Kimberley Process. More than 99.8% of all produced diamonds are certified by the Kimberley Process.

We regret that some members of the majority in the media said loudly that the Kimberley Process would have failed. That is totally wrong. As a trade control system, the Kimberley Process has done a lot for human rights. Although it is not a human rights organization, as some here think, Mr. Schiltz. It is absolutely important to emphasize that role of the Kimberley Process.

Mr. Luykx, I have already said it in the committee, but since the motion for a resolution is being voted today, I will repeat it. No member of the majority has said, openly or undercover, that the Kimberley Process would have failed. It is not because there are possible improvements, which we seek to ⁇ with this text, that we would have said so. It is not our responsibility that you take everything the newspapers write for true.

If you also read the articles – you might have noticed it during the discussion – you will notice that, on the contrary, we have always taken the efficiency and the strong role of the Antwerp sector in supporting the Kimberley Process as the basic premise. You must also not put words in the mouth of the majority, Mr. Luykx.

Mr Schiltz, the members of the majority had criticism and expressed it during the discussion of the draft resolution. It is undeniable that, unfortunately, the whole process – the cabinet representative pointed to it – has received a negative backbone. This has to do with, as I will explain further in my argument, that in the text some properties are erroneously attributed to the Kimberley Process.

The text effectively contains inaccuracies. For example, the Kimberley Process only covers raw diamonds, so not sliced diamonds and not any other minerals at all. Diamond trading is a closed circuit and this is why a control system such as the Kimberley Process is possible. With minerals such as gold, coltan or wolframite, we are talking about something completely different. I would like to express my satisfaction with the recognition that the diamond industry operates in an international level playing field. We therefore supported the amendment of colleague Vanackere of CD&V.

The essence of my criticism is that the resolution proposal does not sufficiently recognize what the Kimberley Process has already fully achieved thanks to the dedication of the Antwerp diamond industry. If the sector has concerns, it does not need to be put as described in the recent discussion, as a kind of “parfum d’Anvers”. In economically difficult times, we should put the diamond sector, which is facing fierce international competition, a heart under the belt. A sector that accounts for our main export product outside the European Union and indirectly accounts for 34 000 jobs deserves all support.

Parliamentary resolutions have, first and foremost, a moral and not legal weight. We all know. The representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed exactly the same criticism as us, ⁇ about the possible damage, which certain outlets in the press cause for the diamond industry.

Minister Reynders has called for the lifting of the EU embargo on diamonds in Zimbabwe. This is stated in a press release of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation dated September 24, 2013. I quote: “Minister Reynders believes that the EU decision today will improve the transparency in the trade in diamonds from Zimbabwe by allowing their export to Antwerp, the center that offers the greatest guarantee in terms of transparency and certification.”

These are not the words of my group or of colleagues in the committee, nor of the sector, but of the Foreign Minister of your majority.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, like my colleague Luykx, I will refer to this in my written report and immediately come to my speech.

An anniversary date of a process like that of Kimberley must lead us, in my opinion, to two elements.

First, it is important to emphasize the importance of the path already taken in which the diamond sector and the Belgian authorities have played a proactive role.

And, indeed, I join my colleague Schiltz to clarify that our commission emphasized that the process had made it possible to take an important international step in the fight against “blood diamonds” through the certification of raw diamonds. This should lead to the fact that this economic activity, for Belgium in general and for Antwerp in particular, does not represent, in the producing countries, a major potential source of destabilization and human rights violations.

Secondly, we should look at the potential shortcomings and the means of circumvention that are found through the extensive work of our commission; it allowed us to meet both the diamond sector of Antwerp and an NGO active in this area, namely IPIS (International Peace Information Service).

This is how I would like to thank my colleague Georges Dallemagne: in the face of the observation of the parliamentary work carried out, he took the initiative to submit a resolution which we subsequently amended with the whole majority.

Through this amendment work, my group wanted to highlight several complementary elements that are found today in the text that is submitted to us. For example, better private sector accountability, the need to interchange process data with other raw material databases in order to detect potential fraud, or the need to ensure traceability of a whole range of other minerals, such as gold. Its trade in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, according to the UN expert group, remains lacking in transparency, making it difficult to distinguish between conflict gold and gold from other regions.

We also cite the desire, on the one hand, to see all countries in the world apply the same strict criteria of the process and, on the other hand, not to tolerate differences in requirements between countries. This is a duty of consistency. We strongly condemn the states that are voluntarily lax in this matter, which de facto create unfair and dangerous competition that threatens the process. I think in particular of Dubai, which had been pointed to Antwerp to apply a light process.

For my group, the Kimberley Process must be understood as being fully part of development policy coherence. This text has the merit of materializing this political will and of drawing the alarm on certain dysfunctions, while also showing itself constructive towards this essential process.

May our country and the European Union continue to play an important role in its strengthening! In any case, there will now be evidence of strong parliamentary support for such a position through, I hope, the adoption of this text.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I just listened to Mr. Luykx’s presentation and he talked about some newspaper articles that have appeared, but not about the text of the resolution.

Mr Waterschoot, unfortunately, the media have paid a lot of negative attention to this resolution. If you approve of this resolution, it’s better to ask yourself where that negative response comes from. The cabinet employee of the minister has very explicitly pointed out that this negative connotation is being made because one is critical in this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the committee: “Of course, the other diamond centers are in their hurls when they read such press articles because they infer that Belgium no longer has confidence in the diamond sector. It is important to emphasize that the Kimberley Process is a real success. It has resulted...” That resolution is exactly critical of the Kimberley Process, which sparked the reaction in the media.

Mr Luykx, I now give the floor to Mr. of Dallemagne. I would ask you not to resume your debate in committee, even though I know that it is of great interest.

Mr. Luykx, I can’t let you say what you’re saying.

by Mr. Luykx takes the pretext – it is truly a pretext – of an article in a newspaper, which actually does not absolutely correspond to the spirit of this resolution, to make believing that it is a resolution that would not be good and that would not be supported by the diamond sector, ⁇ in Antwerp – it is totally the opposite of the truth – and that would not be supported by the government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs – it is still totally contrary to the truth. You have already tried this exercise in the commission. You have already been re-established by all the members of the committee at that time and you return to say that this resolution is not good.

In fact, this resolution is nuanced. You have received very little criticism. You have mostly been interested in a newspaper article and, again, for me, it is essentially a pretext not to support a resolution that is good, nuanced, both ambitious and reasonable to make sure there are no more blood diamonds.

Mr. President, Mr. Dallemagne, I will not overtake the debate here.

We have made substantial criticism. You can read it in the report referred to. By the way, you were present. We have thoroughly supported this criticism. Mr Jambon has returned regularly. We are not based solely on a media article.

I continue to point out that you should ask yourself whether you do not overlook the purpose of this resolution because it also creates negative connotations. The diamond industry in Antwerp does not deserve that.

Thank you for this ideal introduction.

CD&V is based on the principle of potentially 15% conflict diamond before the Kimberley Process, while we are now at potentially 0.2% uncertified diamonds worldwide thanks to the Kimberley Process. From this one must leave. As Mr. Henry said, the Kimberley Process is a huge success. No one can claim anything else about it.

All colleagues who participated in the visit to the AWDC, the dome of the Antwerp diamond sector, were able to see how the controls are carried out in practice. Everyone has seen the controlled environment and has even been able to hold the certificates. There is no match between them.

We need to go even a step further and dare to emphasize the importance of all the efforts of the sector in the field of technical assistance in Africa. I think of sending experts on the spot and assisting in setting up the control mechanisms.

Mr. Luyckx, we must be very clear, without the Antwerp diamond industry and its global involvement in the Kimberley Process, there would be no Kimberley Process and there would be no results that are there today.

We have determined what fantastic work has been done, but we must not be blind. Everyone, from NGOs to critics to those who run the system on a daily basis, indicates that there is room for improvement. I have heard no one say that the Kimberley Process today works perfectly and that there is no room for improvement.

I will briefly address some concrete points of the resolution.

What is very important to us is the concept of the level playing field introduced by the amendment of Mr Vanackere, among others. That is very important. There must be strict standards and controls. We are absolutely demanding party for this. I think that Belgium should take the lead in this on a condition, in particular that we apply that to the whole sector. It is logical that controls on conflict diamonds should not constitute an element of competition. It must be about global standards that are applied equally strictly everywhere. I think there are quite a few countries worldwide that can take an example of what is happening in Belgium in this area. In addition, the level playing field is also important for the position of our own sector.

I have just heard a few words about a point that I think is important. The resolution clearly calls for the introduction of a mechanism such as the Kimberley Process for other raw materials. I am well aware that this will be difficult, but I think we must make that effort for other raw materials, such as gold, from other potential conflict hardholds. It actually makes no sense to focus only on diamond and point that sector with your finger, while others are simply forgotten. Financing of the conflict harbours will continue. This is a very important point. If you stay with a system that focuses only on diamonds and forgets everything else, that would be fundamentally unfair. One would then point to one sector while forgetting many others. I want to emphasize that. It is therefore very important for us that this resolution calls for this. Let that be very clear.

In the resolution you also reiterate that we are asking for the Kimberley Process to be managed by an international structure financed by the sector and the Member States, with a permanent secretariat. Anyone who operates in the system today indicates that the current structure is the best feasible, but ⁇ not optimal. Therefore, a different structure should be established. Our resolution calls for this.

Let there be no misunderstanding that the resolution says very clearly that the Kimberley Process as its core business has control of diamonds. It can be difficult to resist that, that is the corebusiness, but I think we should also evolve into a tripartite control system involving the civil society, the sector and the states. I think this is only good for the credibility of the process. I think the Belgian, Antwerp diamond industry can also benefit from this.

I have just heard arguments from the opposition that I don’t really understand.

We believe that the Kimberley Process is a good approach, that there are still improvements in it, that the fight against raw materials that can be used to finance conflicts is very important for us.

Therefore, for the whole of these measures and in support of the sector – I do not see the resolution as a fingerprint to the sector – in order to improve the process and international transparency, we will support this resolution.

Ladies and gentlemen, I need something from the heart. This is a resolution that seeks nothing but to ensure that the scarce resources of this planet are not used or misused to support flagrant human rights violations such as civil wars, massacres and dictatorial regimes, but to curb them. It seems to me quite simple.

Of course, this is not something that can be done with a fingernail. This is not something that can be achieved at once with a resolution, a bill, or even a Kimberley Process.

The Kimberley Process is an important step in separating the pure diamond, which is properly mined, from the blood diamond. It is actually a process, as colleagues have already said, that should apply to all scarce raw materials.

As Parliament today calls for this process to go a step further, to further expand the success of this process which has sufficiently manifested itself and which we have all emphasized in the long and broad, I find it small to start with games, to harass over procedures.

You say that Kimberley is not a human rights organization but a trade restriction control mechanism institute, Mr. Luykx. I regret that you get stuck in it and lose sight of the horizon of this resolution. Moreover – you refer to the statements in the committee – I also regret that the only point of criticism you can generate is the literal citation of the text that the diamond sector has proposed to you and all of us. I like that, not because it is a bad text but because I retain my critical sentence, because I can extract the merits from that text and make my own judgment about it.

Mr Luykx and colleagues, I will tell you something more if you still have doubts about the validity and solidity of this resolution. It is not because the United Nations is founded that one should no longer strive for world peace. This is exactly what is presented here today. We recognize the virtues of the Kimberley Process and the importance of the Antwerp diamond industry to paint its success. I think, by the way, there is a place in the world for clever raw materials, for clever diamonds. I think Antwerp can only grow if it stays at the forefront when it comes to pursuing pure diamonds.

Mr. Luykx, please throw away that game mentality. I do not want to start shooting on the N-VA, that does not interest me, I want Antwerp to shine as brightly as the diamonds it produces.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to first apologize to Mrs. Brems, who followed this case and who intervened long in committee to defend an initiative that should have been even more ambitious.

For us too, the Kimberley Process is very important because it establishes key governance principles at the international level, not only for diamonds but also for other raw materials, mining resources, rare materials, precious materials whose exploitation has often led to dubious practices, corruption, violations of social and human rights, destruction of the environment.

We believe that the Kimberley Process must be saved! It must be saved and it must be improved. He is in danger: the director of Rapaport has resigned; NGOs that wanted to include the human rights issue have left the game. At the moment, this process does not work very well. Nevertheless, it is indispensable because its credibility will depend on the possibility of implementing for other materials (gold, coltan, wood, precious wood, etc.) or even more generally for the forest, traceability processes in international trade that are primary not only for States but also for consumers as we are and who want to stop participating in the destruction of the planet and serious violations of human rights.

This resolution proposal wants to be realistic and cautious in order not to shock. At first, she was more ambitious. And that’s more ambition than we would have preferred. We regret somewhat that we have been put out of play in the construction of the final text.

Today, Kimberley is unsatisfactory. Our amendments aimed to correct these disappointing aspects.

The Kimberley Process does not provide for a system of sanctions. We cannot punish all perpetrators. We therefore proposed the establishment of a regime of sanctions for all perpetrators, namely not only the rebel armies, but also the government armies that violate human rights and participate in the destruction of the environment. by Mr. Germany referred to Zimbabwe in its introduction.

Control of the operation of the Kimberley process is unsatisfactory as it is carried out between peers and is not made public. This can lead to some laxity. Meetings and control processes should therefore be made public in such a way as to be aware of possible conflicts of interest.

We also believe – this is the added value of this resolution – that the scope of the human rights process should be broadened. It should not only be concerned with countries in war or who are experiencing a civil war.

The last amendment that our group had submitted was aimed at defending the concept of fair diamonds, i.e. diamonds derived from a process that includes respect for workers and the environment.

Our amendments have not been taken into account. Nevertheless, we consider that the text brings added value. I am also surprised to find that some groups consider that one cannot speak out about a process while making known that it will need to be improved in the future. It seems to me to be sad because everyone knows very well that reality is not pink.

It is still that we appreciate the inclusion of the human rights issue in the text, but also the consideration of the certification of carved diamonds, polished diamonds. Even though we regret the fact that it does not stipulate how the government should proceed.

We would have desired this project to be more ambitious. We consider that it constitutes, in a certain way, a bottle to save a process and give it international credibility so that it is not drowned, that it does not disappear, because in terms of raw materials, this world is, today, a very cruel jungle for people and nature.

We have talked a lot about the diamond industry. For those who do not know, the diamond sector is of great importance for Antwerp, and therefore for Flanders and, to the next order, for Belgium.

Last year, diamonds were traded in Antwerp for approximately $55 billion. Approximately 80% of the raw diamond worldwide and 50% of the carved diamond went through the port city. With more than 11% of exports to Flanders or 8% of exports to Belgium and 35 000 employees, it is still one of the leading sectors of our industry and our exports. Together with the port and logistics services, the petrochemical industry and a number of other sectors, the diamond sector puts Antwerp and Flanders on the world map.

I say “still,” because even in the diamond sector there are hijackers on the coast. Due to the high wage costs, in recent years, numerous activities have already been transferred from Antwerp and the Kempen to, among others, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, India, Pakistan and a number of other mainly BRIC countries, countries that usually do not take so closely with deontology, social working conditions and human rights.

Nevertheless, the sector has managed to maintain itself in Antwerp and in some cases to improve thanks to high-quality technology, innovation, perfect service and a deontology that stands out above the competition. The tax behavior of some individuals in the sector does not change that.

We have learned not to attract anything from what the media may claim. Nobody will deny that the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, which since 2002 sets the conditions for the control of the production and trade of raw diamonds, has played an important, if not crucial, role in this. Conflict and blood diamonds must be banned and must not at any time serve to aggravate and perpetuate the misery in especially African countries.

This is the role of the Kimberley Process: a system of trade control. I think we all agree, especially after our visit to Antwerp last year, that the Antwerp diamond sector plays an important and above all a transparent pioneer and example role in the implementation and compliance of the Kimberley Process. We also agree that the 54 members, representing 80 countries, and the many non-affiliated countries should be able to take the role of Antwerp as an example. That is not the point.

From there, I fear that our opinions divide in part. The Flemish Interest does not agree that this Kimberley Process would be extended with even more stringent definitions, controls or sanctions, nor with an extension to the carved diamond or with the addition of all diamonds that have been mined or traded by countries ruled by regimes that violate human rights.

Of course, human rights must be respected and violations cannot be tolerated, but there must be other means of enforcing human rights and punishing corrupt regimes and potentates, with which we in other areas sometimes, unfortunately, too much like to bake sweet sandwiches, than by tightening the Kimberley Process. By tightening that Kimberley Process, the most important, if not the only, result will be that the best pupil in the classroom, especially Antwerp, makes life even more difficult and puts his competitive position at risk.

Colleagues, I suspect that this is indeed not the intention, but it risks more than ever to be the result. We do not trade in a vacuum. Why, Mr. Watershoot, there is no Kimberley Process for gas, petroleum and other soil resources or export products, coming from countries that do not take close attention to human rights? Am I far from saying that at least two-thirds of the globe is inhabited by corrupt potentates and/or regimes that do not get close to human rights, to say euphemistically?

I am afraid that we will have a lot of work. Impossible, you say. Indeed, because we would not have much more work. We would have no more work, because the world would stand still. We do not operate in a vacuum.

I repeat that human rights are crucial. Everyone has the right to live in their own biotope in fireplace and fireplace, but there are many other ways to ⁇ this than by making the economic life of a spearpoint sector impossible.

For this reason, we will not approve this resolution, but we will abstain.

Mr President, the Kimberley Process, named after a South African city, aims to combat the exploitation of conflict diamonds, also known as blood diamonds. This process is aimed solely at opposing rebel groups or terrorists who would exploit illegal mines to finance conflicts, in order to obtain weapons that we make, I must recall, for the potential purpose of financing their military activities or strengthening the governments that we set up.

I do not believe so much. But well ! This is what is officially stated. It is beautiful! However, the mining of diamonds in Africa by these kinds of groupuscules is only an epiphenomenon, compared to the industrial mining we support, a mining that is excluded from the Kimberley process. Of course, since this process, signed in 2003, comes from the United States, the European Union and Canada. We have recently talked about the importance of the diamond sector in Antwerp. Let me doubt our will to control this sector and, most importantly, to make it more ethical. Ethics and money don’t always go well together.

In reality, this Kimberley process, behind praiseable intentions, has as its sole and only aim to drive out the diamond market of those who exploit them and who are out of control of the state mafia in place, out of control of the Antwerp diamond traders, etc. This mafia brings together large groups and institutions, such as the World Diamond Exchange Federation whose main buildings are the Diamond Dealers Club in New York, the world’s largest diamond exchange in Ramat Gan called The Israel Diamond Exchange complex in the eastern suburb of Tel Aviv, and the Antwerp Diamond Exchange, as I mentioned before.

You will have understood, given the dominance of a small elite over this trade, I call this a mafia and not a democratic state process that aims to ensure the right origin of the diamonds, as this proposal falsely stipulates. I look carefully at the terms I use because it’s a very sensitive topic. When we talk about diamonds and Antwerp, we obviously know very well who we’re targeting. To state this reality could once again be punishable by a complaint from this entirely new body of defense of the weakest, the Belgian League against Anti-Semitism (LBCA). I also enjoy being on this podium to greet my dear friend, Joël Rubinfeld, who has found in this business a beautiful professional reconversion and I wish him much success in his attempt to destroy MP Laurent Louis, who has become the enemy in Belgium.

Sorry for this digression. I return to my sheep. I would like so much, if the political will was there, that the situation of the workers in the mines taken into account in this process be made to the top.

The official diamond industry swaddles some Africans from different countries to elevate them to the top of the social scale, so that they can palpate the mammon dream (knowing that members of the socialist group sometimes lack general culture, I prefer to clarify that this means "of the god Mammon"); selling their souls to the devil for material possession, at the expense of the general interest of the population who lives in extreme poverty on diamond deposits without ever seeing the consequences, except for harmful falls and rape of women, as is the case in eastern Congo.

Why does this Kimberley process not reveal this yet flagrant injustice? It is very nice to want to legislate on the origin, on the so-called transparency. If it were transparent, the mines exploited would not be overseen by men in arms, surrounded by barbed and closed to the public! If there was transparency, citizens of the countries involved in mining would be aware, for example, that the dollar exports of the countries affiliated with the Kimberley Process amount to tens and tens of billions of dollars.

With this proposal for a resolution, our Parliament therefore asks the European Union to help this mafia – not the peoples, but this mafia – to continue to monopolize the soil of Africa, without ever mentioning Africans in this process as legitimate beneficiaries of a part of the profits of this trade.

Oh yes, of course! They will tell you that they are creating jobs. They dig and sink into exacerbating conditions, at risk of their lives, to go for these precious stones for a miserable income that will simply keep them in a state of total servitude until the end of their days. What an injustice!

This is the Kimberley process. And the lobbying works wonderfully, given that since 2007, this process has among its members more than 50 member countries. This Kimberley process only serves to ensure that this institutionalized looting of diamond natural resources can work best by structuring it, making it more efficient.

To make us believe that there are good plowers and bad plowers, is to try to make us swallow anything!

Let’s not be fooled, the Kimberley process will never attack pioneers in mining such as the De Beers conglomerate, the leading leader until the 1980s, currently chaired by Nicolas Oppenheimer – as it is strange –, headed by a personal fortune of $6.5 billion or the British holding company Anglo American, a corporation founded by Ernest Oppenheimer, whose family is the largest fortune in South Africa, and by – keep up, we always see the same people coming – JP Morgan in person. Anglo American made a turnover of 28.8 billion in 2012 with a net profit of 614 million. It is clear that the small rebels targeted by the Kimberley Process do not make the weight.

Finally, I will add that Anglo American was criticized by Human Rights Watch in 2005, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo – a republic that has only a democratic name – and again fiercely in 2007 by the British NGO War on Want for mass eviction of local populations in the Philippines and South Africa, destructive environmental practices in Ghana and Mali, and environmental destruction in Bristol Bay in Alaska. The list is not exhaustive and only applies to this particular corporation.

There are criticisms and criticisms, but governments like ours are powerless. They refuse to acknowledge it and play the judiciaries by trying to take these questions seriously.

In short, as you usually do, you blow the wind and silence the truth!

As a friend of Africa, as a man who wants Africans to get out of poverty and finally benefit from the wealth of their soil, as a righteous and honest human, I can only vote against this proposal for a resolution that merely legalizes and organizes the looting of diamond resources for the benefit of certain unnamed organisms and at the expense of local populations.

Do whatever you want, say whatever you want, make any resolutions you want: you will not remove me from the mind that the diamonds that adorn the neck and the hands of our women carry in them all the misfortune of Africa!

First of all, I would like to thank all the colleagues who have taken a lot of interest in this issue. We had auditions, we went to Antwerp. We were many in the Foreign Relations Committee and we had a nutritious debate. I disagree with all the arguments outlined, but the interest was certain, and that for good reasons.

In fact, economically, it is an important sector: 34 000 jobs, 5% of the gross national wealth in Belgium. Then, in terms of human rights and social responsibility, this sector is also crucial.

First, I will tell my colleague Luykx, absent for now, that I have not heard a single voice claiming that ⁇ ining the Kimberley process was not indispensable. Not one, neither in civil society, neither among researchers, neither with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, nor in Antwerp. I also did not hear a single voice to say that at the moment, things were working well. Not a single one. Not a single one to advise not to touch anything, to say that the Kimberley process worked wonderfully after ten years of activity and that we could not be interested in it. On the contrary.

By the way, those who have ⁇ it with the most conviction are the experts and jewelers of Antwerp Square. According to them, this system now takes water from all sides and is less and less credible; it represents a real threat to the diamond sector of Antwerp.

And that is the problem: in the absence of a credible Kimberley process, our diamond sector in Antwerp, which I love like everyone in this assembly, is threatened. The image of this trade would be embellished by a supposedly close link between production and then diamond trade and wars, conflicts, serious violations of human rights.

It is this scheme that is at the heart of our resolution: reacting so that this system stops degrading, that some people stop pretending to organize the Kimberley system. We have been told that in various parts of the world we are pretending to put the system in place; this has been told us about Dubai, Mumbai and Tel Aviv, Beirut and the United States, Venezuela. Finally, few countries still seem willing to properly implement this Kimberley process.

Belgium is the country in the world that should hold the most and must work the most to safeguard this Kimberley process. 85% of raw diamonds and 50% of carved diamonds are processed in Antwerp. Therefore, it is important, in our capacity as parliamentarians, as a Belgian government, to make sure that this system is credible.

What is a credible system? It is a system in which there is more transparency, less opacity. The fact that the meeting of the States Parties in Johannesburg, in December last year, did not give rise to any report, that we do not know at all what the discussions and the results were, it seems surprising!

The fact that peer examinations that take place regularly in a whole range of countries – there was one mission recently in Beirut, another in Tel Aviv – are not the subject of any reporting leads us to question how such a process works.

We visited Antwerp. Henry witnessed it – diamonds that arrived and were certified from Dubai. It was told to us. We did not invent it. It was a lot with diamonds so different that in reality they came from different countries, ⁇ not from Dubai, since Dubai does not produce them. So they came from African countries, but nobody was able to say from which country these diamonds came from, and much less if they had been produced under the conditions provided by the Kimberley process.

It is observed that even in Antwerp, where more efforts are made than elsewhere, one is not able today to say where certain lots of diamonds come from. This shows how important it is to rework on this Kimberley process.

In this process, until today, only diamonds that are produced in areas controlled by rebels, guerrilla groups, are formally excluded from the international diamond market. In reality, the practice already goes beyond this, as discussions have taken place on Central Africa and other countries. So why not make sure that, tomorrow, not only rebel groups are targeted, but also governments that lead conflicts to seize diamond areas or commit serious human rights violations, to prevent diamonds from being marketed and circulated on the global diamond market? This was an extremely important element of our resolution.

Other elements would allow the Kimberley system to work better. Antwerp Square and IPIS have told us: in Kinshasa, for years, 50% of diamonds were not checked due to the lack of technical expertise to determine their origin. Today, some experts from Antwerp are traveling to Kinshasa to support this control. Why not mobilize resources so that control is systematic in a number of countries where this expertise is lacking?

Furthermore, it is important that civil society continues to be involved in this process. Both NGOs and the Antwerp Square have greatly contributed to its emergence and credibility. It is a shame that today some NGOs are rightly angry with the way the Kimberley Process is implemented. We need to ensure that these NGOs continue to engage in this process.

We need a regional approach to these problems. For example, in the Central African Republic, diamonds are sent to Rwanda, Angola, Uganda. As a coincidence, these countries are asking for their membership in the Kimberley Process. It is quite paradoxical that they are asking for this membership because some authorities see the possibility of some sort of diamond whitening coming from the Central African Republic. It also shows that it is important to review the way we work.

I would like to intervene because I think this speech is completely hypocritical. I am sorry. I find this scandalous. Hearing this kind of talk in parliament from a party, the CDH, which claims to represent a certain part of the Congolese community, is simply disgusting and to vomit!

Go there, don’t bother it!

You are trying to prove the contrary, but you know well that our country has been participating for years in the oppression and looting of the Congolese people for diamonds and for the community you are protecting today by submitting this resolution. You know that is the reality! You know that if we intervene in Mali, it is to loot the Mali soil. You know well that if we intervene in Central Africa, it is to loot the natural resources of Central Africa, and it is not for the beautiful eyes of the inhabitants of these countries!

I find it ⁇ unhealthy to dare to hold such a speech in this Parliament. And if no one, today, dares to stand up to point the finger to this shame, it will be I who will do it. All political parties may be complicit in the pillaging of the African people, but don’t count on me to participate in it and be your complicit by voting this harmful and shameful resolution proposal!

Please allow me not to respond to these delusions and illusions.

I will come to the last important point of the draft resolution under consideration. As some have mentioned, it is true that other raw materials are sensitive. But there are devices. Mechanisms were set up after the Kimberley Process by the OECD. I think in particular of the due diligence mechanism for the three "t", i.e. tantal, tungsten and steel, as well as the due diligence mechanism for gold.

Our resolution – and I don’t see how this could be considered an anomaly, contrary to what a member of the N-VA said – requires consistency. It calls for processes that exist for other raw materials to be inspired in order to strengthen the Kimberley process.

These are all the elements contained in our proposal for a resolution. I think these are important elements. If the Belgian government succeeds in ensuring that these elements are implemented, within the European Union as well as in larger spaces, we can say that we will have made much progress in safeguarding and strengthening a process that Belgium has a great interest in.