Geneva, 20–24 April 2009
By Katherine Carré
A review of progress in combating racism since the Durban Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001.
The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, 2001.
Subud delegates to the 2001 meeting on racism in Durban, South Africa
|
As regards the Conference itself, already during the preparatory committees serious divergences in views were evident. One of the main reasons for the Conference, which turned out to be one of the most controversial issues, was the demand of the African group for reparation and compensation, including debt cancellation, by the colonizing powers and the US for centuries of colonialism, slave trade and slavery. Only very few Africans thought otherwise: one example was the President of Senegal who stated, “We still suffer the effects of slavery and colonialism, and that cannot be evaluated in monetary terms. I find that not only absurd, but insulting."
The other highly controversial issue was over Israel and what some countries denounced as its racist attitude towards the Palestinians, and linked racism to Zionism.
Many compromises were made for the final Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) which was agreed by all, but by that time the US and Israel had already walked out. The NGO Forum, reflecting the views of a small minority, produced a radical anti-Semite document which was not accepted. Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary General of the Conference was rather unjustly blamed for the Conference’s lack of total success. For some time already the US had not approved of her open-mindedness and she resigned a few months later.
Just a few days after the end of the Conference, it was “9/11”.
Subud Participation
A 10-member Subud team from SDIA, WSA and Youth, went to Durban in 2001 under the SDIA banner to join some 10,000 other participants in Durban thanks to the generosity of the Guerrand Hermes Foundation For Peace (GHFP). From SDIA Kumari Beck and Rosanna Hille (Canada) and Joe Rosario (India); from WSA Sharif Horthy (UK) and Amalia Dickie Rasheed (Austria); from Subud Youth, Sofiah MacKay and Majedie Harris (Australia), Mariamah Crona (Norway), Mufridah Williams and Renee Flynn (UK).
The members of the Subud team learned a lot during the Conference, especially through their contacts with other NGOs. Kumari presented a statement to the plenary on behalf SDIA that was drafted by the whole delegation and was based on input of members of SDIA at the Bali Congress. Sharif and Amalia, building on the work done with Katherine in Geneva at the last prepcom, played a prominent role in the Spiritual Caucus where its statement was finalized after which it was addressed by Sharif to the NGO Forum whilst Amalia, together with another NGO, addressed it to the plenary. Kumari, Rosanna and Jo participated in the Education Caucus and Kumari assisted in the drafting of the Education Caucus Statement. Joe delivered part of a workshop on in Human Rights based on his work in India. The five Youth delegates joined the Youth Forum, where Sofia and Mufridah were especially active in leading initiatives, and participated in other workshops of interest to them.
From 2001 to 2009
In the months and years following the Conference, SDIA was asked by the Secretariat from time to time what measures they had taken to implement the Durban Programme of Action. A conference follow-up report was provided to the Conference organizers in 2003. In summary, the activities that resulted from the WCAR Conference to 2003 were: A Subud Peace Forum, the Mithra Foundation implemented a Human Rights education program in schools throughout Karnataka State in India, and several project initiatives in Indonesia and Germany.
World-wide some progress was recorded in combating racism since Durban, especially by tighter legislation introduced in some countries, but on the whole the progress was slow and in some cases race relations deteriorated. The main reasons were terrorism and the counter-terrorism measures following 9/11, racial stereotyping and stigmatizing with confusion between race and religion, migration movements, more organized Muslims communities in Europe and the provocative attitude of Western media to Islam. A new language developed along with these events with terms such as Islamaphobia and Christianophobia and the defamation of religion. Israel’s assault on Gaza and the phosphorus shelling were obviously also a major cause of tense relations. Poverty and the increase in numbers of underfed people due to the economic recession are also connected to racism.
The United Nations Durban Review Conference, Geneva
Before Day 1, 20 April 2009. The conference had not yet started that already a number of Western countries were boycotting it fearing that with the presence of Iranian President Ahmadinajad it could become a platform for criticizing Israel. Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary General of the Durban Review Conference declared she was “shocked and deeply disappointed” by the US withdrawal (other boycotting countries were Canada, Israel, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic, Australia, New Zealand), and that one or two issues had dominated and outweighed the concerns of millions suffering from racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance all over the world. The well-known Human Rights Watch commented, “there is no justification for the decision because the draft declaration to be adopted at the conference on April 20-24 2009 fully incorporates the legitimate concerns of EU and other Western governments”.
Also, the day before the opening of the Conference, some affluent NGOs mainly of Canadian, US and Israeli origin organized a day-long NGO human rights “summit” to decry human rights violations by certain governments.
The purpose of the Review Conference was to review and evaluate the progress made in combating racism during the last eight years since the world conference held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, and to propose new means of making it more effective. Geneva had to host the Review Conference as, anticipating failure and ensuing confrontation, no other country would have it.
To get a clearer picture of the Review Conference, a brief account of the Durban Conference in 2001 and Subud’s participation follows.
The Durban Review Conference 2009
Day 1, afternoon, 20 April. You may have seen on television the pandemonium in the UN Assembly Hall as a couple NGO members with coloured wigs insulted the speaker, President Ahmadinejad, as he started on his speech criticizing the West and Israel. They were promptly dealt with by the security guards. The Europeans – those who had not boycotted the Conference - marched out when the speech got virulent, but almost all returned when the speech was over, and the Conference continued.
Both High Commisioner Navi Pillay and UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon deplored the speech and condemned the use of a UN platform for political ends. It was also stated that the fight against racism would have been better served had the US and the other boycotting countries participated and replied.
After this clash, prospects for success seemed grim, but the next day brought good news and victory:
Day 2, afternoon, 21 April. Victory over the threat of a split between the West and the “South”! The international community was determined to pursue the fight against racism undivided. The outcome document was adopted unanimously in the afternoon by the140 delegations present in the Assembly Hall. No lengthy debate was required as the document presented to the Conference had been the result of intensive prepcom negotiations under the able chairmanship of the Russian ambassador and the important concessions made by the African and Islamic countries.
The outcome document excluded the concept of “defamation of religion” promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference but unacceptable to the West as a human right as it would have meant a restriction on freedom of expression. Instead, “incitement to hatred”, already a human rights concept, could be used and there was a strong call for freedom of expression in the fight against racism. The Africans gave up their demands of compensation for colonialism, the slave trade and slavery. The Arab countries accepted that neither Palestine nor the Middle East be mentioned. There was no reference to Israel.
The outcome document reinforced and complemented the DDPA taking account of the more recent events; it renewed a call to States to ratify the International Convention against Racism and to develop or implement national plans; there is a special call to protect migrants and domestic workers and to adopt a balanced attitude towards immigration – and much more. The document is attached in case someone wants to look at it.
Days 3 & 4. The High Level Segment continued with dignitaries addressing the Conference and was followed by the General Debate when country delegates and other stakeholders - inter-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions and the Special Rapporteurs on connected thematics - racism, minorities, freedom of expression, migrants, freedom of religion or belief and contemporary forms of slavery - were heard on issues arising from the objectives of the Conference.
Day 5 : Dozens of NGOs representing a wide range of interests took the floor: anti-racist and pro-peace groups; faith-based Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh organizations; indigenous peoples; Dalits; African groups; Tibetans; Women’s and Youth groups and more. Most of them welcomed the outcome document but for some NGOs, there had been no progress since 2001 and the Review Conference had been a failure for various reasons, in particular for omitting to consider State-sponsored racism.
Day 5 pm - The Conclusion : The Durban Review Conference formally adopted the final outcome document by a consensus of 182 countries (all but 10) after which High Commissioner Pillay and the President of the Conference, greatly relieved by the happy end after a chaotic start, made their closing speeches.
“We will be leaving this hall tonight with a sure sense of accomplishment, with renewed and reenergized determination and purpose,” said Pillay. …the Conference proved to be “a celebration of tolerance and dignity for all”, and it produced a “meaningful outcome enshrining a common aspiration: to defy racism in all its manifestations and work to stamp it out wherever it may occur.”
Side events and cultural activities
Every day of the week there were ten to fifteen side events as well as photograph exhibitions, poster exhibits from the slave trade days, films, dances and other cultural events. A week-long event organized by the OHCHR with the victims present, “Voices – everyone affected by racism has a story to tell” bore testimony to their experiences with racism in various parts of the world.
Navi Pillay meets the NGOs
About 1000 members of some 300 NGOs attended the Review Conference and, judging by the crowd in the room, most of them seemed to be present. They had many questions and comments – a few are mentioned here. Several NGOs regretted that no special mention had been made of the problem of untouchability which in India affects 170 million Dalits or 250 million if neighbouring countries and tribals are included; the High Commissioner said she would see that this problem is addressed in future. Some NGOs regretted there had been no reply to Mr. Ahmadinajad. Questions were asked about sanctions for the NGOs which had disrupted the smooth functioning of the Conference on the opening day. Reply: their passes had been withdrawn (the media reported that a French NGO, the UEJF, had accredited 194 members for that purpose). A representative of African descent expressed great disappointment that colonialism and slavery had taken back seats in Geneva. He hoped that future international meetings on racism would not be completely dominated by the Israel/Palestine question, a statement which brought loud and long applause.
A tribute must be paid to Navi Pillay for the important role she played in the success of the Review Conference. She is South African of Indian origin and has great sympathy for the NGOs and a willingness to work with them. Having suffered herself from apartheid, she has a special connection with all victims of racial discrimination. Her bio is given below. Former High Commissioners for Human Rights include Mary Robinson (former President of Ireland), Sergio Veira de Mello who was killed in Iraq, and Louise Arbour who lost her government’s support.
Navanethem Pillay
Nevanethem Pillay
|
Ms. Pillay, a South African national, was the first woman to start a law practice in her home province of Natal in 1967. Over the next few years, she acted as a defense attorney for anti-apartheid activists, exposing torture, and helping establish key rights for prisoners on Robben Island.
She also worked as a lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and later was appointed Vice-President of the University of Durban Westville. In 1995, after the end of apartheid, Ms. Pillay was appointed a judge on the South African High Court, and in the same year was chosen to be a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where she served a total of eight years, the last four (1999-2003) as President. She played a critical role in the ICTR's groundbreaking jurisprudence on rape as genocide, as well as on issues of freedom of speech and hate propaganda. In 2003, she was appointed as a judge on the International Criminal Court in the Hague, where she remained until August 2008.
In South Africa, as a member of the Women's National Coalition, she contributed to the inclusion of an equality clause in the country’s Constitution that prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, religion and sexual orientation. She co-founded Equality Now, an international women's rights organization, and has been involved with other organizations working on issues relating to children, detainees, victims of torture and of domestic violence, and a range of economic, social and cultural rights.
Ms. Pillay received a BA and a LLB from Natal University South Africa. She also holds a Master of Law and a Doctorate of Juridical Science from Harvard University. She was born in 1941, and has two daughters.