Even on such egregious subjects as racism, there are always some who defend the
intolerable, writes Curtis Doebbler
Between 20-24 April 2009 the world will
take either an important step forward towards prohibiting discrimination,
especially racial discrimination, or an unfortunate step backwards, if
governments are unwilling to confront or even to discuss the core issues. Which
way the international community will go will depend largely on the activities
of states, and to a lesser extent civil society, participating in the Durban
Review Conference to be held at the UN European headquarters in
Geneva.
This conference is likely to be the most
important human rights meeting in years, testing the resolve of the
international community to confront discrimination happening today as well as
the damage done by past discrimination. The conference could be a turning point
in the struggle against prejudices and practices behind so many protracted
international conflicts. It could send the message that the governments of the
world understand their past mistakes and are willing to turn the page and
confront racism and other forms of discrimination head on.
In particular, the Durban Review
Conference is an opportunity to recognise that conflicts like that of Palestine
— the longest standing unresolved serious human rights problem on the
UN’s agenda, Iraq — where well over a million people have lost
their lives due to a war and occupation based on attitudes of superiority, and
Rwanda — where genocide was carried out by inciting racial hatred, can be
more constructively addressed if we view the people affected without
discriminatory attitudes.
And it is also an opportunity to
recognise that there are new forms of discrimination emerging that are
insidious and fast spreading, such as Islamophobia and Arabophobia.
Perhaps most of all, the Durban Review
Conference will be a chance for North and South, East and West, Christians,
Jews, Muslims and people of all denominations and faiths to express their
belief in the principles of equality and non-discrimination. If our governments
can come together and make such an express commitment with proper mechanisms
proposed to follow it up with action, then the Durban Review Conference could
be a significant turning point for many people in the world.
The conference comes at the start of the
administration of the first black president in the history of the United
States, Barack Obama. It is perhaps the best chance he will have during his
presidency to express his and his country’s commitment to combating
racism and other forms of discrimination around the world. Such an opportunity
could breathe new life into his words calling for global cooperation and
American moral leadership.
It also occurs as indigenous peoples in
many states are increasing in prominence after so many years colonial
discriminatory polices. Australia has publicly apologised for its mistreatment
of indigenous peoples and Bolivia has guaranteed their basic human rights in a
new constitution.
It is also the first major human rights
conference in which the international community will be able to reaffirm its
commitment to non-discrimination since the adoption of the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the International Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with
Disabilities.
In short, the Durban Review Conference is
an opportunity that may not arise again for many years, but it is also one that
may be easily lost.
While the Durban Review Conference could
achieve so much, it could also be a flop. One reason is that some states and
organisations do not want to confront past discrimination or deal with the most
pressing contemporary problems of discrimination in the world today.
Western European states supported by the
United States and Canada have complained that the Palestine should not be
mentioned; that only contemporary forms of slavery should be addressed, and
that no special attention should be drawn to discrimination against Muslims.
They have even threatened not to come to the table to negotiate these issues
unless the other side — the overwhelming majority of states — first
agrees to meet their demands.
As a result of the majority of states
trying to meet the demands of a minority, an originally 55-page final statement
to be adopted at the Durban Review Conference has been trimmed to about 16
pages. The bulk of the snipping was done by the Russian chair of the working
group tasked with drafting the final statement. While allegedly the result of
broad consultations, the chair’s draft is a major concession to the
concerns of the Western European states and the United States.
The informal draft text of the chair
suddenly appeared on the front page of the UN Human Rights High
Commissioner’s website, while previous versions that were the result of
months of labour and negotiations by states were buried and almost impossible
to find. Gone from the final statement is any reference to Palestine.
Unusually, the Palestinian delegation itself supported removing any reference
their peoples’ plight. This move surprised some Arab diplomats who were
left wondering whether the cause they had championed for as long as the UN has
existed was perhaps no longer of concern to the Palestinians
themselves.
Also gone was any reference to the
responsibility of states to apologise for, redress, and provide reparations and
compensation to the victims of centuries of slavery. This language was replaced
by a trite reference to contemporary problems of slavery.
Even the contentious reference to
defamation of religion, which the 57 states of the Organisation of the Islamic
Conference had initially championed, has now disappeared. In its place is
language that reiterates what has already been accepted by over 150 states in
Article 20 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights.
Still, the stubborn minority of states
claim that they need more concessions and they are still threatening not to
attend the conference. What more could this minority of states want from a
meeting that is being called to review the commitments made in the 2001 Durban
Declaration and Programme of Action, aimed to fight racism and other similar
forms of discrimination?
The real
target
The answer appears to be the very heart
and soul of the conference itself. The United States, for example, is asking
that wording referring to the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
be removed from any statement to be adopted in Geneva. Such astounding audacity
smacks of the same arrogance that characterised the former Bush administration
from which Obama has publicly attempted to distance himself.
In 2000, just weeks before the adoption
the Millennium Development Goals Declaration, then US Ambassador to the UN John
Bolton tried to have references to the Millennium Development Goals removed
from the document. Observers accused him of arrogantly trying to sabotage a
process that he knew little about and in which he had not participated. Indeed,
Bolton seemed ignorant of the months of painstaking negotiations that had gone
into agreeing to a document to be signed by so many world leaders. In the
event, Bolton’s attempts were ignored.
The United States seems to have learned
little from these past experiences and is on the verge of repeating them again
in the Durban Review Conference. By doing so the United States is threatening
to turn a golden opportunity into a public relations disaster, branding
America’s first black president as a supporter of discrimination or at
best too cowardly to take strong action against this scourge. While it is
incomprehensible that Obama, having broken through American race barriers,
would undermine one of the most important principles for which he stands, it is
not surprising that others oppose the Review Conference.
Israel, the
countries it has sway over and the NGOs it supports, has also protested the
meeting. This is more understandable given the fact that Israel has for more
than 60 years exercised occupation authority over Palestine in a manner that
two successive UN experts have deemed akin to “apartheid”. Almost
two-dozen years after the end of apartheid in South Africa, that Israel
continues such practices against Palestinians is perhaps the best expression of
why we need such a Review Conference and why it must address serious
contemporary problems such as Palestine.
If the Durban Conference addresses
Israel’s discrimination it might contribute towards ending this still
existing example of apartheid present in the world. If it doesn’t, that
apartheid regime can expect to be able to continue violating Palestinian human
rights perhaps for many years.
Similarly, if the Durban Review
Conference addresses the legacies of slavery, this might contribute not only
towards ending contemporary forms of slavery, but also towards redressing the
broader array of contemporary forms of exploitation that that force half the
people in the world to live on less than two Euros per day.
And if the increasing incidents, policies
and practices based on discrimination against Arabs and Muslims are addressed
we might be spared more serious attacks on these peoples.
The terrain of
struggle
For the Durban Review Conference to
achieve even a degree of success in these areas of concern, civil society will
have to make its voice heard as it did in Durban in 2001.
In Durban, South Africa, thousands of
civil society representatives participated in a NGO Forum that was supported in
part by the Office of the High for Human Rights . The NGOs also produced a
powerful NGO Declaration and Programme of Action. This instrument was cause for
concern for apologists of human rights violations. The NGO instrument called
for stronger language on almost every issue ranging from anti-Semitism to
Israel’s policies of apartheid in Palestine.
States and NGOs that oppose to the Durban
Review Conference for reasons already mentioned have gone to great lengths to
prevent meaningful civil society participation in upcoming conference. These
efforts have reached such proportions that OHCHR has been wittingly or
unwittingly drawn into the fray. Indeed, OHCHR has made little effort to
support an NGO Forum, citing misconceived complaints about the 2001 NGO Forum
that had helped shape the agenda at the Durban conference against
racism.
Together with opposing NGOs, some UN
officials have cited the activities of a few NGOs they allege were at the 2001
NGO Forum and who allegedly expressed themselves inappropriately. In reality,
they are referring to the fact that some NGOs protested against Israel’s
continuing human rights violations against the Palestinians.
The fact that the Durban Review
Conference will be hosted in Geneva has also made it more difficult for civil
society to participate. The Swiss government, for example, is known for being
selective in the provision of visas. Even if an NGO gets a visa, the cost of
travel to and staying in Geneva can be prohibitive, especially to NGOs that
come from the global South. Furthermore, the UN itself has not been welcoming,
with senior officials threatening NGOs with longstanding accreditation with
being “prevented from participating in the Durban Review
Conference”.
Despite these obstacles some NGOs have
struggled to arrange an NGO orientation at the Geneva International Conference
Centre from 15-17 April, an NGO Forum on 18-19 April, and a conference on
Palestine on 18-19 April. NGOs have also begun caucusing with their colleagues
in Geneva and internationally to consider strategies for ensuring that the
Geneva gathering not only reiterates what was accomplished in Durban in 2001,
but makes concrete efforts at expanding on those efforts.
These efforts have not gone unnoticed by
some — mostly NGOs objecting to mention of Israel’s discrimination
against Palestinians — who have organised a counter-Durban Review
Conference meeting on 19 April and who plan a demonstration to distract
attention away from the official conference the week it is held.
These clashes over the struggle against
racism and other forms of discrimination will be on public display in Geneva
20-24 April. More importantly, the outcome of these clashes will be an
indicator of where we stand today. It would be ironic, if not tragic, if in
these days of so visible an advance as the election of the first black US
president that the world fails again to speak powerfully and honestly about
racism and similar forms of discrimination that so many continue to
face.
The writer is an international human
rights lawyer and professor of law at An-Najah National University, Nablus,
Palestine.
