HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON RACISM, FOLLOW-UP TO DURBAN DECLARATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Human Rights Council this morning held a general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related forms of intolerance and on the follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The Council also held a general debate on technical assistance and capacity building.
In the general debate on racism, delegations raised various issues, including that the review and follow-up to the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was a continuous and necessary exercise, even while the international community was engaged in preparations for the Durban Review Conference. In order to be relevant to ordinary citizens, the Durban Review Conference should focus on the challenges of contemporary racial discrimination. Some speakers said possible new standards should improve and not diminish the universal character of the struggle for the promotion and protection of human rights. The use of racism and religious intolerance in politics threatened democratic principles and human rights. It was noted that the Review Conference should also look into new matters and the new trends of xenophobia and into practical solutions to combat this evil. Regrettably to date, not only had there been a seeming reluctance to implement the Durban commitments, but indeed there had also been a perceived design to scuttle and reverse the gains of Durban.
Dayan Jayatilleka, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, in concluding remarks, said that no political movement or individual wanted to be termed a racist. And yet, there was a very real challenge to combating contemporary forms of racism. He renewed his pledge to engage in pushing the Durban Declaration forward, excluding no one and no one’s point of view. He also appealed to Member States not to engage in partisan or zero-sum games, which aimed to paralyze or postpone progress within the Durban Review Conference.
Idriss Jazairy, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, in concluding remarks, said that his impression was that there was still a long way to go, even within the Council, in order to respect the engagements made at the Durban Conference. The issues that should be tackled in the follow-up work were planned to answer several questions Why was racism happening? Were there different manifestation of racism or not? Did it result from a lack of standard or not, or was it just a problem of implementation? How should the issue be tackled? He said he was still hoping that he would be contacted by the delegations to consult in order to set the dates and to resume their work.
Mr. Jayatilleka and Mr. Jazairy made presentations before the Council on 19 March. For more details, see press release HRC/08/33.
Speaking in the general debate about racism were the delegations of Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, the Russian Federation, Nigeria, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cuba, Switzerland, China, Finland, Armenia, Iran and Syria.
Also speaking were representatives of the Indian Council of South America, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a joint statement with Association for World Education, Liberation, North-South XXI, Franciscans International, Association for World Education, B'nai B'rith International, speaking on behalf of Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, International Committee for the Respect and the Application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, Association of World Citizens, African Commission of Health, Human Rights Promoters, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Interfaith International, International Islamic Federation of Student Organization (IIFSO), Society for Threatened Peoples, World Union for Progressive Judaism and UNESCO Centre Basque Country.
Speaking in right of reply were the delegations of Morocco and Algeria.
In the general debate on technical assistance, delegations said that technical assistance and capacity building were important aspects to helping countries improve their human rights situations. The international community had an obligation to provide greater technical assistance to countries in need. Efforts to enhance national protection institutions, to eliminate impunity and to reinforce judicial systems were crucial to addressing the most outstanding human rights violations in the world. The Universal Periodic Review would be of vital importance to assessing which countries and in which ways technical assistance and capacity building should take place. The most important tool for identifying needs was the country mandates.
Speaking in the debate about technical assistance were the delegations of Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Sweden, New Zealand and Norway.
Also speaking in the debate on technical assistance was a representative of the Comision Juridica Para el Autodesarrollo de Los Pueblos Originarios Andinos.
Speaking in a right of reply was the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
At the beginning of the meeting, the President of the Council, Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea of Romania, said that following consultations on the meetings of the Council’s subsidiary mechanisms, it had been decided that the Social Forum would meet from 1 to 3 September; the Forum on Minority Issues would meet on 4 and 5 September; and the Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Peoples would meet from 1 to 3 October.
When the Council meets this afternoon at 3 p.m., it is scheduled to elect the 18 members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee and, time allowing, start to appoint Special Procedure mandate holders.
Documents on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
The Council has before it the note by the Secretariat on efforts by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for universal ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (A/HRC/7/40), which says that an update on this issue will be submitted to the Council at its eighth session.
The Council has before it the note by the Secretariat on the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights containing a draft basic document on the development of a racial equality index (A/HRC/7/41), which says the report submitted to the Commission at its sixty-second session (E/CN.4/2006/14) is still relevant and the guidance of the Council would be appreciated in order for the consultation process to continue.
The Council has before it the Progress report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of relevant recommendations of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (A/HRC/7/43), which notes that the Working Group held its fifth session in Geneva from 5 to 9 March and from 3 to 7 September 2007, and subsequently issued recommendations To Whom It May Concern: OHCHR. The progress report of OHCHR on the implementation of these recommendations will be submitted to the ninth session of the Council in September 2008.
General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group welcomed the convening of the first part of the sixth session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Durban in January this year. The review and follow-up to the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was a continuous and necessary exercise, even while the international community was engaged in preparations for the Durban Review Conference. It was regrettable that the review of some of the core provisions and issues contained in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, or even discussion, had not been possible to date. It was the view of the African Group that everyone must summon the necessary political will if the Council, and the world at large, were to make real progress in the fight against racism. The African Group deeply regretted that agreement on future themes to be discussed by the Working Group could not be reached and sincerely hoped that certain attitudes would change sooner rather than later. The mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee was clear and bore no interpretation.
The African Group expected that progress would be made at the second part of the session to be held later this year. The exercise of elaborating complementary standards stood to strengthen protection for the victims of racism and racial discrimination. The African Group looked forward to engaging in constructive negotiations with all concerned on draft complementary standards. The African Group reiterated its call on each and every party and stakeholder to summon the necessary political will with a view to making the Durban Review Conference a success. If the Council, the prime United Nations human rights body that acted as the Durban Prep-Com, were to fail this mission and more globally its anti-racism agenda, the very relevance of the Council would be put in doubt, and the implications of such an undesirable eventuality would certainly transcend the Durban Review to all the vital mechanisms and functions of the Council.
ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union continued to be fully committed to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The European Union had its own regional strategy to combat racism, mainly the Directives on Racial Equality and on Employment Equality. These instruments were applicable in all Member States and comprehensively addressed discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age and sexual orientation. Only by concentrating on reviewing the implementation of the major challenges in the framework of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action could the Review Conference contribute to a more coordinated and effective fight against racism. In order to be relevant to ordinary citizens, the Durban Review Conference should focus on the challenges of contemporary racial discrimination. Multiple and aggravated discrimination in particular, including on the basis of sexual orientation, should be fought with absolute determination by all States.
Ultimately, the aim of the European Union was to bring the fight against racism on a universal level. Possible new standards should improve and not diminish the universal character of the struggle for the promotion and protection of human rights. There was a strong universal consensus on the abhorrence of the phenomena of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance and the urgent need to eliminate them. The European Union was concerned, however, to see the process of elaboration of possible complimentary standards moving in a direction that would dilute this concept by the inclusion of controversial issues not at the heart of the fight against racism.
ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said that the international community had not yet succeeded in resolving the problems of racism and racial discrimination. Six years after the adoption of the Durban Declaration, which had given new momentum to the fight, racism had not dwindled. The use of racism and religious intolerance in politics threatened democratic principles and human rights. Most flagrant was the upsurge in neo-Nazi ideologies, the rewriting of history and the revision of the Nuremberg trials. There was an increase in racial crimes, which was offending public order. States had to evaluate the situation. The Russian Federation was prepared for the 2009 Durban Review Conference and all States were called to direct their efforts towards a world campaign to counter xenophobia. The Review Conference should also look into new matters and the new trends of xenophobia. It should also consider practical solutions to combat this evil.
BIODUN OWOSENI (Nigeria) said that seven years since the holding of the World Conference on Racism in Durban, the unsavory effects and scourges of the various issues identified were still present. Regrettably, to date, not only had there been a seeming reluctance to implement the Durban commitments, but indeed there had also been a perceived design to scuttle and reverse the gains of Durban. Nigeria was strongly of the opinion that the forthcoming Durban Review Conference presented both the opportunity and the momentum to redress the pains and hurt of the past as well as the present forms of discrimination in all its varied and vicious forms. Nigeria attached great importance to the work of all the processes in pursuance of the commitment to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, with a view to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The enhancement of the Durban Review process required practical steps and measures for achieving the goals enshrined in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Work. Nigeria believed that serious gaps which existed in the present international instruments to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance should be bridged through a number of measures, including provision of support and technical assistance to States as appropriate and close cooperation between national human rights institutions and relevant stakeholders. The elaboration of complementary standards was also vital to address the gaps in the existing normative framework to deal with racism in a comprehensive manner.
MAMMAD TALIBOV (Azerbaijan) said that Azerbaijan attached great importance to the work of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the elaboration of complementary standards. It fully supported the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee and greatly appreciated the efforts of the Chairperson-Rapporteur Ambassador Idris Jazairy of Algeria and commended the way he steered the deliberations. The elaboration of complementary standards was indeed a requirement of today. The Government was encouraged by the deliberations of the first session of the Ad Hoc Committee that took place last month and were aimed at searching for existing gaps in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Azerbaijan also welcomed the proper use of the background material and reference points in accordance with the Human Rights Council Decision 3/103. Furthermore, it believed that the work of the committee should be for each and every delegation a “matter of priority and necessity”.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that Brazil hoped that the Durban Review Conference would be held in a non-politicized atmosphere. For Brazil, a multicultural and multi-ethnic country, racism, racial discrimination and related issues were important topics. Brazil had held a regional conference on the implementation of the Durban Declaration in 2006. It would also hold the very first regional preparatory conference for the Durban Review Conference. Hundreds of non-governmental organizations were already prepared to participate in the event and a special meeting specifically dedicated to civil society was also planned. Brazil counted on the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Right’s support in this.
RAFAEL GARCIA (Cuba) said the international community had a long way to go to overcome the problems of racism and racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was one of the cruelest manifestations of violations against people and was exacerbated by globalization. Racism and racial discrimination were part of a social phenomenon which was on the increase today. Discrimination also continued in migration policies and in anti-terrorist laws. Information technology also continued to spread these ideas. Since 11 September 2001 this phenomenon had been on the increase. In view of these developments, it was extremely important to implement the outcome of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The support of all relevant bodies was required to increase the scope of these agreements and to include them in the mandate of relevant bodies. The Conference was a reference and a critical review of the crimes against humanity committed throughout history. The main challenge was to ensure that the agreements reached at Durban became a reality in societies around the world. In this regard, the international community must go to the Durban Review Conference committed to action.
ANH THU DUONG (Switzerland) said that with regards to the Group of Independent Experts on persons of African descent, Switzerland believed that in light of the Durban Review Conference, it would be beneficial to have a contribution from this Group on the situation in the world, including in Africa, pursuant to its mandate. As Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “racial discrimination was a concern for all peoples and all countries”. Switzerland welcomed the establishment of an Intergovernmental Working Group on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action but would have preferred that it not meet during the procedures of the preparatory committee for the Durban Review Conference.
Finally, Switzerland also took part in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on complementary norms but found that the process could have been more inclusive. He reminded the Council that a resolution, put forth by Switzerland and Morocco, mandated a consultative committee to elaborate a project on the education of human rights. Complementary norms would allow States to better address the specific issue of racial discrimination and would hopefully strengthen the universality of all human rights, without discrimination. The development of criteria for complementary norms could be useful to move forward on this debate. Moreover, all of the Durban follow-up mechanisms should be worked upon on the basis of consensus and the international community needed to speak with a single voice on this particular issue.
KE YOUSHENG (China) said that after the struggle against the apartheid regime, African people had now regained their dignity. The United Nations had held three major conferences on racism. Rapid development in human civilisation was currently being witnessed, however racism was still growing. Islamophobia, neo-fascism and incitement of religious hatred were also on the rise. The Council could not walk away from its role in fighting racism. This issue had been an agenda item in the former Commission and it continued to be on the agenda of the Council. International efforts should be supported. The 2009 Review Conference would be another major milestone in the fight against racism. It should attract broad support from all parties. The Ad Hoc Committee and Working Group regrettably were doing important work and had worked very hard but little progress had been made. It was hoped to see political will from all parties in order to give the two Chairpersons the opportunity to fully play their role.
PEKKA METSO (Finland) said the Human Rights Council was a good forum to discuss racial discrimination and other issues related to racism at the international level and to find common understanding on how to end racism, a goal that was universally shared. Discrimination based on ethnicity was something that had to be fought against. It was important to develop national practices in such a way to ensure that different authorities, including police, could exercise a positive role while combating racism and promoting human rights. This was something Finland was strongly committed to. In light of a current debate in Finland on the practices of laws enforcement officers, the national Ombudsman for Minorities had expressed her concerns that checking people’s visas or residence permits merely based on their appearance might be discriminatory and stigmatize some minorities groups. This ongoing debate in Finland showed that all countries needed functioning national mechanisms and that all could play a role in putting an end to racism and discrimination.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance were amongst the most serious challenges before the international community today. Racism was still widespread in its different forms and manifestations. The World Conference against Racism in 2001 had played a significant role in consolidating approaches towards this phenomenon. Armenia expected that the upcoming Durban Review Conference could become an appropriate opportunity for a genuine and sincere consensus-based dialogue towards this end. The issue of racism touched upon the fundamental challenge of protecting persons, belonging to vulnerable groups, from the most serious violations of human rights, which often led to the gravest crimes. For the Armenian delegation, this was indeed a priority issue to focus upon.
ALI BAHREYNI (Iran) said that racism and racial discrimination were still enduring. The rejection of diversity was increasingly manifested by intolerance and repression of cultural symbols. Another alarming trend was the increasing rise of Islamophobia. Iran attached great importance to the Durban Review Conference. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was called upon to mobilize all its possibilities to raise public awareness on these issues. Deep concern was expressed over the cultural uprooting in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The construction of an apartheid wall was manifesting the prevalence of a racist regime. Iran urged the international community to help bring to an end to this situation.
RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria) said the work of the Working Group on the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was extremely important and should continue. The necessary contributions should be made to the preparatory process for the Durban Review and should take into consideration modern manifestations of racism, such as Islamaphobia, which often took the form of a linkage between Islam and terrorism acts. Complementary standards should be developed in this regard.
RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said that they rejected the fact that Canada and the United States remained only as observers in the Durban Review Conference. While both of those countries were allegedly committed to the fight against racial discrimination, they continued to subjugate their indigenous populations. This had resulted in the theft of land, territories and resources, leaving many of the indigenous nations impoverished without any base for development and self-determination. The Special Rapporteur on racism should focus on the special situation in Alaska and Hawaii. Under international law, the United States could not use domestic law or policy to resolve or settle its outstanding international legal obligations towards its indigenous peoples.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that the international community was already witnessing criticism of the Durban Review Conference. There were those who feared that at the Conference the international community would again condemn the occupation of the Palestinian territories. The only solution was for Israeli troops to retreat before the end of the year. Criticism of the Israeli regime was not tantamount to anti-Semitism. The 2001 Durban Conference had been an important step in the fight against racism. However, its outcome had unfortunately been put inside a drawer.
ROY W. BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a joint statement with Association for World Education, while welcoming the reference in the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism to caste discrimination, noted that this was a phenomenon which adversely affected the lives of some 250 million people worldwide. The Union was of the view, however, that the report of the Special Rapporteur was one-sided in dealing with the phenomenon loosely described as “Islamaphobia”, a term that confused valid criticism of some aspects of Islamic practice with hatred of Muslims. It was regrettable that the Special Rapporteur was helping perpetuate this confusion and that he focused almost exclusively on effects whilst ignoring causes. The Union was also deeply concerned with the need to promote equality and respect for all persons and feared that focusing on effects rather than causes would do nothing to increase understanding of these problems and could actually obstruct the search for practical solutions.
MUKUL HAZARIKA, of Liberation, asked for the Council to imagine a country where someone from another part was labelled as a foreigner and was not allowed to enter public facilities like restaurants, or clubs. How should that person feel? When the law enforcers of a country did not fulfil their responsibility to protect racial minorities, despite United Nations provisions and a convention that guaranteed safeguards, the matter became quite serious. In eastern South Asia, many people migrating to metropolitan cities like Delhi were victims of racial taunts, physical violence and even rape. Considering this state of affairs, the Council should recommend a definitive solution to end the misery of certain minority groups, especially the right to self-determination for the alienated peoples of North-East India.
CURTIS DOEBBLER, of North South XXI, said that no obligation had been reiterated by the international community more frequently than the obligation to combat racism. This obligation had been affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Canada had stated that they would not take part in the Durban Review Conference and the United States and Israel were objecting to such a conference. Some countries in the North were slowing the progress of the Intergovernmental Working Group. All States were urged to recommit themselves.
PIERRE FIDÈLE RAVAHAMIANDRISOA, of Franciscans International, said in many countries extreme poverty was a human rights violation and a form of racial discrimination based on race, colour, heritage, national origin and ethnicity. In fact, extreme poverty was often the result of discriminatory policies concerning civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and, therefore, extreme poverty formed a cumulative violation of rights. If access to high quality education or health services or property rights was provided on a selective basis, it was impossible for people to escape extreme poverty. This was also an effect of the stigmatization of poor people. Extreme poverty was a denial of their rights. The dignity of poor people was also seriously undermined. Franciscans International urged the Special Rapporteur on racism, as well as the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, to devote one of their periodic reports on these issues to come up with effective solutions to racial discrimination and extreme poverty.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, said that regarding the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism and his comments on the defamation of religions, the Association noted that once again he had failed to mention the greatest of all defamations of religions – when chapters and verses of holy texts were cited to justify calls to kill in the name of God or of Allah. The Association reminded the Council that on 9 August 2007, it had made an appeal to the United Nations Secretary-General and the High Commissioner “to condemn all calls to kill in the name of God or religion – any religion”. This taboo subject was consistently ignored within the United Nations system despite the fact that a policy of silence on the part of the international community, of Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab League, was tantamount to condoning this great evil. Judeophobia and anti-Semitism were now widely recognized as endemic in the Muslim world, being nourished by a general culture of hate, and were creeping into Europe and beyond.
BARUCH LASCAR, of B'nai B'rith International, speaking on behalf of Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, expressed their concern about the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference that had selected for its bureau Libya and Iran as Chair and Vice-Chair. Iran had repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction and denied the Holocaust. Libya had recently used its position in the Security Council to block a resolution condemning the recent killings in a Jewish school. It was feared that such a committee would repeat the problems that had plagued the 2001 Durban Conference. Attempts to exclude anti-Semitism from the United Nations agenda on racism and intolerance had been made by some States. The Durban Review conference should be briefly convened in New York or Geneva and should be limited in scope to what had already agreed upon in the Durban Declaration.
MALUZA WASILUADIO, of International Committee for the Respect and the Application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, recalled that between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries more than 140 million Africans were snatched from the African continent during the transatlantic slave trade. The Durban Conference recognized these acts of the past as a tragedy; however there was still an absence of political will to condemn these acts by some. Redress was a way of recovering the dignity of Africans and their descendants. The prejudice of Africans still persisted today as a result of globalization policies. The polices of selective migration and national identity in France and the insulting statements attributed to the French President, and a Swiss Conservative Politician, for example, were part of a general trend of Western States to dismiss racism and violate the rights and dignity of Africans. While the dignity of Africans and their descendants was not properly respected, and as long as the international community failed to put forth international solidarity, then that which was said about human rights would be nothing more than a smokescreen.
DANIEL KINGSLEY, of the Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, said that racism continued to plague millions of people across the globe. It was an affront to human dignity and was therefore essential to the agenda of the Council. As Jewish people, it came from a community that knew the worst excesses of racism. The Consultative Council worked to eradicate all forms of racism and discrimination so that other people would not suffer the way that the Jewish community had suffered. The World Conference against Racism, which took place in Durban in 2001, was intended to be a marker in the struggle against racism. Whilst the Conference had some notable achievements, it was impossible to ignore that the events surrounding the Durban Conference and the NGO Forum in particular cast a shadow on proceedings. It was widely accepted that these events had damaged the reputation of the United Nations in the eyes of the world. No State could be complacent. The Council needed to create a robust process to scrutinize all forms of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other related forms of intolerance. The process that began at Durban should continue as one in which all peoples converged and strove together towards a common goal. The struggle against racism could only succeed if it was undertaken from a unified foundation.
GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of the Association of World Citizens, said that it was very well known how racism was affecting migrants. African youth studying in Europe wanted to take part in the Durban Review Conference. They felt the work should go towards the implementation of national laws. They were requesting real protection. They hoped to find a climate of security wherever they were going. Everyone was entitled to dignity and justice. Many States were talking about integration. In xenophobic circles, it was often said that becoming a citizen had to be deserved; it was seen like a gift. Permanent missions should provide support. The change in the concept of citizenship should be tackled.
DJELY K. SAMOURA, of the African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters, said the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism reflected the genuine state of the civilization in the 21st century, which pretended to be kind and generous but rather perpetrated racial discrimination and denied justice. The report by the Special Rapporteur called on the international community to face up to its responsibilities to combat these practices. Solidarity was being undermined on a daily basis and the promotion and protection of human rights of people continued to be derided. The Special Rapporteur reflected the need to take into account daily realities and human suffering, and thus stop the rise of racial violence. The African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters were of the view that Africans were those whose human rights were most abused in the world.
GIYOUM KIM, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), in a joint statement, said that they recognized that the Durban Review Conference process posed both new opportunities and challenges for the human rights movement in Asia and would help address human rights issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Many women in Asia continued to suffer multiple forms of discrimination due to the inter-sectionality of all forms of racial discrimination, including gender. Gender based violence and human rights violations such as rape, sexual harassment and exploitation, trafficking, dowry death, and acid attacks continued to hound women in Asia. The non-governmental organizations also wished to draw the Council’s attention to the situation of migrant workers in Asia, who faced new forms of slavery, such as withholding of passports as tools for control and exploitation. In conclusion, they were deeply concerned that no Asian Governments had developed national plans of action on the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and urged all Asian Governments to do so.
NASIR AZIZ KHAN, of Interfaith International, expressed concern regarding the practice of discrimination in Pakistan. Women continued to be discriminated against at political and economic levels. Offences pertaining to religion carried the death penalty; this promoted a culture of intolerance. The situation in Azad Kashmir was worst. People were living in pathetic conditions. Nationalists were singled out for discrimination because they did not support the idea of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan.
FRANCESCA GIANNOTTI, of the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said racism continued to persist in many forms in various parts of the world and manifested itself in religious doctrines, social values and taboos and supremacist interpretation of history. In India, for example, low caste Dalits continued to be victims of violence, humiliation and discrimination. As pointed out by the Special Rapporteur on racism, the political will to combat racism was eroding. Islamaphobia surrounded Muslim communities living in various parts of the world. Popularization of racist organizations with State connivance, patronage or just blissful ignorance was partly responsible for this trend. As mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, reinterpretation of history was the most potent tool in the hands of racists to target or stereotype racial minorities. In India, too, history books, particularly in the State of Gujarat, had been changed to demonize religious minorities and eulogize the majority.
LEGBOSSI SAN PYAGBARA, of the Society for Threatened Peoples, said that the World Conference against Racism and Related Intolerance, which led to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, marked a significant step in the protection of human rights and rightly required States to do more to safeguard the rights of their citizens, especially in light of the growing influence of some non-state actors in the international community. In 2005, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its concluding observations on Nigeria had called on the Nigerian Government to take urgent measures to combat “environmental racism” and degradation.
However, the Society for Threatened Peoples pointed out that in the absence of any genuine dialogue between the Nigerian Federal Government, Shell and the Ogoni people, the Nigerian authorities had attempted to force a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ogoni people with the intention of returning Shell to the Ogoni oil fields. The violations of the human rights of the Ogoni people and other groups in the Niger Delta held serious consequences for the stability of the oil rich Niger Delta region and Nigeria as a whole. In this respect, the Society for Threatened Peoples asked the President of the Council to redirect its searchlight on Nigeria with respect to its obligation to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, especially in areas where vulnerable groups like the Ogoni people co-existed with oil multinationals.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that the Special Rapporteur on racism had not come to grips with the issue of killings in the name of God. Nowadays, anyone could be killed everywhere at anytime in the name of God. The world was currently witnessing that religions were being taken over in political discourse. God could be not defined in a word or in a slogan. The use of the name of God to foster violence was condemned. God should not be taken hostage by political leaders. Being a member of the Human Rights Council meant bearing responsibilities. There must a code of guideline for those who were serving in the Council.
DAVID FERNANDEZ PUYANA, of UNESCO Centre Basque Country – UNESCO ETXEA, said that any kind of discrimination based on the different features of a person was against the Convention against All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as was any form of social exclusion of those living in extreme poverty. Poverty was a multifaceted problem which resulted in many deaths worldwide and resulted in a violation of human rights for those who lived in poverty. It was essential to recognize the basic human rights of poor people, including the right to adequate living standards, to food, to education, to health, among other things. A culture of peace was also essential. The concept of peace should be integrated into the work of the Human Rights Council. Members States were urged to recognize the negative impacts of extreme poverty on the enjoyment of human rights and the General Assembly should urgently begin a dialogue to establish an international framework to promote the rights of persons to peace.
Concluding Remarks
DAYAN JAYATILLEKA, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, said that no political movement or individual wanted to be termed a racist. And yet, there was a very real challenge to combating contemporary forms of racism. Given that racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia were at the heart of many manifestations of violence in today’s world, why was it so difficult to address racism? Secondly, he also wished to make an appeal to take note of new ways to look at the interrelated phenomena of racism.
Mr. Jayatilleka also referred to the historic speech made by Barack Obama, confronting honestly but not aggressively the problems of racial discrimination. He believed that this speech may have opened up a new paradigm not only for the United States but for the world at large and pushed for greater integration, understanding and tolerance.
Mr. Jayatilleka renewed his pledge to engage in pushing the Durban Declaration forward, excluding no one and no one’s point of view. He appealed to Member States not to engage in partisan or zero-sum games, which aimed to paralyze or postpone progress within the Durban Review Conference.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Ad hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, in concluding remarks said that his impression was that there was still a long way to go, even within the Council, in order to respect the engagements made at the Durban Conference. The issues that should be tackled in the follow-up work were answering the questions of what, why, how and when. What was being planned to be discussed? The racist-religious nexus, the issue of repression for acts of racism and issues related to migration. Why was racism happening? Were there different manifestations of racism or not? Did it result from a lack of standard or not, or was it just a problem of implementation? How should the issue be tackled? Should only the themes where consensus could be reached be tackled or those where critical mass of support could be reached or should it be victim oriented, i.e. should the work be guided by the needs of victims? When would the Conference happen? He said he was still hoping that he would be contacted by the delegations to consult in order to set the dates and to resume their work. A piece of good news was a report of the Political Commission of the Council of Europe, which said that Islam and the West were based on the same concepts. Also, the report rejected the idea of a clash of civilisations.
Right of Reply
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), speaking in a right of reply, referring to a statement by the non-governmental organization (NGO) called Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitie entre les peoples, said the NGO referred to the issue of Western Sahara in an inappropriate fashion. It was recalled that the colonial occupation of Western Sahara ended in 1976 with the implementation of the Madrid agreement. The majority of the population in the region lived in peace. As a means of promoting the reunification of family members and to lead to the settlement of the dispute, Morocco had submitted an autonomy draft plan and it was now up to the other parties to pursue a solution to the dispute. Throughout Western Sahara there was positive discrimination so as to ensure that those living in all provinces in the region benefited from the same levels of living standards in the rest of Morocco.
MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply, said that if the occupation had indeed ended in 1976, why was the issue still on the agenda of the United Nations? If these claims were valid, why was there the continual harassment of human rights defenders? He also drew attention to a group of peaceful protestors in Western Sahara that had undertaken a hunger strike to assert their independence. In addition, the delegate referred to statements published by two NGOs, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who said that Morocco was subjugating the people of Western Sahara and those who challenged Morocco’s approach. This was an important issue of self-determination and the freedom of political prisoners.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), speaking in a second right of reply, said that he did not even use the word Algeria in his statement; he had addressed the statement of a non-governmental organization and was wondering in what extent Algeria was involved in the Sahara question. Algeria apparently felt very sensitive on this topic and it did not look like they were ready to settle this issue. Morocco was at home in its country. The situation had been clear since 1976. Claims of a hunger strike were false. These people had proper medical care. As for claims about impunity, those in glass houses should not throw stones, however small.
MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria), speaking in a second right of reply, said if Morocco was not an administrative power it was because they did not recognize it as such. If this was not Moroccan territory why had so many solders been mobilized and why was an electric fence built. Algeria was interested in resolving the question of Western Sahara and would defend its position.
General Discussion on Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building
ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that technical assistance and capacity building were important aspects to helping countries improve their human rights situations. The international community had an obligation to provide greater technical assistance to countries in need. Efforts to enhance national protection institutions, to eliminate impunity and to reinforce judicial systems were crucial to addressing the most outstanding human rights violations in the world.
The European Union was fully prepared to provide support for capacity and institution building. It made funds available through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, of which it would provide 1.1 billion Euros from 2007 to 2013. Nonetheless, the starting point of any effective assistance programme was based on the willingness of countries to implement change. Assistance should be distributed on a priority basis. The Universal Periodic Review would be of vital importance to assessing which countries and in which ways technical assistance and capacity building should take place. The European Union welcomed the proposed renewal of the mandate on technical assistance in Burundi and Liberia. However, it remained concerned about the deteriorating situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia and hoped that greater technical assistance and international cooperation would strengthen the human rights situation and monitoring mechanisms in those countries.
CHRISTOFFER BERG (Sweden) said that the Council’s task of promoting technical assistance and capacity-building was of great importance and it was a central element of the Council’s mandate to promote human rights through international dialogue and cooperation. Technical assistance was not only a question of the Council, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and the concerned State, but a question for the United Nations as a whole. How could the Council ensure that the outcomes of its work were reflected in funds, programmes and other bodies? The most important tool for identifying needs was the country mandates. Thematic mandates continued to prove their great value and their reports were of use to the whole United Nations system. One of the central tasks ahead was the managing of the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review process. It was hoped that the reviews would provide general guidance and identify specific measures that would bring added value to human rights work.
RICHARD KAY (New Zealand) said New Zealand recognized that in many cases the provision of technical and financial resources could assist in the implementation of human rights obligations. This was reflected in New Zealand’s aid programme, human rights policy and assistance to partner countries in their effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Working in close cooperation with countries, international and regional organizations and civil society, New Zealand considered that the full and universal implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms was essential to ending poverty, hunger and disease and to stimulating development that was truly sustainable. In Afghanistan, for example, New Zealand had made a particular effort to support the strengthening of human rights through funding for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. New Zealand supported the call by the High Commissioner that the Government of Afghanistan and the international community must take urgent action to enhance the protection of civilians and ensure greater respect for human rights including the freedom of speech, poverty and women’s and children’s rights. New Zealand was also willing to assist the Pacific’s engagement in the Universal Periodic Review process.
TINE M. SMITH (Norway) highlighted the human rights situation in Afghanistan and achievements in technical assistance in the field of human rights. Norway urged the Government of Afghanistan to address the concerns identified in the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Afghanistan of February 2008. Norway urged the Afghan Government to honour its commitment to the “National Action Plan for Peace, Reconciliation and Justice”. In addition, Norway urged the Afghan Government to promote the safety of Afghan journalists and to ensure their freedom of speech. The situation of Afghan women also needed to be improved, including taking steps that made it more difficult to criminalize women on “moral offences” with limited evidence. As such, women’s ability to access the judicial system needed to be improved. Finally, Norway also requested that the Afghan Government ensure access for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to all detention centres and that it continue to provide information on detainees to ICRC.
TOMAS ALARCON , of the Comision Juridica Para el Autodesarrollo de Los Pueblos Originarios Andinos, said that States needed a greater capacity for actions. Bureaucratic bodies were not needed, especially in countries with indigenous people. Interpreters should be available. The Ombudsman should be autonomous and not subject to the authority of the executive. Recommendations made by Ombudsmen in their reports should be implemented and should be taken on by the public prosecution offices. Courts should resolve cases as soon as possible and legal assistance should be provided free of charge.
Right of Reply
SEBASTIEN MUTOMB MUJING (Democratic Republic of the Congo), speaking in a right of reply, referring to statements by certain delegations and non-government organizations on the issue of violence that occurred in the province of lower Congo, said that it was well known that this violence was started by the group Bundu Dia Kongo. This group was registered with the Government in July 1995 as a non-profit organization, but it had abandoned that role and since had become a terrorist and xenophobic group threatening the freedom of many Congolese citizens living in the area. This group was armed with knives and guns and sentenced people to death. This created a situation where the rule of law was not respected. The Government had deplored that the situation had turned violent.
1Joint statement on behalf of: Indian Council of South America; Worldwide Organization for Women; International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development; International Educational Development; International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development; Action internationale pour la paix et le développement dans la région des Grands Lacs (AIPD); Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; Interfaith International; and Union of Arab Jurists.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08039E