Archive for August, 2007

Durban Review: Day 4

Published by
UN Watch
- at August 31, 2007 in Durban 2009. 0 Comments

Durban Review: Day 4

UN Watch continues its daily blog from this week’s Durban Review preparatory committee, meeting in Geneva to plan a series of UN anti-racism sessions leading up to a major conference in 2009.

Today saw much discussion but very little progress. Differences between the Islamic and African countries versus the EU and the West continued to stand out.

Reports, Studies and other documentation for the preparatory committee and the Durban Review Conference (draft decision 7)

  • There was universal agreement to add the text “national institutions” to the list of relevant stakeholders to assist the Preparatory committee.
  • There was large disagreement over paragraph (a) of draft decision 7 and the list of relevant stakeholders. Currently, paragraph (a) requests various parts of the UN to “assist the Preparatory committee by undertaking review and submitting recommendations…” Two of those asked to participate and explicitly named are the Special Rapporteur on racism and the Special rapporteur on the freedom of religion.
  • Belgium led the fight to remove the reference to the Special rapporteur on the freedom of religion, while Pakistan, Egypt, and Iran fought back. Pakistan stated that “we all have to compromise at some point. And this is an important issue for the OIC.” Pakistan also offered to include a reference to “other appropriate human rights mechanisms” in an attempt to placate the EU.
  • Norway noted that the bureau sent out invitations to all Special procedures so it was unnecessary to specifically mention one particular Special Rapporteur.
  • At one point, Egypt noted that the creation of the special rapporteur on the freedom of religion had been an EU initiative and, alarmingly, he “reminded” everyone that the mandate of the Special rapporteur on the freedom of religion was due to expire soon.
  • Belgium fought back and refused to compromise, stating that only the most relevant special procedures related to the issue of racism should be included by name.
  • In the end, there was no compromise. The inclusion of a specific reference to the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion will serve as an important indicator if Durban II will turn into a conference dominated by Islamic accusations of “defamation of religions” and Islamophobia.

Drafting of Questionnaire to Evaluate Implementation of Durban Declaration

  • Egypt on behalf of the African Group, as well as Algeria, Iran, Russia, and China all asked for the bureau to draft the questionnaire.
  • Norway, Portugal on behalf of the EU, and Belgium stated the questionnaire should be drafted by the High Commissioner. Switzerland echoed the call.
  • Egypt replied that the questionnaire was not a technical issue and should thus be left to the bureau.
  • Belgium suggested language that would involve both governments and the bureau, but final approval of such a questionnaire would lie with OHCHR.
  • Brazil noted that the OHCHR’s impartial status would be important to drafting any questionnaire. He suggested language that would allow the questionnaire to be created by the OHCHR “with the supervision of the bureau.”

Rules of Procedure

  • Sweden asked why the preparatory committee would move away from “established practice” and not use the rules of procedure of the GA.
  • Pakistan expressed its frustration and asked if there were any “legitimate” objections to the content of the rules of procedure of 2001.
  • Belgium said that the position of the EU remained to apply the same rules to the review conference of Durban that have been applied to all other review conferences. Belgium reiterated this point many times noting that all review conference should be treated “exactly” the same way as these conferences do not constitute new conferences. Belgium, however, appeared to contradict itself by saying that when the GA resolution establishing the follow-up conference was negotiated in New York, it was agreed that the preparatory committee could decide the rules of procedure.
  • Algeria picked up on Belgium’s misstatement and noted that the framework for the rules of procedure should be those that were used in 2001 at the Durban conference.
  • Nigeria lashed out at EU countries explaining that if there is, say, a climate change conference, one has to adapt the rules of procedure for the particulars of that conference. In the same way, the Durban 2001 rules had to be adapted to adequately deal with the subject matter.
  • The Libyan Chair decided that further informal consultations were necessary on this matter, as well as other agenda items.

International, Regional and National Preparatory Initiatives (draft decision 8 )

  • During informal consultations on draft decision 8, Egypt lashed out at two EU amendments: one limiting initiatives of international, regional, and national meetings “in the framework of the review of the implementation of the DDPA,” (a blow to those seeking to include new issues), and a second to strike the word ‘financial’ from paragraph (d) of draft decision 10 – a set back for countries seeking financial aid to participate in the conference.
  • Egypt and Algeria asked angrily why the EU was making these proposals as they made “no sense.”
  • Greece attempted to explain the EU position, stating that it was important to set proper parameters in order to avoid a vague formula for the preparatory process.
  • Russia (chair of informal consultation for draft decision 8 ) stated that it seemed as though most delegations wanted to stick to the original text (before the EU amendments). Greece noted that the EU would not accept the current text and solicited the chair for suggestions. None were offered.
  • Iceland suggested adding the phrase “in order to facilitate the attainment of the objective of the Durban review conference,” but was rebuffed by Islamic countries.

Dates of 2008 Preparatory Committee Substantive Sessions

Draft decision 4 was adopted by consensus which means that:

  • The first substantive session of the preparatory committee will be April 21- May 2, 2008.
  • The second substantive session will be October 6-17, 2008, but these dates are still not confirmed to avoid any conflict with the GA’s 3rd committee.

Other Administrative Details

  • The secretariat was ask the following questions about various aspects of the conference:
    • Do the rules of procedures used for the special sessions of the GA for the review of the main conferences apply to the Durban review conferences? ANSWER: No.
    • Are there examples from previous review conferences where the rules of procedure used were different from those of the main conference? ANSWER: Yes (the special session of the GA for Beijing +5 used different rules).
    • How long will the review conference last: ANSWER: 4-5 days.
    • Questions were also raised about the financial implications of the original Durban Conference. For the total cost of Durban I, see the attached budget.

Durban Review: Day 3

Published by
UN Watch
- at August 29, 2007 in Durban 2009. 0 Comments

Durban Review: Day 3

UN Watch continues its daily blog from this week’s Durban Review preparatory committee, meeting in Geneva to plan a series of UN anti-racism sessions leading up to a major conference in 2009.

Islamic countries continued their campaign to reopen the Durban 2001 package and introduce new accusations against the West for purported post-9/11 crimes such as defaming Islam with cartoons or persecuting Muslims by profiling. The battle played out in today’s debates on a document summarizing objectives of the 2009 conference.

Slipping Islamic Agenda into Durban II

Chairperson al-Hajjaji of Libya tried to reach consensus on the summary of objectives. Egypt suggested that the summary of objectives include the statement that “[The Review Conference will] consider ways of ensuring the effective implementation of the outcome of the Durban Review Conference (emphasis added) and the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.” If adopted, this would ensure that the proceedings of the 2009 Review Conference itself—now certain to feature a lengthy charge-sheet against the West for crimes against Islam and its adherents—will yield its own “outcome,” separate and additional to that of the 2001 program, for future implementation.

Pakistan, which represents the Organization of the Islamic Conference, called for the summary of objectives to enumerate various forms of racism, including “religious hatred, racial profiling in the fight against terrorism, and the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism.”

Hmmm… Whom does Pakistan have in mind here? Saudi Arabia, for its absolute ban on any non-Wahabbist religion, or for its national airline’s ban against “Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David”? China for seeking to bury the last vestiges of Tibet’s proud culture? Cuba or Zimbabwe for crushing dissenters? Wethinks not.

Pakistan—a country wherein gang rape is a court-ordered punishment for women who commit the crime of speaking to the wrong tribesman—is, of course, directing this charge against Western countries, and them alone. Countries like the U.S., England, Holland—where anyone can pretty much do as they please—are the ones accused here of “rejection of diversity and multiculturalism.”

It’s one thing to raise legitimate claims of discrimination. It’s quite another for the most intolerant and anti-Western countries to smugly invoke such archetypal Western catch-phrases as “diversity” and “multiculturalism” as a weapon to attack the West.

What was the West’s response? You be the judge. The European Union, represented by Portugal, had this to say:

“First and foremost, [Durban II must] aim to safeguard and promote concrete implementation of the achievements of the conference and therefore avoid adopting the format of a new world conference which would potentially create the environment conducive to the renegotiation of often arduously reached agreements.”

The numerically-superior Islamic bloc then insisted on conducting consultations for most of the day in an attempt to railroad through its agenda.

Venue

It was formally decided today that the Prep Com sessions in 2008 will be held in Geneva. As to the final conference in 2009, the reported practice for such UN follow-up events is to hold them in New York. But several countries are pushing for anywhere but. Iran, Cuba, and China rejected the idea that the Durban Review conference would qualify as a special session of the General Assembly, and therefore occur in New York. This, they argued, would greatly diminish the importance and standing of the Durban Review Conference as it would simply become one of many that are held each year at UN headquarters.

New Role for High Commissioner Louise Arbour

High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour was formally named today as Secretary-General of the Conference. She will now carry an important leadership role through 2009, assuming her 4-year term as High Commissioner is renewed this summer.

There are cautionary lessons to be learned from the counterproductive role played by former High Commissioner Mary Robinson in 2001, whose diplomacy of appeasement encouraged the spoilers. (You wouldn’t know any of this from her new book, “A Voice For Human Rights.”)

Tom Lantos’ detailed eyewitness account from 2001, which is not uncritical of the Bush administration, tells of events following the disastrous Tehran session, and before the last-minute Geneva meeting convened to salvage the ship heading to Durban:

Robinson reported that she was making progress on persuading the Arab and Islamic states to drop their specific demand to equate Zionism with racism, but insisted that a majority of states felt that the situation in the Middle East, and Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied territories, could not be ignored in the Durban discussions. I was troubled by her response and explained to her that the U.S. position was non-negotiable, that no individual country or political conflict should be singled out in the context of a World Conference on Racism. I urged Robinson to consider the implications of appeasing the radical and fundamentalist forces that wanted to turn the entire aim of the conference on its head.

Here’s how things went down at the July 2001 gathering in Geneva:

OIC delegates drafted a “non-paper” for consideration by the conference that they hoped would salvage some of the original anti-Semitic language of the Tehran drafts. This document, in fact, was dripping with hate. All of the slurs against Israel and all of the distortions of the discussion of anti-Semitism in the earlier draft text were included in this “compromise.”… I met twice with Mrs. Robinson … and urged her publicly to denounce it in order to salvage the conference. She expressed concern over the document, but pleaded with me to provide her with the “diplomatic space” she needed to overcome this obstacle by not making the document public until a press conference which I had scheduled for the next day.

Lantos agreed to Robinson’s request, and continued bilateral negotiations with three of the more moderate OIC ambassadors. He found that the Islamic countries were prepared to relent but needed a way to save face. The moderates needed help in their ongoing battle with the hard-line countries such as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Arafat’s Palestinians. Then there came Mrs. Robinson’s speech to assembled delegates later the same day:

[It] left our delegation deeply shocked and saddened… [Robinson] refused to reject the twisted notion that the wrong done to the Jews in the Holocaust was equivalent to the pain suffered by the Palestinians in the Middle East. Instead, she discussed “the historical wounds of anti-Semitism and of the Holocaust on the one hand, and…the accumulated wounds of displacement and military occupation on the other.” Thus, instead of condemning the attempt to usurp the conference, she legitimized it. Instead of insisting that it was inappropriate to discuss a specific political conflict in the context of a World Conference on Racism, she spoke of the “need to resolve protracted conflict and occupation, claims of inequality, violence and terrorism, and a deteriorating situation on the ground.” Robinson was prepared to delve into the arcana of a single territorial conflict at the exclusion of all others and at the expense of the conference’s greater goals.

Robinson’s intervention broke all momentum that the U.S. had developed, explained Lantos. The Arab countries immediately sensed that the tide had turned again in their favor, and dropped all talk of compromise:

It was clear to me that Mrs. Robinson’s intervention during the Geneva talks represented the coup d’ grace on efforts to save the conference from disaster. If the conference was knocked off track in Tehran, it was completely derailed in Geneva.

This time, if Durban II will not repeat the mistakes of the past, things must be different. We trust that Madame Arbour will stand firm in fully opposing any initiative—and there will be many—that demonizes or unfairly singles out Israel, or that falsely accuses the West as a whole of defaming Islam or of persecuting Muslims. When sharks smell blood they will pounce. From now until 2009 there cannot be the slightest compromise with the malicious initiatives that will surely come, in the preparatory sessions as at the final conference.

Durban Review: Day 2

Published by
UN Watch
- at August 28, 2007 in Durban 2009. 0 Comments

Durban Review:  Day 2

UN Watch continues its daily blog from this week’s Durban Review preparatory committee meeting in Geneva.

Durban II was supposed to be about reviewing implementation of the program adopted at Durban I. The terms of the Durban Review process expressly preclude reopening the 2001 program. Nevertheless, Islamic states today continued their campaign to do exactly that, in order to introduce new charges against the West — of Islamophobia, religious profiling, and “defamation of religions.”

All of this, we are told, is the legacy of Sept. 11. In plenary speeches today, Pakistan said “no operational strategy to combat racism could be implemented without addressing contemporary realities since 2001.” Egypt said that it agreed with the EU proposal to extract the relevant recommendations for the objectives of the review conference, but that “post-2001 developments must be considered as well.” Iran said the review conference must deal with old forms of racism, such as racial profiling, but “it must also deal with new forms of racism, such as religious profiling.”

Breaching the ground rules is bad enough. What is most appalling, however, is to be told that a world racism conference’s greatest and indeed only concern from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and their progeny — the bombings in London, Madrid, Iraq — is persecution of Islam and Muslims. That is a perfectly legitimate issue.  But what about the racism, hatred, and xenophobia that actually caused all of these mass murders, and continues the world over to threaten many more?  Should not this world forum be used to tackle the global and violent hatred preached by radical Islamists against Westerners, Americans, Christians, Jews? The same hatred that, in its parallel expressions, one day massacres hundreds of Shiites, and the next day hundreds of Sunnis? For the Organization of the Islamic Conference to appear before the world court of xenophobia and invoke the blood-soaked history of the past six years as a plaintiff takes some chutzpah.

Western governments come to these conferences playing defense. In one form or other, eventually they lose. It’s high time to turn the tables.

In other news, Egypt suggested using the same rules of procedure as the 2001 conference. Belgium and Portugal, however, supported using the GA rules of procedure. Chairperson al-Hajjaji (Libya) asked why the rules of procedure would change, perturbed that this was becoming an issue.

The Chair also said that she wanted to achieve consensus on the objectives of the review conference. She circulated a summary of objectives prepared by the secretariat at her request. This is a “non-paper” providing an overview of the 8 major points under discussion.

Libya elected to chair World Conference on Racism planning committee

Published by
UN Watch
- at August 28, 2007 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

Geneva, August 28, 2007 — At yesterday’s opening of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, the follow-up to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Human Rights Council, opened the meeting and called on Egypt to nominate the Chair.

Egypt on behalf of the African Group nominated Libyan ambassador Najat al-Hajjaji to be the Chair. She had an illustrious diplomatic career, he said. She is a former chair of the 59th Commission on Human Rights and held a post at the Durban conference in 2001. She led her country for over a decade on human rights issues and boasts many honors and awards in human rights. She has human rights expertise and is well positioned to steer the conference toward success. Sri Lanka seconded the proposal. Brazil also supported Libya’s nomination.

The President of the Human Rights Council declared ambassador al-Hajjaji elected by acclamation.

Chairperson al-Hajjaji (of Libya): Thank you for the confidence you placed in me to chair this preparatory committee, whose work will lead to convening of Durban review conference in 2009 which we all look forward to. The work ahead of us is enormous. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I would like at the outset to extend profound thanks to all member states of the UN for the confidence you placed in my country, and in my humble person to chair this prep com for review of Durban. In particular, my thanks to African states that have always supported my country in all regional and international fora. And my appreciation to the Organization for the Islamic Conference for their continued support.

Six years have elapsed since the international community adopted the Durban program of action and declaration. Soon after, the events of Sept. 11, 2001 erupted. And one of the most important consequences was an increase in racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.

The war against what is called “terrorism” started. Some states put aside human rights for the war against terrorism. Some have exploited it in order to persecute its opponents and critics and to take revenge. Many laws were adopted of a restrictive nature. Persecution of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, those of particular ethnic groups. All under the pretext of the “war on terror.” Anti-Semitism rose, covering Arabs and others. Violent movements rose, targeting Muslim, Christians and Jews, in addition to [others]. Internet full of pages instigating violence on basis of racial hatred. Even sports arenas have witnessed racist acts. Depth of racial discrimination increased as we saw intolerance. Ridiculing religious symbols, leading to violence. Streets cemeteries and holy places have become scene for racist violence. All that I have indicated does not obviate fact that a number of countries have made progress on national level on racism. World summit against racism was adopted. A number of other countries have set up national plans.

Within this context it is necessary for us to voice our great appreciation to all efforts since Durban. Pay thanks to intergovernmental group on effective implementation of Durban action, the panel of eminent persons responsible for implementation of Durban, the Special Rapporteur on racism, all special mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, all who address this issue.

We are proud of achievements in Durban 2001. Among these, we have been able to diagnose face of racism today. To agree to practical steps. We’re also proud that through totality of Durban process that we managed this unprecedented mobilization of grassroots organizations and to let victims of racism speak loud; for those who have been excluded and ostracized to break bonds of silence; about their suffering.

Pay tribute to all member states for determination to hold this conference. Firm will to strengthen Durban objectives. We’ll be able to study how countries have implemented their goals. I appeal to all member states and organizations to contribute to voluntary fund for preparatory process of review process.

Extend my congratulations to members of the bureau whose names will be announced. Congratulate them. Thanks and appreciation for all their efforts. The bureau has held 19 meetings over last 2 months in which all elements were discussed in exhaustive detail. Despite diversity amongst bureau members, all of them have made every effort to overcome obstacles to make sure everyone would work in spirit of harmony and consensus, and all have won admiration of all. I hope this spirit will prevail, respectful dialogue. I hope we can take all decisions with consensus.

I conclude by quoting from statement by former High Commissioner Mary Robinson: “Durban must be a beginning and not an end…” I thank you all.

I now propose that these members be elected to bureau and to function as vice chairs: Armenia, Estonia, Russia and Croatia, for Eastern European group; Greece, Turkey, Norway, and Belgium from the Western group; Cameroon, Senegal and South Africa from the African group; Iran, India, Pakistan and Indonesia from Asia; and Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Cuba from Latin America. There being no objection, the members are elected and will serve as vice-chairs for prep com.

Day 1 at Durban II: Islamic Group Quotes UN Watch ‘s Boston Globe Op-Ed, Complains of ‘Smear Campaign’ Against Conference

Published by
UN Watch
- at August 27, 2007 in Durban 2009. 0 Comments

Day 1 at Durban II: Islamic Group Quotes UN Watch ‘s Boston Globe Op-Ed, Complains of ‘Smear Campaign’ Against Conference

Libya Elected Chair, Iran and Cuba as Vice-Chairs

NEWS AND ANALYSIS

Day 1 of Durban II began much as we predicted. Libya was elected as chair, and Iran and Cuba among the 19 vice-chairs. Contrary to reported UN comments downplaying the influence of Iran and the 20-nation bureau, the chair revealed today that the bureau held no less than 19 meetings over the last 2 months, “in which all elements were discussed in exhaustive detail.” The fact is that all the way to 2009, Iran will be a key player in the planning of Durban II. Click here for our comment on the elections.

And belying the apologists who claimed the election was strictly “personal” — of the ambassador but not the country — was the Libyan ambassador herself. She expressed her profound thanks to all member states of the UN “for the confidence you placed in my country.” Score another propaganda coup for Khaddafi’s benighted Libyan regime.

In plenary speeches today, Egypt on behalf of the African Group immediately singled out Israel by complaining about “continued occupation of Palestine and violations arising therefrom [which] have been subject of condemnation from international community.” Egypt also invoked the “new and dangerous incitement against religion” from the Danish cartoons. The 57-strong Organization of the Islamic Conference announced its intentions from the start: “The Conference should move the spotlight on the continued plight of Palestinian people…” The OIC speech quoted from a Boston Globe op-ed by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, and complained of a “smear campaign” against the Durban Review Conference. The OIC also introduced new accusations, not appearing in the original Durban program, of “defamation of religions.”

Syria today said that 9/11 opened the door to new forms of racism and associated intolerance against “Semitic” people. This brings us right back to the pernicious subversion of language that surrounded Durban I, where the word antisemitism — the term for hatred or persecution of Jews — was gutted of all meaning. Recall article 46 of Durban’s NGO Declaration: “…Anti-Arab racism is another form of anti-semitism and Islamaphobia.” And article 79: “Arabs as a Semitic people have also suffered from alternative forms of anti semitism, manifesting itself as anti-Arab discrimination and for those Arabs who are Muslim, also as Islamophobia.”

Activist groups who wish to prevent the anti-discrimination agenda from being hijacked once again must speak out — immediately, before it is too late, before we are back to the darkest days of Durban I.

SELECTED SPEECHES

Following are selections and summaries from today’s opening of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference.

Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Human Rights Council, opened the meeting and called on Egypt to nominate the Chair.

Egypt on behalf of the African Group nominated Libyan ambassador Najat al-Hajjaji to be the Chair. She had an illustrious diplomatic career. She is a former chair of the 59th Commission on Human Rights and held a post at the Durban conference in 2001. She led her country for over a decade on human rights issues and boasts many honors and awards in human rights. She has human rights expertise and is well positioned to steer the conference toward success. Sri Lanka seconded the proposal. Brazil also supported Libya’s nomination.

The President of the Human Rights Council declared ambassador al-Hajjaji elected by acclamation. [Applause from the audience. Amb. al-Hajjaji ascends podium, receiving congratulations and kisses from UN officials.]

Chairperson al-Hajjaji (of Libya): Thank you for the confidence you placed in me to chair this preparatory committee, whose work will lead to convening of Durban review conference in 2009 which we all look forward to. The work ahead of us is enormous. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I would like at the outset to extend profound thanks to all member states of the UN for the confidence you placed in my country, and in my humble person to chair this prep com for review of Durban. In particular, my thanks to African states that have always supported my country in all regional and international fora. And my appreciation to the Organization for the Islamic Conference for their continued support.

Six years have elapsed since the international community adopted the Durban program of action and declaration. Soon after, the events of Sept. 11, 2001 erupted. And one of the most important consequences was an increase in racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.

The war against what is called “terrorism” started. Some states put aside human rights for the war against terrorism. Some have exploited it in order to persecute its opponents and critics and to take revenge. Many laws were adopted of a restrictive nature. Persecution of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, those of particular ethnic groups. All under the pretext of the “war on terror.” Anti-Semitism rose, covering Arabs and others. Violent movements rose, targeting Muslim, Christians and Jews, in addition to [others]. Internet full of pages instigating violence on basis of racial hatred. Even sports arenas have witnessed racist acts. Depth of racial discrimination increased as we saw intolerance. Ridiculing religious symbols, leading to violence. Streets cemeteries and holy places have become scene for racist violence. All that I have indicated does not obviate fact that a number of countries have made progress on national level on racism. World summit against racism was adopted. A number of other countries have set up national plans.

Within this context it is necessary for us to voice our great appreciation to all efforts since Durban. Pay thanks to intergovernmental group on effective implementation of Durban action, the panel of eminent persons responsible for implementation of Durban, the Special Rapporteur on racism, all special mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, all who address this issue.

We are proud of achievements in Durban 2001. Among these, we have been able to diagnose face of racism today. To agree to practical steps. We’re also proud that through totality of Durban process that we managed this unprecedented mobilization of grassroots organizations and to let victims of racism speak loud; for those who have been excluded and ostracized to break bonds of silence; about their suffering.

Pay tribute to all member states for determination to hold this conference. Firm will to strengthen Durban objectives. We’ll be able to study how countries have implemented their goals. I appeal to all member states and organizations to contribute to voluntary fund for preparatory process of review process.

Extend my congratulations to members of the bureau whose names will be announced. Congratulate them. Thanks and appreciation for all their efforts. The bureau has held 19 meetings over last 2 months in which all elements were discussed in exhaustive detail. Despite diversity amongst bureau members, all of them have made every effort to overcome obstacles to make sure everyone would work in spirit of harmony and consensus, and all have won admiration of all. I hope this spirit will prevail, respectful dialogue. I hope we can take all decisions with consensus.

I conclude by quoting from statement by former High Commissioner Mary Robinson: “Durban must be a beginning and not an end…” I thank you all.

I now propose that these members be elected to bureau and to function as vice chairs: Armenia, Estonia, Russia and Croatia, for Eastern European group; Greece, Turkey, Norway, and Belgium from the Western group; Cameroon, Senegal and South Africa from the African group; Iran, India, Pakistan and Indonesia from Asia; and Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Cuba from Latin America. There being no objection, the members are elected and will serve as vice-chairs for prep com.

Proposal from Latin Group to nominate rep of Cuba rep as Vice-Chair Rapporteur of prep com. No objections, he is elected.

High Commissioner Louise Arbour – click for speech

China and Bhutan both reserved their rights to object to the participation of NGOs on the list.

Egypt on behalf of the African Group — click for speech

[...] Middle East. Continued occupation of Palestine and violations arising therefrom have been subject of condemnation from international community. Recent statements by Committee on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination on foreign occupation of Palestine are indicative.

Steps from 2001. Terrorist attacks of Sept 2001. New and dangerous incitement against religion. Cartoons by Danish newspaper which hurt over a billion muslims around the world. African group notes with concern racist trends: racist acts, migrants, defamation of religions.

Financing: conference must enjoy necessary resources. Financing must be available to ensure participation. African group wants prep com to have competence and means.

Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — click for speech

  • Quotes Boston Globe editorial by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer. “Critics have said this will only ‘mimic the format and script‘ of the [Durban 2001] World Conference Against Racism.”
  • There is a “smear campaign” against the Durban Review Conference.
  • “The Conference should move the spotlight on the continued plight of Palestinian people and non-recognition of their inalienable right to self-determination.”
  • “Defamation of religions” and Islamophobia

Portugal for European Union — click for speech

  • Deep regret that agreement reached at GA was contravened by Human Rights Council resolution and EU was obliged to oppose
  • We appeal to all to achieve consensus
  • We don’t want to see politicization
  • Any follow up to the Durban conference should not reopen for debate what was already decided in 2001.

South Africa insisted that the follow up conference “contextualize” the world since 2001, especially the events of 9/11 and the fight against terrorism.

Senegal suggested reopening and adjusting the Durban declaration in order to give “fresh impetus” in the fight against racism.

Iran stated that new forms of racism – particularly against Muslims – are rising. The debate about the permissibility of headscarves in schools has contributed to Islamophobia, and the events of 9/11 have provided the pretext for a war on terror that has only made things worse for Muslims. Furthermore, Iran called for the “normative gaps” in the existing framework of the Durban declaration to be reviewed. Click for speech

Algeria stated that 9/11 has exacerbated racist tendencies against Muslims. Immigrant populations are also the subject of unacceptable discrimination. Suggested new mechanisms be put in place to deal with the rise of these new and “acute” forms of racism.

Syria said that 9/11 opened the door to new forms of racism and associated in tolerance against “Semitic” people.