January 6th, 2008 by Andre Oboler | Category: Durban Conference, Human Rights, Amnesty International, Boycott / Divestment

Joshua Rubenstein, the Northeast Regional Director of Amnesty International USA has responded with criticism to Charles Jacobs (co-founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group) in the Boston Jewish Advocate. In his oped, Jacobs had noted the potential dangers of NGO participation in the plans for the 2009 UN “Durban” Review Conference.

Rubenstein rejected the emphasis Jacobs placed on the role of NGOs in the 2001 Durban process, claiming on the contrary that, Amnesty International had “joined Jewish and Israeli leaders in warning that a forthcoming UN conference against racism could degenerate into an assault on Israel, Zionism, and the significance of the Holocaust.” Rubenstein states that “regrettably, we were not able to head off the ugly incidents that in fact did take place [at Durban in 2001].”

For those concerned about racism, the question is why Amnesty didn’t do more than simply express regret? Why did this NGO not take use its considerable influence to lead a campaign against the racism that hijacked human rights at Durban? More importantly, why are they now attacking Jacobs – who is also a human rights activist, for expressing concern, rather than learning from the past and taking steps to avoid a repeat?

Rubenstein argues that “no one should be under any illusion that NGOs, however credible or influential, can set the agenda for the Review Conference or its preparatory process.” He goes further saying “It would be terribly naive or disingenuous to suggest otherwise.” As Rubenstein knows, it was the NGO forum at Durban that the massive media coverage emphasized. It was the NGO Forum that put together plans based on racism that lead to discrimination like the academic boycotts of Israel in the UK. It is not the governmental forum alone that will have an impact, and for the NGO forum, it is clear that powerful human rights organizations like Amnesty have both the ability to shape the gathering, and also the moral obligation to prevent discrimination.

If the Durban follow-up conference looks to be a repeat, it will not be enough to simply throw our hands up and say there is nothing that can be done. It must be a call to action for all those who oppose racism to withdraw their support and focus their efforts on condemning the plague of antisemitism in the midst of the human rights movement.

Will Amnesty take a lead in promoting moral clarity, or will they again simply join other groups in expressing some regret in the aftermath? Will they do all they can to prevent a repeat, or will they attempt to whitewash the racism at Durban in 2001, and even attack those who justifiably express concern? Amnesty in 2009 must not find itself again expressing regret – to be in this position once is a tragedy. To be in this position twice would be an outright failure of the human rights movement – and as a key player, a failure of Amnesty itself. The time for Joshua Rubenstein and his colleagues to act is now.