Durban Review Summary: July 27, 2008
NGOs invited to participate in the African Regional Preparatory Meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, (August 24-26, 2008)
July 15, 2008, The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Letter
In accordance with the United Nations’ General Assembly resolution to review the implementation of the Durban Conference’s final declaration, “The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is pleased to invite non-governmental organizations to this regional meeting. Organizations wishing to participate in the meeting are invited to send the names of their representatives to the Secretariat (fax: +41 22 928 90 50) by 31 July 2008. In addition OHCHR would like to inform non-governmental organizations based in Africa that limited financial assistance will be provided for a number of NGOs. Further information on this can be found on the following link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/DurbanReview/regional.htm“. As revealed by the 2001 World Conference against Racism, NGOs play a significant role in setting the agenda and outcome of the conference. Therefore, the participating NGOs’ aims and activities should be examined prior to the Durban Review Conference. Accredited NGOs should accept and follow guidelines, such as those formulated by Magenta, upholding the values of the conference and confirming their commitment to avoiding the demonization of Israel. [see full text below]
“Castro-Chavez Alliance Blocks Human Rights Foundation from UN Status”
July 25, 2008, UN Watch
The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) failed to uphold human rights at its annual July session, devoted to accrediting NGOs for consultative status in the UN. “The NGO Committee had recommended to deny consultative status to the Human Rights Foundation (HRF). The United States asked ECOSOC to reconsider, noting that the HRF board included such distinguished human rights activists as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel. Also noted was that HRF is chaired by Armando Valladares, recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience for his years of incarceration in Cuban prisons [...] ECOSOC upheld the decision to bar the Human Rights Foundation from the UN. Not the best way for ECOSOC to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The repercussions of this decision are likely to be felt at the 2009 Durban Review Conference, where ECOSOC-accredited NGOs will have the opportunity to observe, express their views and contribute to the conference’s final declaration. By denying accreditation to balanced NGOs, such as the Human Rights Foundation, while approving the participation of politicized NGOs, ECOSOC condemns the Durban Review Conference to another hate-filled conclusion.
“Australia must boycott the next racist hatefest”
July 22, 2008, The Sydney Morning Herald, Anne Bayefsky
In this article, Anne Bayefsky, editor of EyeontheUN.org, calls on Australia to follow Canada’s lead and boycott the Durban Review Conference. “By refusing to participate, Australia can help deny legitimacy to a global platform for intolerance and deal the voices of hate a blow.” Bayefsky states that “There is no doubt that Durban II will use a UN platform to encourage racism, spread anti-Semitism and undermine democracy’s most precious freedoms. The question is whether democracies will deny it legitimacy - in pursuit of the actual protection of human rights.” Bayefsky believes that Western democracies are unable to counter the Muslim countries’ attempt to redefine anti-Semitism and place Islamophobia at the top of the conference’s agenda. Therefore, according to her, only by boycotting the conference will Australia’s stance be influential.
“Anti-racism summit poses conundrum for Rudd”
July 22, 2008, The Sydney Morning Herald, Yuko Narushima
In response to Anne Bayefsky’s “Australia Must Boycott the Next Racist Hatefest”, Narushima suggests that a boycott of the Durban Review Conference would not be the most effective step for Australia. He cites Professor Andrew Jakubowicz, who states that “In these situations, if you leave the space to people who are blatantly extremist, you get what you deserve. Australia should be very actively involved in advancing a non-racist agenda for the world.” However, the journalist cautions that “the next conference - in Geneva - must distinguish between legitimate concerns about the behaviour of Israel as a nation state and attacks on Jews,” which characterized the 2001 World Conference against Racism.
“We must stay in the racism debate”
July 24, 2008, The Sydney Morning Herald, Ben Saul and Andrea Durbach
In another response to Bayefsky’s “Australia Must Boycott the Next Racist Hatefest”, Saul and Durbach claim that “Boycotting international institutions is often ineffective and counterproductive, and countries such as Australia stand to lose much from disengaging. The recent call for Australia to boycott the second United Nations conference against racism in Geneva next year is no exception.” The writers claim that the conference’s boycott by several Western democratic nations would reduce, rather than increase, their impact on the outcome of the conference and allow those governments with an extremist agenda to pursue their anti-Israeli aims. Yet, the writers are aware that Australia’s participation in the Durban Review Conference should be governed by particular guidelines. Only in case the conference deviates from these standards should Australia resort to a boycott. They conclude with the assertion that “Participating in a conference does not cloak it with legitimacy, just as participation in the UN General Assembly does not indicate Australia’s agreement with any abhorrent views expressed by countries there. Australia can, however, shape the terms of its engagement in the world conference and exploit the opportunity to oppose racist voices and consolidate global advocacy against racism.” Yet, the outcome of the 2001 Durban Conference demonstrated the Western counties’ inability to balance the Muslim states’ priorities.
“Pillay Will Have Her Work Cut Out for Her in Geneva”
July 21, 2008, The New York Sun, Benny Avni
In anticipation of Navanethem Pillay’s appointment as High Commissioner for Human Rights, Avni outlines the tasks she will undertake as the United Nations Human Rights Council’s president. He sees it as her responsibility to redirect the Council’s focus against Israel and the United States onto other countries guilty of serious human rights abuses, such as Zimbabwe, Cuba and China. In particular, he remarks that “The tone that underlined a 2001 anti-racism conference in Durban is likely to be present again at a so-called Durban II follow-up, planned for early next year in Geneva. Unless Ms. Pillay unequivocally speaks out against the anti-Semitism on display at these anti-discrimination conferences, Geneva is unlikely to reverse this blow to its credibility.”
“Into the lion’s den: The U.N.’s inhuman rights”
July 25, 2008, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Editorial
As South African judge, Navanethem Pillay, enters her new position as High Commissioner for Human Rights, “She must not be hamstrung by a self-serving Human Rights Council. And she must vanquish anti-Semitism as a solution to racism, as expected at next year’s follow-up to the U.N. World Conference Against Racism.” Indeed, Pillay will lead the Durban Review Conference. Her stance with regard to its agenda and unfolding will be vital to the conference’s outcome. She must resist the Islamic governments’ attempt to manipulate the conference’s priorities to focus exclusively on Islamophobia and the demonization of Israel.
