Durban II: No Real Surprises
HUMAN RIGHTS, DIPLOMACY, DIPLOMACY
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The UN Durban Review Conference concluded last month, embroiled in much of the same controversy that engulfed its predecessor. The 2001 Durban Conference on Racism has historically devolved into a global forum for anti-Israeli and Western sentiment. A high-profile speech delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during which he called Israel the “most cruel and racist regime,” placed this year’s conference on a similar trajectory. The moment came as no surprise, despite the U.S. and EU’s attempts to steer Durbin II’s preparatory committee into more neutral territory.
From the outset Durban II came under fire from critics who objected to Libya, Cuba, and Iran participating as vice-chairs of the preparatory process, with Cuba playing a duel role of rapporteur. The UN acknowledged that the 2001 conference featured “grotesque” protests against Israel, but defended it against accusations that the conference was an anti-Semitic “hate fest” hijacked by Libya, Cuba, and Iran, pointing out that they represented just three of twenty vice-chairs. Israel quickly boycotted the conference followed by Canada, but the U.S., in keeping with the Obama administration’s more multilateral foreign policy approach, initially engaged the preparatory process. The U.S. and the EU objected to the conference’s initial draft, which made direct references to Israel, and called for action against defamation of religions, which Western countries objected to as limiting free speech. Both threatened boycotts if the language of the original draft remained unaltered to these ends. The UN removed references to Israel, softened its stance on defamation of religions, but left in a reaffirmation of the 2001 conference. The reaffirmation was enough for the U.S. to boycott, followed by Poland, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. The remaining EU countries walked out during Ahmadinejad’s speech, but only the Czech Republic did not return.
The NGO arena was equally contentious. A key platform for anti-Israeli comments during Durban I was an NGO forum on racism. All NGOs that received accreditation for Durban I were invited back, a move NGO Monitor, an organization that promotes NGO accountability in the Arab-Israeli conflict, called highly political and anti-Israeli. Several NGOs signed a joint statement in moral opposition to the anti-Semitic comments at the first Durban conference. Human Rights Watch, accused of playing a particularly damaging role in the NGO forum at the 2001 conference, also signed the statement, but made clear in its position paper for the Durban Preparatory Committee that it “does not seek to exempt Israel from criticism of its human rights record.” A group of Durban-protesting NGOs, including UN Watch and Freedom House, planned an alternate conference the week before Durban II meetings in Geneva.
In many ways Durban II materialized as expected. Despite several cooperative actions intended to avoid a repeat of Durban I, the UN bequeathed Ahmadinejad, the only head of state present at the conference, the platform he desired. But the UN did manage to avoid a repeat of the raging wild fire that was Durban I, and settled instead for a more controlled burn. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Ahmadinejad’s remarks for trying "to accuse, divide and even incite." Last Tuesday, over 100 countries agreed to a declaration to combat racism that included a warning against stereotyping based on religion, made no direct reference to Israel, but did reaffirm principles agreed to at Durban I. The passing of the draft Tuesday concluded the conference three days early. In the end, Durban II saw few major surprises, offering little by way of promoting worldwide racial harmony.
A JOINT PROGRAM OF
