2002
A summit against intolerance
Atila Roque
IBASE
The terrorist attacks on the United States, which occurred only three days after the close of the 3rd World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia, Racial Discrimination and Similar Forms of Intolerance (WCR) in Durban, South Africa, unequivocally revealed the currentness of the issues discussed at that conference. What is at stake is the possibility of another paradigm of civilisation that does not lend itself to simplistic and maniacal reductions regarding right and wrong, and that values diversity, universal human rights and the preservation of life. These principles and premises are systematically emphasised in the WCR Declaration and Programme of Action.
On
11 September 2001, the world watched in horror the acts of terror perpetrated in
New York and Washington. The perplexity and indignation caused by the brutal
death of thousands of people focused international debate on terrorism and its
causes. The United States’ response—a pitiless war against
Afghanistan—deepened the pain and suffering of civilians in that country. The
consequences of those terrible events are still not fully clear. What is clear
is the need to join forces with all those committed to peace and democracy to
counteract the conservative and militarist wave that is being mobilised.
Combating horror with more horror is not acceptable. Solidarity among peoples is
essential at a time like this.
The
terrorist attacks on the United States, which occurred only three days after the
close of the 3rd World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia, Racial
Discrimination and Similar Forms of Intolerance (WCR) in Durban, South Africa,
unequivocally revealed the currentness of the issues discussed at that
conference. The Conference, which took place from August 31 to September 8,
2001, brought together over 2,500 representatives from 170 countries, including
16 heads of state, 58 ministers of foreign affairs and 44 other ministers. In
addition to official representatives, some 4,000 NGOs from across the world and
approximately 1,300 journalists were accredited to cover the sessions.
Because
of difficulties encountered in arriving at a consensus on some of the main
themes of the conference – especially those related to the Israel-Palestine
question, to past slavery and identification of the victims of discrimination
– the negotiations took one day more than scheduled. For those following the
process in Durban it was clear from the outset that it was not just any
conference. The name of the conference itself, chosen after lengthy discussions
among governments, was an early indication of tensions that would arise over the
course of the preparatory process and final negotiations. It was a world
conference that would have to come to grips, at an unprecedented level, with the
profound causes of hate, violence and social desegregation.
Of
all the UN social conferences, the WCR most forcefully called upon
“national” societies to face their own demons. At the centre of the debates
were issues affecting the wellbeing and security of individuals and groups in
their everyday lives, issues that cross traditional boundaries between North and
South. Problems such as those of immigrants, the Roma (gypsies), the Dalits
(India’s “untouchables”), African descendants, indigenous peoples and
women go beyond national and geopolitical boundaries. The same can be said of
the problems of those who suffer discrimination because of their sexual or
religious preferences.
Aggravated
by economic and political variables, intolerance and discrimination, which are
deep-routed in our cultures, are seen in day-to-day actions and reaffirmed by
the media. Intolerance and discrimination manifest exclusion in social relations
that is transmitted from one generation to another. The way in which societies
deal with these issues affects social hierarchy and access to the benefits of
development.
Achieving
international legitimacy for their struggles was, in certain cases, the main
goal of social movements involved in the preparatory process for Durban and
during the conference itself. In some cases, these groups met with tough
opposition from governments, as happened with the Dalits, whose case against discrimination was excluded from the
documents because of India’s veto. The problem of discrimination based on
sexual preferences was also excluded from the final documents, with only Brazil
actively defending inclusion in the final moments of negotiations.
In
some cases, governments insisted on restricting debate to the sphere of
mechanisms already established in international negotiations and processes. An
example was the attempt by African countries to address reparations due to
victims of slave trafficking, from the period of slavery and colonialism, only
in the context of policies on economic aid to Africa. In the same way, an effort
was made to avoid specifically addressing current manifestations of such
practices in the conference.
The
participation of social organisations and movements in the WCR guaranteed that
the promise of compromise contained in the title was not lost on the way to
Durban. With regard to issues concerning people of African descent, the
mobilisation of social movements resulted in the incorporation of a set of
extremely advanced proposals into the document approved at the regional
preparatory meeting for the Americas, held in Santiago, Chile, in December 2000.
The
mobilisation and coordination of Latin American and Caribbean people of African
descent played a crucial role in this process. The establishment of the
Afro-Latin-Caribbean Alliance may be considered one of the main political
achievements of the WCR. The Alliance provides not only a political reference
for pressuring governments, but also a forum for discussion with organisations
of people of African descent from Europe and North America (USA and Canada), as
well as African organisations.
The
art of possible commitment
Despite
the many obstacles, the agreements reached in South Africa represent a decisive
step towards greater tolerance and peace. The polarisation of debate on the
Middle East conflict made the construction of consensus difficult almost to the
end and left deep scars on the Durban negotiations. The radicalisation of
positions caused the United States and Israel to leave the negotiations at one
of the tensest moments. Not even the NGO Parallel Forum escaped this tension.
The text of the final document of the Forum on the Israel-Palestine question,
although quite strong relative to Israeli policy, suffered reservations from
bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The
agreement reached on the Israel-Palestine conflict sharpened United States’
isolation. Israel was not criticised individually and both anti-Semitism and
anti-Islamism were condemned. The right to self-determination of the Palestinian
people was recognised, but Zionism was not rated as racism. The language of the
commitment adopted disappointed those who had hoped for a stronger condemnation
of Israeli violation of Palestinian rights in the occupied territories, but it
enabled achievement of consensus on the text.
On
the other hand, the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at Durban openly
addressed the causes of discrimination, racism and xenophobia, as well as the
issues of immigrants and indigenous peoples, although some groups protested the
non-recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to call themselves “nations.”
Among the most polemical issues were those relating to the classification of
slave trade and slavery as crimes against humanity, and the whole debate on
reparation due those who suffered its consequences.
Regarding
condemnation of transatlantic slave trade and slavery, the Conference reached an
intermediary formulation: it classified as crimes against humanity contemporary
episodes, stating that it “should always have been so.” The text adopted at
the end of the Conference represents significant and historical progress:
We
acknowledge that slavery and the slave trade, including the transatlantic slave
trade, were appalling tragedies in the history of humanity not only because of
their abhorrent barbarism but also in terms of their magnitude, organised nature
and especially their negation of the essence of the victims, and further
acknowledge that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and
should always have been so, especially the transatlantic slave trade and are
among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance, and that Africans and people of African
descent, Asians and people of Asian descent and indigenous peoples were victims
of these acts and continue to be victims of their consequences.
In
fact, from the standpoint of people of African descent, there were many positive
points in the documents approved. Specific issues were broadly contemplated,
although the central theme of reparation, one of the points giving rise to
infinite controversy, was too generically formulated in the final document:
...we
invite the international community and its members to honour the memory of the
victims of these tragedies. We further note that some have taken the initiative
of regretting or expressing remorse or presenting apologies, and call on all
those who have not yet contributed to restoring the dignity of the victims to
find appropriate ways to do so...
The
WCR was less specific on concrete measures and new goals, leaving details of
actions up to the countries themselves, who will be responsible for the
preparation of National Plans of Action for the promotion of diversity,
equality, social justice and equity. The guidelines and priorities of these
actions were clearly indicated by the delegates, however, and these constitute a
set of basic commitments to be taken on by governments and international
institutions. Among the most important set out in the Durban documents are the
following:
·
Recognition of
the importance of currently existing international instruments for the struggle
against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and similar forms of
intolerance, in particular the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination, establishing the year 2005 as a goal for its
ratification;
·
Reform of
judicial institutions and national legislation, in order to struggle against
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and similar forms of intolerance,
including the guarantee to punish those responsible for such practices;
·
Improvement of
national and international information and research systems, and the regular
production of social indicators making it possible to measure progress or
regression regarding the Conference objectives. The Conference also requested
that the United Nations develop research, educational and communication
programmes aimed at redeeming Africa’s contribution to the history of
humanity;
·
Promotion of assertive
action as the best way of fighting racial inequality, especially in the
areas of education, labour market, health, housing, sanitation, drinking water
and environmental monitoring;
·
Incorporation
of a gender dimension into programmes fighting racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related forms of intolerance;
·
Prioritisation
of the struggle against poverty in the fight against racism, through initiatives
such as the New African Initiative and other innovative mechanisms such as the
World Solidarity Fund for the Eradication of Poverty;
·
The developed
countries, United Nations and multilateral financial institutions must find the
means to offer new financial resources to fund actions arising from the
implementation of the Durban commitments;
·
The Conference
supported the proposal made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to set
up an Anti-Discrimination Unit to collaborate with member states and other UN
agencies in the process of implementing the commitments, issuing annual reports
on progress, gathering information and seeking the cooperation of civil society
organisations.
The
Durban conference revealed the difficulty around the world of addressing racism
and all forms of intolerance. The impasse and near failure of the negotiations
because it was impossible to reach agreement on the Middle East and on the
so-called “subjects of the past” was only the most visible aspect of a
climate of extreme sectoralism that prevailed practically to the last day.
The
commitments taken on by governments in the Declaration and Programme of Action
are still timid and limited in view of the enormity of the problems, but they
are an indisputable advance, a step forward, towards solution of the problems
being discussed.
Finally,
given the agenda elaborated by the Third World Conference Against Racism,
Xenophobia, Racial Discrimination and Similar Forms of Intolerance, we face
crucial decisions in the construction of a world in which acts of absolute
disregard for human life, so frequent in the history of humanity, are no longer
possible. The results of Durban will be the compass, although they are fragile
and contradictory, guiding us through the storms on the horizon.
What
is at stake is the possibility of another paradigm of civilisation that does not
lend itself to simplistic and black-and-white reductions regarding right and
wrong, and that values diversity, universal human rights and the preservation of
life. These principles and premises are systematically emphasised in the WCR
Declaration and Programme of Action. Additionally, the role of civil society
organisations in addressing the major challenges following 11 September should
not be neglected.
As
was the case in the WCR where civil society guaranteed that controversial voices
were not silenced, it is the duty of civil society throughout the world,
together with political and religious leaders, to react vigorously to the
dehumanising nihilism of those who treat life as an insignificant detail.
|
