Durban: Debacle and Spectacle
By Shana Goldberg for ISN
The UN undertook the noble goal of gathering nations to discuss racism and xenophobia in 2001. Not by chance was the conference set in Durban, South Africa: The locale carried the heavy weight of history and the conference itself intended to highlight not only discrimination worldwide, but inspire with the example of triumph over racism.
But just as the location elicited the memory of a unique case, so did one country dominate the proceedings. Instead of successfully addressing a multitude of human rights issues, the 2001 conference was overtaken by a shadow NGO forum that focused singularly on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Regrettably, the hijacking continued at last week’s Durban Review Conference held in Geneva; this time, however, far from being taken by surprise, the UN was complicit.
The succession of boycotts, beginning with the US in late February and ending with the Czech Republic on the opening day, overshadowed the proceedings. But it was the choice of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the opening speaker that doomed the conference.
It was a fait accompli. Allowing an individual who it would not be unfair to describe as the world’s most polarizing head of state to take center stage could lead to nothing other than debacle – and spectacle.
Ahmadinejad leads a country where, according to both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, seven people were executed in 2008 for crimes committed while minors - a direct violation of the external pageConvention of the Rights of the Child to which Iran is party. That a person, publicly accused moments after concluding his speech of “incitement to hatred” by Norway’s foreign minister, opened a conference on fighting racism and intolerance, epitomizes Orwellian doublespeak.
Iran is also a country in which homosexuals continue to face discrimination, prompting some gay men to opt to undergo gender reassignment surgery as documented in Tanaz Eshaghian’s film, external pageBe Like Others.
The speedy ratification of the external pageDurban Review Outcome Document on only the second day of the conference speaks not of consensus but of rubber-stamping. Constructive discussion did take place, but only on day four at the NGO forum, days after the document was ratified. No aspect of the draft document was reopened for further discussion or debate prior to ratification.
The result is a 20-page document copious with grandiose resolutions, but wanting in substantial content. The document does “recognize […] the persistence” of racism against Roma/travelers; “recalls” that the trans-Atlantic slave trade must never be forgotten; “deplores” the rise of racial and religious violence; and “urges” states to punish violent activities based on neo-Fascist ideology. But no single human rights issue is mentioned, not even Darfur.
Any mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict was removed, due to the uproar that followed 2001 and in more recent attempts to placate western states. And according to gay rights activist Louis-Georges Tin, after complicated horse-trading involving the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Vatican, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was excluded.
While UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay claimed the ratification as a “victory;” French philosopher and writer Bernard-Henri Lévy speaking at an alternative conference on 22 April called the Durban Review Outcome Document “the lowest common denominator of human rights,” a mockery of the UN’s ideals.
Instead of holding meaningful, action-oriented discussion, the furor of the first day only succeeded in diverting from the conference’s intended goal – progress on eliminating all forms of racism and discrimination.
As long as the UN allows certain blocs or topics to set or dominate the agenda, its effectiveness and integrity will be questioned. And human rights activists from the entire spectrum will continue to wonder, as they did at the conclusion of the Durban Review Conference last Thursday, who such conferences benefit.