Should we participate?

March 24, 2009. As of this date many governments are still considering whether to attend the conference. This article provides guidelines for governments, offering appropriate criteria for assessing the conference preparation, methods for measuring whether the criteria have been met and an assessment of the results.

Criteria Measurement Current situation Criteria met
Fair and equal treatment of all countries and all ethnic and religious groups Citations in preparatory documents The draft document to be used as the basis of Durban II, the working group paper has removed specific references to an individual country however it still reaffirms the Durban declaration, which singled out Israel and implied wrongly that Palestinians are victims of racism rather than, like Israelis, casualties of war. No
A commitment by democratic countries to ensure a just conference Intentions of like-minded countries
  • Canada is boycotting the conference
  • The US is boycotting
  • Italy is boycotting
  • French president Nicolas Sarkozy has expressed concerns about "a repetition of the excesses and abuses of 2001" and stated France will disengage if legitimate demands are not met.
  • Britain has promised it will pull out of the conference is there is a repeat of antisemitism.
  • The Netherlands has indicated it will boycott unless current documentation is changed.
  • Israel will boycott.
No


A preparatory process with fair structures established, balanced agendas and no evidence of discrimination against Israel Participation of countries with a fair record on racism and human rights The United Nations Council on Human Rights (UNHRC) is the Durban Review Preparatory Committee. The committee is headed by Libya, Cuba is the rapporteur, Iran and Pakistan are on the committee. These are countries with a historical bias against Israel and incentives to avoid a broader human rights agenda.

The Council was created in 2006 to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights. In the first two years of its life, it has directed almost 60 per cent of its decisions condemning specific states to Israel. And nothing at all on 187 of the UN's other 191 members. The Council has had eight regular sessions which cover human rights in all

countries - and four special sessions devoted only to human rights violations by Israel.

The Council - as the Commission before it - has a limited agenda of less than a dozen subjects. One is reserved only for condemning Israel. And one is called "human rights issues of concern" for all other countries.

The Commission and the Council have created only one UN human rights investigator with a job description which has no term limit - the investigator on Israel. The few other country investigators must be renewed frequently - or not. In the past two years the Council has refused to renew or continue Belarus, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran and Uzbekistan.

No




Equal opportunity of participation in preparatory sessions

April 2008

At the organisational session, the two substantive preparatory sessions were scheduled over two major Jewish holy days (Passover and Yom Kippur) preventing participation by Jewish groups. Given the issues, it is difficult to interpret this scheduling as anything other than a deliberate attempt to marginalize Jewish participation. No
A broad agenda which includes issues of racism and human rights ignored at Durban. As a review conference the Durban Review Conference only has an agenda to review the Durban Declaration, a document which did not address racism in any specific country except for its isolation of Israel. No
Outcome documentation from preparatory sessions which is fair to all countries The outcome document from the second substantive session of the preparatory committee singles out Israel, as the only country named in the document. The document characterizes the conflict in the region as Israeli racism against Palestinians.

Palestinian racism against Jews, for example in educational material in Palestinian schools is ignored. Palestinian aggression against Israel and the genocidal intentions of Palestinian organisations including Hamas are ignored.

No
Repudiation of the antisemitism that occurred at WCAR in 2001. Statements at preparatory conferences distancing Durban Review from the virulent antisemitism, particularly at the NGO conference. No repudiation has been made by the Preparatory Committee or at Regional Meetings.

Individual statespeople have made such statements, including President Sarkozy in France, Foreign Minister Jim Murphy in Britain and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (during her presidential nomination campaign).

No
The inclusion in the agenda of the issue of antisemitism, particularly as expressed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Inclusion in outcome documentation from preparatory sessions. The outcome document from the second substantive session of the preparatory committee conflates antisemitism with "Islamophobia, anti-Arabism and Christianophobia". There is an extensive additional section devoted to the particularities of Islamophobia. There is no additional section on antisemitism, the genocidal threats to Israel or the statements of President Ahmadinejad.1 No


The satisfactory conclusion of regional meetings with balanced agendas and no evidence of discrimination against Israel Outcome documentation from regional meetings Two regional meetings have been held as part of the preparatory process: the Brasilia meeting for Latin America in June 2008 and the Abuja meeting for Africa in August 2008.

The Brasilia outcome document made no mention of the issues of concern: Israel, Palestinians, Islamophobia or antisemitism.

The Abuja outcome document cited concerns over Palestinians but no comparable concerns over attacks on Israelis. It notes concerns about "Christianophobia, Anti-Semitism, more particularly Islamophobia"2.

No concerns over the problems at WCAR were cited in either meeting.

No
The establishment of fair criteria for inclusion in any NGO conference and an acknowledgement of the problems of the Durban NGO conference. It appears there will not be a separate NGO conference. Statements from the UN Secretariat have shown an unwillingness to hold an NGO conference after Durban. However NGOs have been heavily involved in the preparatory process.

NGOs have not acknowledged any problems at Durban and have characterized the NGO Forum in 2001 as "an important catalyst for many victim groups to come together, network, interact and build support for the work against racism and discrimination"3.

Criteria for NGO participation do not acknowledge any problems at WCAR. New NGOs accredited include political anti-Israel groups such as the "Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign", which argues that Israel's defensive wall is analogous to apartheid in South Africa.

No



Other articles on the Durban Review Conference: 2009

For related articles about the 2009 conference, visit the Durban Review Conference 2009 section of Durban Review or select from the articles below. Articles on anti-racism themes, the 2001 conference and NGO Forum, and news articles are available from the Durban Review home page.