The United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance met in Durban, South Africa from
August 31 to September 8, 2001. The UN General
Assembly authorized the conference in Resolution 52/111 in 1997,
aiming to explore effective methods to eradicate racial discrimination
and to promote awareness in the global struggle against intolerance.
Yet the noble goals of the 2001 UN World
Conference Against Racism were undermined by hateful anti-Jewish
rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas, prompting both
Israel and the United States to withdraw their delegations
from the conference. Participants revived the scurrilous
charge that "Zionism
is Racism" and used false and hostile allegations
to delegitimize Israel.
In the weeks prior to the conference, the United States had warned
organizers that it would withdraw from Durban if the early anti-Jewish
charges and the condemnations of Israel remained unchallenged. After
four days of fruitless negotiations, the U.S. delegation withdrew on
September 3, midway through the conference, unable to turn the focus
of the conference back to its original goals. The aim to combat discrimination
and intolerance worldwide was ironically superceded by a bigoted campaign
to single out one nation for criticism.
The September 3 statement
of withdrawal of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell read:
Today I have instructed our representatives
at the World Conference Against Racism to return home.
I have taken this decision with regret, because of the
importance of the international fight against racism and
the contribution that the Conference could have made to
it. But, following discussions today by our team in Durban
and others who are working for a successful conference,
I am convinced that will not be possible. I know that you
do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations
containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback
to the days of "Zionism equals racism;" or supports
the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or
suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles
out only one country in the world--Israel--for censure
and abuse.1
Copies of the anti-Semitic work, The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, were sold on conference grounds;
anti-Israel protesters jeered participants chanting "Zionism is
racism, Israel is apartheid," and "You have Palestinian blood
on your hands"; fliers depicting Hitler with the question, "What
if I had won?" circulated among conference attendees. The answer:
"There would be NO Israel and NO Palestinian bloodshed."
On September 3, in the Israeli official
proclamation, delivered by Head of the Israeli Delegation
Ambassador Mordecai Yedid, Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi
Michael Melchior wrote:
Racism, in all its forms, is one of the
most widespread and pernicious evils, depriving millions
of hope and fundamental rights. It might have been hoped
that this first Conference of the 21st century would have
taken up the challenge of, if not eradicating racism, at
least disarming it: But instead humanity is being sacrificed
to a political agenda. ... Can there be a greater irony
than the fact that a conference convened to combat the
scourge of racism should give rise to the most racist declaration
in a major international organization since the Second
World War?2
In addition to the UN government conference
against racism, Durban simultaneously hosted a UN conference
of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The NGO conference,
according to the UN, aimed to publicize the "voices
of the victims." In this forum, the Jewish Caucus proposed
that Holocaust
denial and anti-Jewish violence caused by Jewish support
for Israel be labeled forms of anti-Semitism.
The proposal was almost unanimously defeated. Anne Bayefsky,
a NGO participant, and a representative of the International
Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, commented. "The
only group that voted for it was the Jews. Of all the 'voices
of the victims' put into the resolution, only one voice was
deleted - the Jewish voice."3
Bayefsky reported, "Like all Jewish participants, I felt concern
for my safety. The Jewish Center in Durban was forced to close because
of threats of violence." During an NGO discussion on Palestinian
issues, representatives of human rights organizations asked Bayefsky
to leave: "They explained to me that as a representative of a Jewish
organization, I was biased and couldn't be counted on to act in the
interest of general human rights."4
The representatives at the NGO conference removed a key paragraph on
anti-Semitism by unanimous vote, prompting a Jewish Caucus walk out.
The removed paragraph read:
We are concerned with the prevalence of Anti-Zionism and attempts
to delegitimize the State of Israel through wildly inaccurate charges
of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing
and apartheid, as a virulent contemporary form of anti-Semitism leading
to firebombing of synagogues, armed assaults against Jews, incitements
to killing, and the murder of innocent Jews, for their support for
the existence of the State of Israel, the assertion of the right to
self determination of the Jewish people and the attempts, through
the State of Israel, to preserve their cultural and religious identity.5
Soon after the American and Israeli pullout, the Jewish Caucus formally
withdrew from the NGO conference.
The final resolution of the NGO conference, which was overwhelmingly
adopted, called Israel "a racist apartheid state," guilty
of the "systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war
crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing ... and state terror against
the Palestinian people."6
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Mary Robinson, called the allegations accusing Israel of
war crimes "inappropriate and unacceptable," but
did not reject the document. She mentioned that the NGO resolution
included constructive proposals on hate crimes, indigenous
peoples, and caste issues. In traditional UN practice, the
Secretary-General of the conference officially "recommends"
the NGO resolution to the government conference, but Robinson
said she "could not recommend the document to the government
delegates in its entirety."7
Major human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch, Lawyers for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights
also expressed criticism of the anti-Jewish language of the NGO resolution,
but raised their concerns two days after the conclusion of the NGO conference.
Overall, they endorsed the resolution. Amnesty International said, "Although
not accepting or condoning some of the language used within the NGO
Declaration, Amnesty International accepts the declaration as a largely
positive document which gives a voice to all the victims of racism wherever
it occurs."8
The UN government conference, stalled over
references to the Middle East situation, concluded on September
8, a full day past its scheduled end date, with an adoption
of a "compromise" proposal between the European
Union and the Arab countries. The chair of the conference,
South African Foreign Minister Zuma, asked delegates to leave
complex Middle East issues aside and to "focus on not
doing anything to cause this conference to collapse."9
But Syrian Foreign Minister
Farouk al-Shara insisted on adding language explicitly condemning Israel's
"foreign occupation." Brazil proposed a "motion of no
action" suggesting that conference not address issues on which
it would not agree. The "motion of no action" was approved
by a vote of 51-38. Arab and Muslim states voted against the proposal.
The final declaration of the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance included the following
passages relevant to Israel:10
63. We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under
foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent
State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the
region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the
peace process and bring it to an early conclusion;
64. We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region
in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and
internationally recognized human rights, and security;
65. We recognize the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their
homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge all States to
facilitate such return;
151. As for the situation in the Middle East, calls for the end of
violence and the swift resumption of negotiations, respect for international
human rights and humanitarian law, respect for the principle of self-determination
and the end of all suffering, thus allowing Israel and the Palestinians
to resume the peace process, and to develop and prosper in security
and freedom.