COUNCIL HOLDS DISCUSSION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH TOLERANCE AND RECONCILIATION IN COMMEMORATION OF NELSON MANDELA DAY

The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights through tolerance and reconciliation in commemoration of Nelson Mandela day.

Kyung-wha Kang, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, opened the panel discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights through tolerance and reconciliation, inspired by the life and actions of Nelson Mandela, and said that Nelson Mandela and his rainbow nation were rightly considered role models by millions of people who had struggled against racism, discrimination and other forms of injustice. Nelson Mandela’s ultimately victorious struggle against the racist apartheid regime in South Africa would forever be remembered as one of the great achievements in the on-going fight against discrimination. Non-discrimination was a strategic thematic priority for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reflected in the many areas of its work; women’s rights, the rights of persons with disabilities, minorities’ rights and other groups affected by discrimination.

Mamadou Gnenema Coulibaly, Minister of Human Rights and Civil Liberties of Côte d’Ivoire, said the people and the Government of Côte d’Ivoire aspired to dignity, stability, development and peace and appealed for reconciliation. However, peace and reconciliation could not be decreed, they required truth, justice, repentance and forgiveness and they could benefit from the experience of the friendly nation of South Africa. The environment which had lasted in Côte d’Ivoire for many years, based on discrimination and xenophobia, had led to violent confrontations after the elections in 2010 and there had been massive violations of human rights. To promote reconciliation in the context of the crisis, the President had created a national Commission of Inquiry and a Ministry dedicated to human rights and public freedoms.

Hieu Van Le Ao, Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, said he was one of 90,000 Vietnamese who migrated to Australia in the aftermath of the Viet Nam War. Australia’s cultural diversity was ancient and Australia was open to all who shared Australia’s beliefs, laws and rights, while encouraged to celebrate their own cultural heritage. For Australia, multiculturalism was not a fad or a choice; it was just their way of life. Community harmony existed because Australia had provided the right conditions for diversity to exist and for multiculturalism to thrive. Those who arrived in Australia, while expected to respect Australian values, were invited to continue to celebrate their cultures and traditions, not only within a broader culture of freedom but, more importantly, with respect. It was that combined approach, the reciprocal exchange of cultures and traditions and ideas, which made Australia what it was today.

Abdul Samad Minty, Ambassador of South Africa, recalled that some had said that Mandela had been too idealistic in 1962 when he said before the court during his trial: “I hate the practice of race discrimination and in my hatred I am sustained by the fact that the overwhelming majority of men hate it as well.” It was precisely because people such as Mandela were willing to speak out against racism that the fight was successful. South Africa had attempted to achieve a united, non-racial and non-sexist country; however race was once more a contentious and divisive issue. Economics and poverty had maintained inequality which was not helped by the global economic crisis. South Africa, like many nations around the world, had to address the problem on a more fundamental basis, and could not evade the psychological factors, the notion of belonging and not belonging. With their rich history, the new Government of South Africa regarded as its responsibility the development of the African continent and the elimination of poverty there.

Maya Sahli, Member of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, said that peace and harmony between individuals did not depend exclusively on erasing particularities and individual hallmarks or specific features, cultural or religious. What the Council evocated today was not a unique model for reconciliation, as shown by the diversity of types of reconciliation observed in developing countries emerging out of conflict and where truth and reconciliation societies had been set up to provide social cohesion. The values for which Nelson Mandela fought were defended by the whole of humanity. His values were underpinned by tolerance, forgiveness and reconciliation. Promoting those values meant reinforcing social cohesion and solidarity.

In the discussion, speakers said that it was important that individuals promoted the values of tolerance and reconciliation in their respective countries, building on the example of Nelson Mandela. There was no better example of the transformative power of tolerance and reconciliation than Nelson Mandela and his inspiring work in overthrowing the apartheid government in South Africa. Speakers said that generating a culture of peace and tolerance and respect for human rights was necessary without which no effort for development or harmony could be preserved. States also remembered Nobel Laureate Wangarie Maathai of Kenya, who had died two days before, and who had worked on empowering impoverished Africans. Speakers referred to the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. They noted that the international community continued to experience increased instances of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance around the globe. One speaker raised concern that the situations of a State emerging from an apartheid regime and one from a bloody conflict were different. Some speakers asked whether the panellists could suggest any best practice legislative or policy measures that could assist in building tolerant and inclusive societies. Speakers were concerned at the rise of intolerance and discrimination among neo-Nazi groups and urged that human rights educational measures be spread among the youth to battle xenophobia and racism. In countries facing social challenges, it was important to use lessons learned from difficult moments to rebuild relationships and promote reconciliation among various ethnic groups.

Speakers included South Africa, Australia, Bahrain, the European Union, Senegal speaking on behalf of the African Group, the United States, Austria, Sri Lanka, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, Thailand, Ecuador, Algeria, India, Azerbaijan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Serbia, Namibia, Indonesia, Canada, Morocco, Norway, and Chile. The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also took the floor.

Also speaking were representatives of non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions including, the World Environment and Resources Council, the International Association for Democracy in Africa, and the South African Human Rights Commission.

The Council today is holding a full day of meetings. When it resumes at midday, it will open up its agenda item on technical assistance and capacity-building, and will hold interactive dialogues with the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia.

Introductory Statement

KYUNG-WHA KANG, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, opening the panel discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights through tolerance and reconciliation, inspired by the life and actions of Nelson Mandela, said that Nelson Mandela and his rainbow nation were rightly considered role models by millions of people who had struggled against racism, discrimination and other forms of injustice. This high-level panel would reflect on current human rights situations worldwide with regard to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and would draw inspiration from the example of Nelson Mandela for protecting human rights without distinction as to race, colour or national or ethnic origin. During the 27 years that Nelson Mandela was imprisoned, including 18 years on Robbin Island, he had occupied his mind, by among other things, reflecting upon human nature and the relationships of power within societies. The importance of tolerance and reconciliation had been uppermost in his thinking as he contemplated how his country could be delivered from seemingly intractable division. The sad reality was that no country could rightfully claim to be free of racism or racial discrimination and to a greater or lesser extent, all countries still battled with intolerance towards those perceived to be different and Ms. Kang stressed that it was incumbent upon everyone to combat this attitude. Fortunately, every so often throughout history, an individual emerged whose strength of character and personal commitment to equality and justice could serve as a powerful inspiration to all and a reminder that one person could make a difference in the face of seemingly insurmountable forces. Nelson Mandela was such a man. His ultimately victorious struggle against the racist apartheid regime in South Africa would forever be remembered as one of the great achievements in the on-going fight against discrimination. During the many years the he was imprisoned, Nelson Mandela had not allowed bitterness and resentfulness to poison his heard and cloud his mind.

Millions of people around the world still suffered the indignity of racism on a daily basis. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance constituted a blight upon the conscience of mankind and an obstacle to the full enjoyment of human rights as outlined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which was adopted in 2001, had reaffirmed the commitment of Governments to take concrete actions to combat the scourges of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Ms. Kang said that Governments had the legal obligation to protect individuals and communities from racist attacks and mistreatment and to not tap into latent xenophobic attitudes and manipulate popular sentiments in the hope of gaining a political advantage. Those that suffered the brunt of such scare tactics were often the most vulnerable members of society, such as ethnic minorities, foreigners and those seeking asylum. Non-discrimination was a strategic thematic priority for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reflected in the many areas of its work; women’s rights, the rights of the disabled, minorities’ rights and other groups affected by discrimination. One of the ethnic groups most affected by racism and racial discrimination were people of African descent, and as such, much work had been done to mark 2011 as the International Year for People of African Descent. A framework for action was developed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that brought together what might otherwise have been viewed as disparate activities into a cohesive and coherent, yet flexible programme designed to produce concrete results and strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ leadership in combating discrimination against people of African descent.

Ms. Kang said that 10 years after the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action there was still much to be done to rid the world of the scourges of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. The Durban Review Conference was an opportunity to renew commitment to this task, as was the commemoration of the tenth anniversary that was held in New York last week. In striving to achieve this goal, it was necessary to keep in mind the importance of tolerance and reconciliation as essential ingredients of a just and equitable society. Ms. Kang concluded with a quotation from Nelson Mandela: ‘No one was born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they could learn to hate, they could be taught to love, for love came more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.’

Statements by the Panellists

MAMADOU GNENEMA COULIBALY, Minister of Human Rights and Civil Liberties of Côte d’Ivoire, said that it was a great honour to take the floor in celebration of Nelson Mandela day, an emblematic figure in the struggle against apartheid and the values of tolerance, love, forgiveness and reconciliation which he incarnated throughout this life. It was because of these values that the people of South Africa had managed to overcome a past charged with hatred, confrontation, frustration, and to live and build together a multi-racial nation which was today one of the great emerging nations. The people and the Government of Côte d’Ivoire aspired to dignity, stability, development and peace and appealed for reconciliation. However, peace and reconciliation could not be decreed, they required truth, justice, repentance and forgiveness and in this they could benefit from the experience of the friendly nation of South Africa. The President of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, having taken on the challenge of reconciliation, had invited on the eve of the creation of the Commission of Reconciliation, Rev. Desmond Tutu to meet with the main actors and to accompany the people of Côte d’Ivoire in the process of reconciliation which, as it was known, could be long and difficult. The environment which had lasted in Côte d’Ivoire for many years, based on discrimination and xenophobia, had led to violent confrontations after the elections in 2010 and there had been massive violations of human rights. To promote reconciliation in the context of this crisis, the President, a man of peace who was interested in creating the conditions of economic development, had declared a war on impunity and favoured the prosecution, before domestic and international jurisdiction, of perpetrators of serious human rights violations, as illustrated by the signing of a convention of cooperation with the International Criminal Court last June, the judicial processes against perpetrators of serious human rights violations, and the creation of a national Commission of Inquiry.

President Ouattara had created a Ministry dedicated to human rights and public freedoms, charged with creating a framework to combat impunity and the system of impunity which had been brought into the government by the previous regimes, and ensuring the dissemination of human rights through sensibilisation of all sectors in society. The history of Côte d’Ivoire over the last years was marked by intolerance and the exacerbation of divisions which led to conflict. Truth was a major condition for the creation of an environment of harmony and trust in which reconciliation and peace could prosper, this was the goal of the Commission of Inquiry. The work of the Commission would not focus on vengeance against those who committed crimes, but rather on the consequences of the violations committed for victims. The recognition of the facts by those who committed violations as well as the request for forgiveness would mean that these acts would never be repeated and would lead to the re-establishment of victims’ dignity and rights. Reconciliation in a country that had seen so many atrocities, through the model of South Africa, the country celebrated today, could only be ensured by prosecuting perpetrators, reparations, addressing prejudices and forgiveness. Mr. Coulibaly hoped Côte d’Ivoire would satisfy the needs of everyone and would achieve peace and, like the phoenix in Greek mythology the country would emerge from the ashes and join the community of men and women of good will and the great nations sharing international peace and stability.

Hieu Van Le AO, Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, said he was one of 90,000 Vietnamese who migrated to Australia in the aftermath of the Viet Nam War. Australia’s cultural diversity was ancient. The ‘First Fleet’ included 60 different ethnic and cultural backgrounds amongst its crew and convicts including people from Africa, Asia and all over Europe. Australia was open to all who shared Australia’s beliefs, laws and rights, while encouraged to celebrate their own cultural heritage. When the first Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia there was resistance and objections from small groups of society. Political leaders from all sides of politics supported them and explained the situation of the Vietnamese to the Australian people. There was a sense that with support from above people would begin to accept immigrants.

Australia must never view its successful multiculturalism through the prism of the immediate. For Australia, multiculturalism was not a fad or a choice; it was just their way of life. Community harmony had nothing to do with good luck. It existed because Australia had provided the right conditions for diversity to exist and for multiculturalism to thrive. Those who arrived in Australia, while expected to respect Australian values, were invited to continue to celebrate their cultures and traditions, not only within a broader culture of freedom but, more importantly, with respect. It was that combined approach, the reciprocal exchange of cultures and traditions and ideas, which made Australia what it was today. The elements of Australian multiculturalism that were most worthy of sharing with other parts of the world were: first it was permanent. From the moment of arrival, Mr. Ao said he knew he was Australian, giving him freedom to develop an attachment to his new home. Australia had a high rate of citizenship uptake and in Mr Ao’s experience this was essential for a successful multicultural nation. Secondly it was a two-way street. Mr Ao knew he needed to live by the rule of law, learn to speak the national language and respect Australian values. In return Australia would respect Mr Ao’s cultural heritage. Finally political and institutional support was key. Whilst each wave of migrants before him and after him had faced resistance and a period of settling in, the message of the Government was clear. “You are welcome”.
Too rarely did countries turn to each other to import the best of their cultural experiences. Australian multiculturalism was one of its greatest assets and Mr. Ao said he believed it was one of its most valuable experiences that Australia could share with the whole world. Mr Ao stood before the Human Rights Council as a product of it and he was one of its greatest champions.

ABDUL SAMAD MINTY, Ambassador of South Africa, said it was still a surprise to realize that the most abiding force of the twenty-first century was ethnicity despite the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Some said that Mandela had been too idealistic in 1962 when he said before the court during his trial: ‘I hate the practice of race discrimination and in my hatred I am sustained by the fact that the overwhelming majority of men hate it as well.’ It was precisely because people such as Mandela were willing to speak out against racism that the fight was successful. Mandela had emphasized the predominant psychological need among people to cling to that which was familiar and to fear and resent the unknown. South Africa had attempted to achieve a united, non-racial and non-sexist country; however race was once more a contentious and divisive issue. Economics and poverty had maintained inequality which was not helped by the global economic crisis. As Mandela noted, ‘All know how stubbornly racism could cling to the mind and where it was sustained by the organization of the material work, the stubbornness would cling greater.’ Ambassador Minty stressed that it would take more than a mere two decades to overcome centuries of systematic racism that had marginalized the majority for the benefit of the minority. South Africa, like many nations around the world, had to address the problem on a more fundamental basis, and could not evade the psychological factors, the notion of belonging and not belonging.

In South Africa, different racial groups had grown up as strangers to one another. Ambassador Minty noted that he had lived for 37 years in exile where he organized the worldwide mobilization against apartheid in South Africa through boycotts and campaigns for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, including organizing in London the Mandela concert when Mandela had turned 70 years old. Mr. Minty stressed that Mandela was the product of a struggle; he was not alone as a living icon. In December 2011, there would be the 50 year celebration of the first Nobel Prize given to an African, Albert Lutuli, Head of the African National Congress, and South Africa would soon mark the one hundredth anniversary of the founding of the African National Congress. With this rich history, the new Government of South Africa regarded as its responsibility the development of the African continent and the elimination of poverty there. On a wider issue, when the Durban Conference was held 10 years ago and the Declaration was adopted by consensus, it was a difficult exercise and some had wondered if the world was either ready or united in the fight against racism. Some people had perceived that although the world had declared racism as a crime against humanity, there was a perception that it would not be a crime when the victims of racism were black. It was critical to face the truth and not to allow it to become the first causality to political concerns. Anti-racism was necessary to fight racism and every moment of each person’s life should be a fight for goodness. Ambassador Minty said that as racism clung stubbornly to the soul, particularly the idea that one people could be inferior to another, which denied humanity to both parties, it was important not only to mark Nelson Mandela day but to strive everyday to fight against racism.

MAYA SAHLI, Member of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, said that peace and harmony between individuals did not depend exclusively on erasing particularities and individual hallmarks or specific features, cultural or religious. The full exercise of all human rights permitted each and everyone to build a life in freedom, equality and respect for human dignity. These rights should be safeguarded by all States and the international community. Reconciliation went beyond judicial adjudication and was objective. What the Council evocated today was not a unique model for reconciliation, as shown by the diversity of types of reconciliation observed in developing countries emerging out of conflict and where truth and reconciliation societies had been set up to provide social cohesion. The values for which Nelson Mandela fought were defended by the whole of humanity. His values were underpinned by tolerance, forgiveness and reconciliation. Promoting these values meant reinforcing social cohesion and solidarity. Engaging in a reflection on tolerance and reconciliation necessarily led to two dimensions, one internal or domestic and one external. Concerning internal reconciliation or in a domestic order, both concepts should contribute to peace in post-conflict situations and to reinforce political dialogue in a climate of tension; and reconciliation should provide a framework for political dialogue. Civil tolerance constituted the integration point, rather than an exclusion point, where the objective was to ensure public peace. It was necessary to privilege a smooth reading of tolerance, rather than translating it as merely putting up with difference. In Algeria there were domestic tensions which shed light in a domestic tragedy and recovering peace was a long endeavour. This commitment was legally instituted in Algeria as of 2002 though a charter on national reconciliation and an act on civil harmony. Structures were set up and the willingness to reconcile with each other was present. In the context of the thought process around reconciliation, there were also different explanations and interpretations, concerning truth, interpersonal relations, and victims.

There was another relationship, the notion of community, which meant addressing conflict among communities; and finally one about the relationship between the State and social actors. First and foremost forgiveness, secondly, reconciliation and tolerance were relatively modern concepts internationally and they were constantly referred to as key precepts of international human rights. The link took place in the concept in which the world was torn apart and conflicts were exacerbated. Internationally, the world experienced a modern crisis of tolerance, particularly in Western society. It was hard to marry tolerance and reconciliation and the existence of different cultures and communities. There was a phenomenon of rejection and non-recognition, it stemmed from a wrong reading of the multiplicity of communities. How would it be possible to set up a new concept of tolerance recognized by the whole of the international community and how could the lack of tolerance in Western societies be overcome? Reconciliation was difficult in this context but nonetheless when speaking about this process it was important not to exclude communities, even when these communities insisted on preserving their specific features. This commemorative day should remind States that they should display more justice and understanding towards their different communities.

Discussion

Speakers quoted Nelson Mandela “I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.” It was important that individuals promoted the values of tolerance and reconciliation in their respective countries, building on the example of Nelson Mandela. Speakers said there was no better example of the transformative power of tolerance and reconciliation than Nelson Mandela and his inspiring work in overthrowing the apartheid government in South Africa. Some speakers spoke of national truth and reconciliation commissions modeling themselves on South Africa’s successful truth and reconciliation committee.

In a context of racial segregation when rule of law and democracy were only in the mind’s eye, there had been Mandela who had dared to dream of a South Africa that was not racial and was at peace with itself. The cornerstone of these values would not only put an end to the segregationist past but would promote the protection of human rights. Speakers said that generating a culture of peace and tolerance and respect for human rights was necessary without which no effort for development or harmony could be preserved. States also remembered Nobel Laureate Wangarie Maathai of Kenya, who had died two days before, and who had worked on empowering impoverished Africans.

Speakers talked of the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action which provided a comprehensive framework to address the scourge of racism. They noted that the international community continued to experience increased instances of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance around the globe. The fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance remained a global challenge that required a multi stakeholder approach. The promotion of tolerance through human rights education and training at all levels was a positive step to build a multicultural society grounded on mutual respect. Some States underlined the importance of combating impunity for racist and xenophobic motivated crimes. Nelson Mandela had said ‘True reconciliation did not consist of merely forgetting the past’. One speaker raised concern that the situations of a State emerging from an apartheid regime and one from a bloody conflict were different. There should be an exchange of ideas not a predetermined ideology. Some speakers asked whether the panellists could suggest any best practice legislative or policy measures that, in their experience, could assist in building tolerant and inclusive societies.

Speakers included South Africa, Australia, Bahrain, the European Union, Senegal speaking on behalf of the African Group, the United States, Austria, Sri Lanka, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, Thailand, Ecuador, Algeria and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Also speaking were the World Environment and Resources Council and the International Association for Democracy in Africa.

Speakers said that peace and tolerance formed the core set of values that the United Nations had promoted since its inception because these values underscored respect for diversity, solidarity, dialogue and understanding. In the absence of dialogue and understanding, intolerance, bigotry and violence would flourish. While national authorities should respect the right of freedom of religion or belief, religious communities must also abide by national legislation and reject all forms of intolerance, including the spread of radicalism and extremism. Speakers were concerned at the rise of intolerance and discrimination among neo-Nazi groups and urged that human rights educational measures be spread among the youth to battle xenophobia and racism. As racism often impacted minority populations, States said it was critical to encourage and promote a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue to protect the rights of minorities. Unity was a prerequisite for peace and without peace countries could not develop. Racism and racial discrimination must be uprooted from all societies to promote peace and to build conducive environments for the enjoyment of all human rights. Speakers noted that in countries facing social challenges, it was important to use lessons learned from difficult moments to rebuild relationships and promote reconciliation among various ethnic groups. Speakers asked the panellists about feasible and concrete ways to raise awareness on the importance of tolerance and reconciliation to society which could support the preservation of peace in a country. Speakers also asked the panellists to discuss the role of education in fostering the values of acceptance and reconciliation among the youth and to share best practices in this area.

Nelson Mandela had marked history throughout the world and his path should serve as a model for everyone because of his efforts to bring South Africa toward reconciliation and for dedicating his life to serving humanity by creating a society without racism. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was the foundation for combating racism and intolerance and countries should give priority to the follow-up actions at national levels. Speakers said that the year 2011, due to the various activities around racism, could be considered the year to combat racism in all its forms. National human rights institutions with the responsibility of promoting and protecting human rights should support the virtues of tolerance and forgiveness that could contribute towards reconciliation and were so eminently embodied in Nelson Mandela. Speakers said it was important to create an inclusive learning environment in institutions that were free of racism, discrimination, bullying and violence and in an education system that reflected the diversity of the population. Protecting human rights defenders was critical because their work in shaping laws and policies to prevent inequality and discrimination advanced the human rights agenda and brought universal principles of equality closer to reality. Speakers pointed out that the experience of South Africa could be seen as part of the world heritage of human rights and a model for truth, justice and reconciliation.

India, Azerbaijan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Serbia, Namibia, Indonesia, Canada, Morocco, Norway, and Chile took the floor. The South African Human Rights Commission also spoke.

Concluding Remarks

MAYA SAHLI, Member of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, thanked participants for their contribution to the debate and indicated that reconciliation and tolerance currently posed new challenges. It was important to avoid ideological exploitation of the idea of reconciliation and tolerance; as well as avoid acting on interpretation and information errors concerning practices and processes of tolerance. It was the role of civil societies to encourage the promotion of consultations for the creation of a culture of tolerance and reconciliation on the basis of the acceptance of difference and the procedures for managing reconciliation and tolerance processes; and to prepare minds and hearts for reconciliation and forgiveness. Africa was a continent in which reconciliation should not lose sight of national identity as part of long term sustainability; thus opening themselves to tolerance was necessary, beyond ethnic or ethnocentric clan spirit, and to favour non-discrimination. It was necessary to make of non-discrimination and tolerance the very foundations of reciprocal forgiveness, since it was only through establishing the facts and responsibility that they turned to human rights to confront difference. This had to do with the contemporary crisis of tolerance at the international level. Bringing morality to a legal basis, tolerance appeared as a fundamental part of both identity and human rights, and democracy in general. Tolerance with morals, with politics, and with law was something that had been present in the debate and was relevant. The notion of tolerance that was being referred to here had to constitute a form of reflecting on plurality, and respect for different cultures. This was sometimes ambiguous and inconsistent and the international community set limits on this notion. With this controversial notion, current ideas were diverging from the idea of tolerance. The international community needed to remain seized of the issue of tolerance and national reconciliation and set it as a cornerstone for society.

ABDUL SAMAD MINTY, Ambassador of South Africa, said he was reminded by the Ambassador of Chile that the democratizing process in Chile took place just prior to that in South Africa and they had learned from each other and cooperated. Racism would not die just because they said so. Resolution and words would not by themselves end racism. The lives of Nelson Mandela and Ghandi had shown that racism must be fought daily in every aspect. If you hate racism it did not mean you must hate the person. In South Africa they fought the system not the people. To forgive was an extremely difficult thing to do. In Angola and Mozambique many had worked with people who had tortured them in prison. In order to understand one must go into the depths of these relationships. Countries could not forget and they must never allow such violations to occur again. Forgiveness was critical. It was absolutely critical, it was inclusive. It was often not best managed by those who would exercise power. The smallest groups must be participating if not to be aggrieved later. In South Africa this was done in the spirit of Ubuntu. It was difficult to translate but the basic principle was “I am because you are”. No person was an island and living in isolation. In an age of irrational responses to migrants and refugees, it was important to note that when governments took moves for short term wins with the electorate or certain groups, they could give respectability to racism.

Hieu Van Le AO, Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, in concluding remarks, said education was the foundation for breaking down the barriers of ignorance and fostering the values of tolerance and reconciliation. Education in diversity and racial tolerance should start early, at primary school and continue through all the schooling years. In Australia, there was a requirement for basic cultural and religious diversity education and for children to discuss and understand the different background of their classmates. Schools were encouraged to initiate activities outside of class hours so they could learn more about other cultures, such as celebrating all the cultural and religious events represented by the students at school. Schools were also encouraged to discuss migrants and minorities including their history and journey to Australia, and to be sensitive to religious diversity requirements, such as specific foods. Teachers should also be trained on cultural and religious diversity and understanding.

MAMADOU GNENEMA COULIBALY, Minister of Human Rights and Civil Liberties of Côte d’Ivoire, thanked panellists and participants for their contributions to the discussions. He also thanked the speakers from Australia and Chile for contributing to the efforts of Côte d’Ivoire to promote reconciliation at a national level. A convergence of ideas and positions, from different views expressed, had been observed. The fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination depended on what each State had to do, particularly in the context of States emerging from conflict. Tolerance and forgiveness were fundamental elements of reconciliation and each country should choose for itself its own internal mechanism for reconciliation until it arose. There were of course models which existed around the world and could be followed or serve as inspiration for other models, this was why Côte d’Ivoire did not doubt to find inspiration from Nelson Mandela. The search for truth had to be part of those mechanisms use for reconciliation, it also contributed to restore human dignity undermined by racism. All those present aspired for peace. Only specific action would contribute to bring about such an idea. This was why the annual recognition and commemoration of Nelson Mandela was important. Life should be full of humanism. The respect for human rights and liberties was a condition sine qua none for living together, and this had been the path pursued by Côte d’Ivoire.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC11/132E