HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HEARS ADRESSES BY SPECIAL PROCEDURES ON DURBAN DECLARATION, RACISM, MINORITY ISSUES AND PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT

The Human Rights Council this morning held interactive dialogues with the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Independent Expert on minority issues, and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on people of African descent.

Dayan Jayatilleka, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, said racism was a concern to all peoples and countries as it did not merely manifest itself in isolated expressions of bigotry and contempt within communities and countries. It was the responsibility of every individual to contribute in every way to work towards its eradication. In its most pervasive manifestations, racism invariably and disproportionately affected marginalized or vulnerable groups. The past century had witnessed the most egregious crimes rooted in racism, which included genocide, slavery and apartheid. As racism lay at the root of many conflicts, it posed a threat to international peace and security. The mandate of the Intergovernmental Working Group offered a vital opportunity for States to engage in the struggle against racism and its related ills.

Doudou Diene, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said there was an increase in manifestations of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia which constituted the greatest threat to democracy in contemporary societies. There was also an erosion of the political will to combat racism and xenophobia, as illustrated by the non-application of the Durban Action Plan. The general increase in racist violence and xenophobia was marked by a growing number of acts of physical violence and assassinations targeted at members of ethnic, cultural or religious communities. There was also a rise of political parties founded on xenophobic rhetoric. There was a general increase in the manifestations of religious hatred and intolerance, coupled with the growing ideological and intellectual suspicion of minorities. He discussed his visits to the Baltic States Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia and to the Dominican Republic.

Gay McDougall, Independent Expert in minority issues, presenting her report on her joint mission with Mr. Diene to the Dominican Republic, said the people of Haitian descent living in the Dominican Republic constituted a minority group with rights. However, people of Haitian descent in all categories were now having their presence questioned, regardless of whether they had been issued official documents in the past. The vast majority of people of Haitian heritage in the Dominican Republic had been employed and contributed economically to Dominican society, but, without distinction, they were being subjected to discriminatory practices, extreme vulnerability, unjustified expulsions, denial of their rights and ultimately also denial of legitimate expectations of citizenship.

Peter Kasanda, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on people of African descent, said that the Working Group had been requested by the Durban Review Conference Preparatory Committee to assist it by undertaking review and submitting recommendations. The Working Group had thus decided to do a review and analysis of observations and conclusions that had been adopted in previous sessions. Themes that had been analysed included, amongst others, the administration of justice, racism and the media, access to education, racism and employment, racism and health and racism and housing.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mauritania and the Dominican Republic spoke as concerned countries.

In the interactive dialogue, many delegations expressed national commitments to fight racism and intolerance. Some speakers noted the grave concern expressed by the Special Rapporteur on racism that the most serious manifestation of defamation of religions was the increase in Islamophobia. It was noted that new forms of Anti-Semitism were being perpetuated around the world. One speaker said the freedom from defamation of religion should be consistently promoted through inter-religious and intercultural dialogue. India said the caste system was unique to India, but it was not racial in origin, and therefore it could not be considered a form of racial discrimination. Nepal said that the caste system was based on divisions of labour and that it was not a form of racism. France said the DNA test referred to by Mr. Diene was voluntary and was used only to speed up the process for the immigration of family members. The Russian Federation said Mr. Diene’s reading of history vis-à-vis the Baltic States was problematic and high distressing, and that tens of thousands of non-citizens were living there in conditions of perpetual discrimination and intolerance. New forms of manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance were highlighted.
On the contemporary situation of racism and xenophobia, some delegations noted that there was a visible lack of political will to deal with racist practices and on the other hand, there was a noticeable rise in politically motivated racist parties, with xenophobic platforms.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Israel, Indonesia, Italy, France, India, Brazil, the Russian Federation, China, Haiti, Djibouti, Nepal, the Republic of Korea, Bangladesh, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Algeria, Cameroon, Chile, Uruguay, Morocco and Palestine on behalf of the Arab Group. The Holy See also addressed the Council.

The following non-governmental organizations also spoke during the meeting: National Human Rights Institute of India, Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l'Homme de France, Baha’i International Community, Action Internationale pour la Paix et le Developpement dans la Region des Grands Lacs, Association of World Citizens, International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, European Union of Jewish Students, World Jewish congress, B'nai B'rith International, speaking on behalf of Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations and United Nations Watch.

The Council today is holding three back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. When it starts its midday meeting at noon, it will hear a presentation of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards before starting its review, rationalization and improvement process with regards the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. It will then hold interactive dialogues with the Special Procedures related to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cambodia and Somalia.

Documents

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diene (A/HRC/7/19 and Add.1-5), which says efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are encountering a number of serious major challenges manifested by the following worrying trends: erosion of the political will to combat racism and xenophobia, as shown by the non-implementation of the Durban Programme of Action; the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence; the growing political trivialization of racism and xenophobia, demonstrated by the spread of racist and xenophobic political platforms; the ideological, scientific and intellectual legitimization of racist and xenophobic discourse and rhetoric, which favours an ethnic or racial interpretation of social, economic and political problems and immigration; the general increase in manifestations of racial and religious hatred, and also religious intolerance, reflected in particular in manifestations of anti-Semitism and Christianophobia and, more especially, Islamophobia; and the increasing importance in identity constructs of a rejection of diversity and resistance to the process of multiculturalization of societies. The Special Rapporteur devotes a chapter to discrimination based on caste, which he considers to be implicit in his mandate. To reverse these worrying trends, a dual strategy should be developed: political and legal, aiming to arouse and strengthen the political will of Governments to combat racism and xenophobia and enabling States to acquire the legal and administrative instruments for this purpose; and cultural, intellectual and ethical, targeting the root causes of those trends, in particular the value systems which legitimize them, the identity constructs which support them, and the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism which sustains them.

Addendum one is a summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, which accounts for the communications sent to Governments by the Special Rapporteur between 1 May 2007 and 31 December 2007, and summaries of replies received from Governments during the same period, as well as observations of the Special Rapporteur where considered appropriate.

Addendum two, the report of the Special Rapporteur's mission to Estonia, concludes that the Estonian authorities have shown political will to tackle the problems related to racism and racial discrimination, but that this needs to be constantly reinforced and transformed into concrete actions. There are also a number of areas of concern, primarily concerning three distinct communities: the Russian-speaking minority; the Roma community and non-European migrants. The main concerns of the Russian-speaking community are directly related to statelessness and the country’s language policy, which is seen as an attempt to suppress the usage of Russian. The small Roma community in Estonia suffers mostly from structural discrimination, precarious education and marginalization. Lastly, non-European minorities have experienced a surge in racist violence, particularly by extremist groups and intolerance by some individuals. Among recommendations are that the Government should develop best practices and general guidelines for the prosecution of cases of incitement to racial hatred and racially motivated crimes, and that the language policy in Estonia should be subject to an open and inclusive debate, in close consultation with ethnic minorities.

In addendum three, the report of his mission to Latvia, the Special Rapporteur concludes that Latvia has put in place legislation and a number of institutions aimed at tackling racism and discrimination, but that further steps are needed to complement these achievements with more holistic and global legislation. Important areas of concern include three vulnerable groups and communities: ethnic Russians who immigrated to Latvia during the Soviet occupation, many of whom have yet to acquire Latvian citizenship; the Roma community, which suffers from cultural stigma and socio-economic discrimination and live under marginalized conditions; and non-European migrants, who have been subject to racist violence and hate speech, particularly in the electronic media, mostly from extremist and neo-Nazi groups. Contrary to traditional minorities, which have been present in the country for decades or centuries, the latter group of new migrants pose new identity tensions that need to be overcome by the promotion of a democratic, equal and interactive multiculturalism. Among recommendations are that the Government should revisit existing requirements for naturalization and that the Government and civil society should adopt an ethical and cultural strategy that addresses the deepest roots of racism, xenophobia and intolerance and is built around the promotion of reciprocal knowledge of cultures and values.

Addendum four is the report of the Special Rapporteur on his mission to Lithuania, where he concludes that there is a solid legal and institutional framework in place to tackle racism and discrimination, but that further steps need to be taken to ensure the full and complete application of existing legislation. Areas of concern included historical minorities like people of Russian descent and some vulnerable groups, notably Romas and non-European new migrants. Profound discrimination is faced by the Roma community, particularly in the fields of employment, education and housing. Non-European minorities have also faced growing problems in terms of racist violence as well as hate speech. Among recommendations are that the Government promote a profound process of multiculturalism based on the recognition and respect for the cultural and religious diversity of its different communities, old and recent, and the strengthening of the unity of the nation, in which the writing and teaching of history based on this logic should play a key role; and that the Criminal Code should be amended to introduce a provision that makes committing an offence with a racist motivation or aim an aggravating circumstance allowing for a more severe punishment.

In addendum five, the joint report by the Special Rapporteur and the Independent Expert on minority issues on their mission to the Dominican Republic, the experts found that there is a profound and entrenched problem of racism and discrimination in Dominican society, generally affecting blacks and particularly such groups as black Dominicans, Dominicans of Haitian descent and Haitians. The issue of racism is almost invisible in certain parts of Dominican society, and in particular among elites who vehemently deny the possibility of the existence of such a phenomenon. However, the factors of race and skin colour profoundly pervade Dominican society and racial prejudice is an important dimension of anti-Haitianism. Among recommendations are that the current Migration Law must be revised as a matter of urgency to conform to the jus soli provisions of the Constitution and the rights of all persons of Haitian descent must be respected. Another vital step is the recognition of the reality of racism and discrimination and the expression of a strong political will at the highest level, as well as the establishment of a national plan of action against racism, in consultation with, and inclusive of, all groups within Dominican society.

Addendum six, a preliminary note on the Special Rapporteur's mission to Mauritania. [Currently available in French only.]

The Council has before it the note verbale dated 13 March 2008 from the Permanent Mission of the Dominican Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. [Available in Spanish only.]

The Council has before it the report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent on its seventh session (Geneva, 14 January-18 January 2008), Chairperson-Rapporteur: Mr. Peter Lesa Kasanda (A/HRC/7/36), in which, after reviewing its prior recommendations, the Working Group made new recommendations as part of its contribution to the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference. Recommendations are made in the areas of national action plans, national monitoring bodies, racial profiling, development of a racial equality index, and reparations. The Working Group also recommends that the United Nations create a fellowship programme for people of African descent, and that a fund be created to facilitate the participation of civil society organizations that represent people of African descent and non-governmental organizations in all meetings and activities of the Working Group.

Presentations by Special Procedures on Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, Racism and Racial Discrimination, Minority Issues and African Descent

DAYAN JAYATILLEKA, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, said racism was a concern to all peoples and countries as it did not merely manifest itself in isolated expressions of bigotry and contempt within communities and countries. It was the responsibility of every individual to contribute in every way to work towards its eradication. In its most pervasive manifestations, racism invariably and disproportionately affected marginalized or vulnerable groups. The past century had witnessed the most egregious crimes rooted in racism, which included genocide, slavery and apartheid. As racism lay at the root of many conflicts, it posed a threat to international peace and security.

The mandate of the Intergovernmental Working Group offered a vital opportunity for States to engage in the struggle against racism and its related ills, Mr. Jayatilleka said. It was noted that at the first part of the sixth session of the Working Group from 21 January to 1 February 2008, the Group had adopted its agenda. Following a series of informal consultations with regional groups and individual delegations towards preparations of a draft programme of work, the Working Group resumed in session on 28 January. The meeting of 30 January marked the beginning of the substantive work of the Working Group. Consistent with its agenda and programme of work, the Working Group proceeded to examine item 3 entitled “Overview of recommendations as part of contribution to the Durban Review Conference”. Human Rights Council resolution 3/2 requested the Working Group and other mechanisms to “assist the Preparatory Committee by undertaking review and submitting recommendations, through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as contributions to the outcome of the Review Conference.

On this basis, the discussion was opened on the review of previous recommendations starting with the recommendations adopted at the first session of the Working Group in 2003 through the ones adopted at its fifth session in 2007. The recommendations and conclusions were either updated, deleted or italicized to indicate their non-relevance. The Working Group decided that references to complementary international standards would be removed from the final document of conclusions and recommendations as the Working Group’s mandate to prepare complementary standards concluded at its fifth session in accordance with Human Rights Council decision 3/103. The first part of the sixth session saw the adoption of the narrative part of the report on the future work of the Working Group. The second part of the sixth session would be held later this year. The report of the sixth session of the Working Group would be submitted to the Council after conclusion of the second part of the sixth session of the Working Group.

DOUDOU DIENE, Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, said that he wished to draw the Council’s attention to the central observations developed in his general report. These observations indicated that there was an increase in manifestations of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and that they constituted the greatest threat to democracy in contemporary societies. In this respect, he described the erosion of the political will to combat racism and xenophobia, illustrated by the non-application of the Durban Action Plan.

Mr. Diene also spoke of a general increase in racist violence and xenophobia, marked by a growing number of acts of physical violence and assassinations targeted at members of ethnic, cultural or religious communities. There was also a rise of political parties founded on xenophobic rhetoric. Another source of concern was the legitimization of ideological, scientific and intellectual rhetoric supporting racism and xenophobia. This point was compounded by the non-entry of Africans in the history of the Dakar discourse and their intellectual inferiority resuscitated by a Nobel Prize in medicine. Moreover, the criminalization and severe treatment of persons seeking immigration and asylum was also a source of increased racism.

There was also a general increase in the manifestations of religious hatred and intolerance, coupled with the growing ideological and intellectual suspicion of minorities. In addition, Mr. Diene said that many countries were beginning to monitor and control the practice of religion, particularly Islam. A strong response from the international community was urgently needed. There was a need for greater political will to refuse and resist the spread of racist political parties, based on xenophobic platforms. There was also a need for a renewed commitment to the Durban Action Plan and a strengthening of democratic institutions. Finally, the international community had an obligation to promote the respect for religious and racial freedom and to increase legal vigilance to ensure the respect for freedom of expression and to tackle acts of racial and religious hatred. The lack of political determination to deal with these issues urgently could have disastrous long-term effects. In a world increasingly marked by tension between people and ideas and an increase in prejudice and discrimination, it was not just civilization that was at stake.

Mr. Diene discussed his visit to the Baltic States. One of the motivations for his visit was that he wanted to observe how these three countries, which had not yet experienced waves of migration like in other parts of Southern Europe, were prepared for the inevitable immigration from non-European counties. In Lithuania, he suggested that the Government make racist attacks a punishable crime. The Roma community in Lithuania, like elsewhere in Europe, were frequent victims of discrimination, especially with regards to education and housing. In Latvia, there was a sound multicultural foundation and in some sense, a greater will to address problems of racial discrimination. However, he recommended an overhaul of the Government’s linguistic policy to accommodate Russian minorities. In Estonia, the Special Rapporteur recommended that the Government adopt holistic legislation covering all forms of discrimination, as well as the establishment of an independent institution mandated to combat all forms of discrimination and to promote multiculturalism, the only long-term solution for the elimination of racism and xenophobia. In view of Estonia's complex history, efforts were needed to reduce the gap in historical and political perceptions between the Estonian and Russian-speaking communities. The Russian-speaking community, which contained a large number of stateless persons, was particularly affected by issues relating to citizenship and the country’s language policy.

In the Dominican Republic, Mr. Diene witnessed deep-seated racism and intolerance. This was promulgated by the authorities but also by the nation’s aristocracy. This racist and xenophobic heritage had been deeply buried in the cultural conscience of that country. In the 20 countries that he had visited, he had never witnessed such a violent campaign to oppose his visit. The Government needed to acknowledge the depth of its racist intolerance and until that occurred, it could not move towards assimilation, tolerance and healing some of the country’s old wounds.

GAY McDOUGALL, Independent Expert in minority issues, presenting her report on her visit to the Dominican Republic, recalled that she visited the country from 23 to 29 October 2007 with Doudou Diene, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The people of Haitian descent living in the Dominican Republic constituted a minority group with rights, as elaborated in the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Included in that community were people of Haitian descent who had lived in the Dominican Republic for decades, as well as second and third generations born in the Dominican Republic when it was widely understood that the jus soli provision of the Dominican Constitution granted them citizenship. However, people of Haitian descent in all categories were now having their presence questioned, regardless of whether they had been issued official documents in the past. Babies born in the Dominican Republic were being denied Dominican birth certificates. The vast majority of people of Haitian heritage in the Dominican Republic had been employed and contributed economically to Dominican society, but, without distinction, they were being subjected to discriminatory practices, extreme vulnerability, unjustified expulsions, denial of their rights and ultimately also denial of legitimate expectations of citizenship.

While there was no legislation that was on the face of it clearly discriminatory, certain laws had a discriminatory impact, particularly those relating to migration, civil status and the grating of Dominican citizenship to persons of Haitian heritage born in the Dominican Republic, she added. Measures had been taken by the Government and implemented by the Central Electoral Board, including via the establishment of a separate birth registration regime for newborns of Haitian descent, onerous requirements for late registration of births, or denial or revocation of identity documents belonging to the Dominican Republic, constituted acts which denied constitutionally granted citizenship to persons belonging to this minority group. Dominicans of Haitian descent lived and worked in fear and conditions of vulnerability, extreme poverty and super-exploitation of their labor. One of the key recommendations in the report was that the current Migration Law must be revised as a mater of urgency to conform to the jus soli provisions of the Constitution and the rights of all persons of Haitian descent must be respected.

PETER KASANDA, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on People of African Descent, presenting the report of the Working Group, said that the Working Group had been requested by the Durban Review Conference Preparatory Committee to assist it by undertaking review and submitting recommendations. The Working Group had thus decided to do a review and analysis of observations and conclusions that had been adopted in previous sessions. Themes that had been analysed included, amongst others, the administration of justice, racism and the media, access to education, racism and employment, racism and health and racism and housing. Regarding the administration of justice, the fact that people of African descent were amongst the most vulnerable and discriminated groups was highlighted. Specific legal mechanisms were needed to protect their rights in all areas of the justice system. The necessity of a racial equality index had been raised. On racism and the media, the role of the media in shaping public opinion and attitudes should not be underestimated. The images of Africa in the western media were images of misrepresentation. A voluntary code of conduct should be developed within the media. Access to education was seen to affect the people of African descent’s enjoyment of many other rights. A majority of school curricula failed to teach the history of slavery and the important contribution to world history by people of African descent.

Mr. Kasanda also noted that the theme of racism and housing was one of great importance. The enjoyment of many other rights was linked to the enjoyment of adequate housing. The participation of people of African descent in political, economic, social and cultural aspects of society had also been addressed. The question of remedies for victims of racism, including reparations was important. The Working Group had also noted the multiple discrimination often faced by women of African descent. The theme of racial profiling had also been revisited; many negative effects stemmed from this practice.

Statements by Concerned Countries

MARGUS KOLGA (Estonia), speaking as a concerned country, said that Estonia was especially glad that Mr. Diene was the first representative of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council to visit the county after it issued a standing invitation in 2001. All high representatives of the State powers of Estonia had meetings with his Mr. Diene and his delegation, including the Prime Minister of Estonia. The Government concurred with the Special Rapporteur that the fight against racism and different forms of discrimination should be a constant commitment. In the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, special attention was paid to a holistic approach covering all forms of discrimination in one legal act. In this regard, the new draft Equality Act that had just been presented to parliament for adoption. The aim of this Act was to better protect persons from discrimination and to promote the principle of equal treatment.

Estonia also wished to mention that a new Strategy for Integration of Society had been drafted in close cooperation with civil society and relevant experts. Integration was seen as a process concerning the whole society and all Estonian residents. This new strategy also paid more attention to new immigrants. With regards to concerns on naturalization procedures, there had been more than a threefold reduction of the number of people with undetermined citizenship over the last 15 years. Several legislative changes had also been made to make the acquisition of Estonian citizenship easier, especially for children and disabled persons. All children born in Estonia to parents who did not hold citizenship of any country could obtain Estonian citizenship. Finally, the Government assured Mr. Diene that it would analyze very carefully the recommendations made in the report and would do its utmost to combat all forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia.

JANIS MAZEIKS (Latvia), speaking as a concerned country, said that during the visit of the Special Rapporteur on racism in September 2007, he met with various State officials, including the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and with various representatives of civil society. Latvian authorities highly valued the fact that in order to understand inter-ethnic relations today, the Special Rapporteur had analyzed them in the context of Latvia’s historical heritage. Latvia shared the Special Rapporteur’s view that Latvia had put in place institutions and legislation that addressed racism and discrimination, as well as set up effective remedies to examine alleged cases of racism and discrimination and to provide redress to victims thereof. The Government of Latvia was strongly committed to fighting any manifestations of racism and discrimination in Latvian society. Latvia shared the view of the Special Rapporteur that it was especially important to firmly condemn any racist or xenophobic behaviour.

A number of initiatives had been launched both by governmental and non-governmental institutions, such as training of judges on various legal provisions prohibiting discrimination to raise the level of awareness concerning the issues of racial discrimination. As to cases of hate speech referred to in the report, it was mentioned that the Riga Regional Court found the person in question guilty of inciting ethnic hatred and sentenced him to 1.5 years of deprivation of liberty. With regard to the Roma community, the Government of Latvia continued to pay particular attention to the problems and needs of the Roma community and the National Action Plan “Roma in Latvia 2007-2009, contained specific measures for the inclusion of Roma. The Action Plan aimed at tackling unemployment and issues concerning access to education for Roma, as well as at combating racism and racial discrimination. The Action Plan was adopted in close cooperation with Roma representatives, he added.

DARIUS STANIULIS (Lithuania), speaking as a concerned country, said that the abolition of racial discrimination had long become an international standard and it was the duty of all States to take concrete steps to fight it. The Special Rapporteur had been the first of the Special Procedures mandate holders to visit the country. A sense of cooperation had persisted before, during and after the visit. The Special Rapporteur was thanked for his recommendations; they were all taken into consideration very seriously. He had recommended that Lithuania amend the criminal code and that it include racist motives into the list of aggravating circumstances. The amendment had already been prepared and was before the Parliament. The Special Rapporteur had also indicated the need to extend and reinforce Roma integration; a specific programme was being prepared in this regard by the Government. Also, the national civil society was becoming more and more active. The visit of the Special Rapporteur had been a useful tool.

MOUNINA MINT ABDELLAH (Mauritania), speaking as a concerned country, said that Mauritania had examined with interest the initial report provided by Doudou Diene, the Special Rapporteur on racism and racial intolerance. Mauritania noted with satisfaction the positive conclusions made by Mr. Diene. The Government supported the claim made by the Special Rapporteur that Mauritania was free from State racism. This affirmation was translated by the obvious will to promote equality and justice for all, in the full respect for human rights.

The tradition, culture and modern evolution of Mauritania were marked by its openness to cultural influences. The practice of racial discrimination had never taken place even if tensions had existed at certain times. Intercommunity tensions were the result of differences of opinion but not ethnic hatred. Slavery had been outlawed in Mauritania since independence and no longer existed in that country. Moreover, there was no linguistic policy, which often gave rise to antagonisms and polarization within societies. Given that it was both an Arab and African country, Arabic was the country’s official language but Mauritania respected other local dialects. There was political equality and government jobs were also available to all citizens. Finally, the Government expressed its commitment to implement the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations and said that it would provide Mr. Diene with additional information, as requested, so that his final report could be as exhaustive and complete as possible.

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ BONA (Dominican Republic), speaking as a concerned country, highlighting the importance of the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures, said the Dominican Republic considered the goals of the Code were undermined when there was a frequent imbalance in which the Special Procedures’ work was conducted and the possibility of the State parties to participate in this work. The Government of the Dominican Republic has undertaken important efforts in response to the comments and recommendations of the Special Procedures given its limitations as a developing country. Moreover, the Dominican Republic had taken pertinent measures so that similar situations were corrected and not repeated in future. The Dominican Republic welcomed the recognition in the report that in the Dominican Republic there was no racism per Government policy. Nevertheless the report contained imprecisions and inaccuracies which suggested there was a Dominican prejudice, which the Dominican Republic did not agree with.

All boys and girls born in the country were given the right to a name and citizenship. In the case of Haitian children born in the Dominican Republic whose parents were not Dominican, statelessness did not take place and programmes had been implemented to expedite documentation for those without papers. It was highlighted that in the sugar plantations both Dominicans and Haitian worked under equal conditions. Haitian immigrants and their descendants also sent back some $ 300 million to their relatives. Farm workers received health care and education free of charge. The State provided medical services in the last two years amounting to $ 30.4 million. Moreover, schooling for all minors, Dominican or not, was compulsory. It should be recognized that the Dominican Republic could not alone shoulder the problems of its sister nation, Haiti, without the support of the international community.

Interactive Dialogue

ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the fight against racism and intolerance was faced with major challenges. The European Union was fully committed to this fight. The Special Rapporteur had mentioned a challenge when talking about freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The Special Rapporteur was asked to shed more light on the international seminar he planned on this topic. The participation of the members of the Human Rights Committee should be considered. The Special Rapporteur had also invited the Council to encourage Member States to adopt national legislation against racism. How could the Council be a catalyst in this regard? The Special Rapporteur’s recent press release on the gravity of events in Kenya was welcomed. This was a good example of early warning for the Council’s mechanisms.

YURY GALA (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that at the fourteenth Summit Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their condemnation of all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including the platforms and activities related thereto. The Non-Aligned Movement reminded the international community that slavery, slave trade, colonialism, foreign occupation, alien domination, genocide and other forms of servitude had manifested themselves in poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion and economic disparities for the developing world.

The Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement had expressed dismay at instances of religious and cultural prejudices, misunderstanding, intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. Pluralism, tolerance and understanding of religious and cultural diversity were essential for peace and harmony. Respect for democracy and human rights and the promotion of understanding and tolerance were central to the promotion and protection of human rights. The Non-Aligned Movement expressed its full support to all mechanisms established under agenda item 9 of the Council, including Mr. Doudou Diene, who had accomplished excellent work in the fulfilment of his mandate. Lastly, it also expressed its support to the fair request of the Dominican Republic that States be granted enough time to elaborate their responses to draft reports prepared on the results of country visits by Special Procedures mandate-holders.

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC noted with grave concern the assessment of the Special Rapporteur on racism that the most serious manifestation of defamation of religions was the increase in Islamophobia and the worsening of the situation of Muslim minorities around the world. The OIC believed that association of terrorism and violence with Islam or any religion including through publication of offensive caricatures and making of hate documentaries would purposely complicate common endeavours to address several contemporary issues including the fight against terrorism and occupation of foreign territories and peoples. The efforts of the OIC States to eradicate the scourge of terrorism were well known. The OIC strongly felt that that the international community must address the root causes of terrorism, such as the situations of grave injustices and repression affecting Muslims, and conditions of poverty and lack of opportunity, which bred extremism and terrorism. The OIC also condemned all forms of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, racism and racial discrimination. It was the view of the OIC that there was a need to fill the juridical vacuum in addressing the issue of religious intolerance. The OIC reiterated its suggestion that the Council, in conjunction with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, should take a lead and start consultations to examine the possibility of drafting a convention to combat defamation of religions and to promote religious tolerance.

On the report of the Working Group on people of African descent, the OIC was of the view that the Durban Declaration expressed solidarity with the people of Africa in their continuing struggle against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The report of the Working Group was a valuable contribution to the preparatory committee for the Durban Review Conference. The OIC supported the recommendations of the Working Group regarding the submission of national plans of action to combat racism for review in the Durban Review Conference to be held next year. In particular, the Working Group’s proposal to combat racial discrimination against people of African descent by elaborating internationally recognized media standards to eliminate the projections and perpetuation of negative images and stereotyping of Africa and the people of African descent required serious consideration.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said that Israel had been a long-time supporter of the mandate on racism. It was hoped that the next mandate holder would follow in the steps of Mr. Diene. Israel was pleased to see that the Special Rapporteur had devoted a section on anti-Semitism. New forms of anti-Semitism were being perpetuated around the world; it was more than alive. The Special Rapporteur had courageously recognised the Iranian President’s relentless anti-Israel rhetoric. His often repeated statement could not be justified as “scientific questioning”. It had to be understood as historical revisionism. The mandate was fully supported.

BENNY YAN PIETER SIAHAAN (Indonesia) said that Indonesia concurred with the Special Rapporteur’s observation in the report that Islam was still being stereotypically associated with violence and terrorism. In response, the Government was of the view that freedom from defamation of religion should be consistently promoted through inter-religious and intercultural dialogue. Furthermore, Indonesia also supported Mr. Diene’s assertion that the equal treatment of all forms of discrimination was the key to effectively combating all forms of discrimination and intolerance. There were a few concerns regarding the Special Rapporteur’s use of the term freedom of expression, which meant different things in different countries. In one final question, would the Special Rapporteur not agree that multiculturalism, as defined by him, was a social construct which was perhaps difficult to attain because it questioned national identity?

SILVANO TOMASI (Holy See) said the Holy See was of the view that the continued involvement of the Human Rights Council with the problem of racism was timely and necessary. No corner of the world was free of racism. States could not be based exclusively on national identity. The main function of the State was to serve all people on its territory. All should acknowledge differences and search for practical solutions to end difficulties. It was better to focus on the defense and promotion of human rights. Religious intolerance had surfaced again as an issue which should be addressed in the interest of the universality of human rights. Racism and intolerance should be combated through education and the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

NICOLETTA PICCIRILLO (Italy) reiterated Italy’s commitment to the fight against racism. The Special Rapporteur had made reference to intellectual and political resistance to multiculturalism. Which concrete measures could be taken to promote a process to promote the increasing dominant idea of integration-assimilation of all potential victims of discrimination? Also, what was the Special Rapporteur envisioning in the area of cooperation with regional organizations?

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said that France had been engaged for a long time in combating instances of racism, which alas were still scattered within its society. France wanted to correct some erroneous interpretations. While Mr. Diene made reference to the speech made by the President of the Republic in Dakar on 26 July 2007, he only included a very short passage that removed it from its context. If the Special Rapporteur were to reread the speech, he would notice that the President qualified colonialism as a “big mistake”. Moreover, France noted that the DNA test referred to in Mr. Diene’s report was voluntary and was used only to speed up the process for the immigration of family members. This practice in no way undermined the welcoming of immigrants to France. He reminded the Council that France was a secular country and contrary to Mr. Diene’s suggestion, there was no agent of approval to places of worship. However, the private Muslim university which he referred to was not religious in nature but focussed on historical and legal teachings. Freedom of religion and conviction were of vital importance to French society and France reiterated its commitment to preserve and promote racial tolerance and criminalize all acts of violent racism.

RAJIV KUMAR CHANDER (India) noting that the Special Rapporteur on racism had referred to the caste system in his report, said India rejected his suggestion that discrimination on the grounds of caste was one of the contemporary manifestations of racism. India was of the view that the caste system, which was unique to India, was not racial in origin, and therefore, caste-based discrimination could not be considered as a form of racial discrimination. It was recalled that the term “descent” in Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination pertained to racial descent only. Detailed references were made by India to the travaux preparatoire of 1965 during the seventieth session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which clearly established that racial discrimination based on descent was considered only in the context of discrimination based on national or ethnic origin. India believed that the references to the caste system by the Special Rapporteur were not relevant to the Agenda Item under discussion which was on the issue of racism.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that Brazil had decided to hold a regional conference on racism in the Americas in June. It was the first regional conference in preparation of the Durban Review Conference. Brazil hoped that all Governments from the Americas would participate in the conference. Brazil counted upon the financial support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. As an essential part of the conference, Brazil was preparing a meeting with representatives of civil society in the region. Six hundred organizations were planning to participate and this was very significant. The help of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was crucial; without it members of civil society would face difficulties in participating. In the region, diversity was an essential feature and it was very important to have the different views from as many countries of the region as possible in order to have a successful conference.

SERGEY KONDRATIEF (Russian Federation) regretted to note that the Special Rapporteur’s reports arrived late and did not give delegations the time to read through them thoroughly. This haste also had an impact on their quality. The Government expressed its dissatisfaction at Mr. Diene’s reports on his visits to the Baltic States. His reading of history was problematic and it was highly distressing that the Special Rapporteur had such a distorted view of history in the region. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other international agencies, there was a serious problem of migration and integration in the Baltic States. Tens of thousands of non-citizens were living in conditions of perpetual discrimination and intolerance. In just a few months, Mr. Diene would arrive at the end of his mandate and Russia hoped that his successor would be more impartial and would be disinclined to make hasty decisions on sensitive historical and political missions.

KE YOUSHENG (China) recalled that 21 March this year marked the forty-second anniversary of the International Day on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. For more than four decades, the African countries and people had fought relentlessly against racial discrimination and it was only after having made huge sacrifices that they had finally won their freedom and equality. Today, after more than 40 years of efforts, the phenomena of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, Islamaphobia and related intolerance were still to be mitigated, while racism, in its new forms of manifestation was rearing its ugly head. This had rendered the task of eliminating racism even more daunting. The Human Rights Council was duty-bound to fight against racism. At this critical juncture, it was highly important that the Council took in all seriousness the item of racism, facilitate international efforts to combat racism, advocate the harmonious coexistence of different civilizations and religions, protect the rights of migrant workers, and urge countries concerned to show the necessary political will and take practical and effective measures to tackle racism in a comprehensive approach. The Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should provide adequate financial and human resources to the Working Groups on the Durban Review and on African Descent and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary International Standards, and other mechanisms, in the hope that they could play a more significant role in the fight against racism.

JEAN-CLAUDE PIERRE (Haiti) said that Haiti would respond to the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, as soon as the authorities in Port-au-Prince would get the full report. Ms. McDougall was also thanked for her report. Both reports had helped to shed light on the discriminatory policy practiced by the Dominican Republic on its Haitian residents. In most of Latin America jus sole, the attribution of nationality through the country of birth was prevalent. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulated that every individual had the right to a nationality. The Dominican Republic was denying the Haitian nationality to children residing in the Dominican Republic. Both nations should live together in harmony and should listen to each other.

MOHAMED-SIAD DOUALEH (Djibouti) thanked the Special Rapporteur for providing greater information and a penetrating analysis on the contemporary situation of racism and xenophobia. More lucidity and responsibility were required to deal with these issues. On the one hand, there was a visible lack of political will to deal with racist practices and on the other hand, there was a noticeable rise in politically motivated racist parties, with xenophobic platforms. The talk of multiculturalism was, for the moment, resigned to slogans and was not accompanied by real political will. Political and legal efforts needed to be made by all Governments to ensure tolerance and equality. The Government of Djibouti also expressed its grave concern at the absence of the Special Rapporteur’s follow up and the lack of political determination to address racial discrimination and intolerance. This was an issue that required urgent attention before it spiralled out of control.

BAHRAT RAJ PAUDYAL (Nepal) said Nepal considered racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia as a scar that every society must eliminate. However, Nepal differed with the Special Rapporteur's view that caste based systems were forms of racism. There was no foundation or evidence that the caste system had anything to do with racial discrimination. The caste system was based on divisions of labor. It was the view of Nepal that caste systems deserved remedies such as community development, whereas racial discrimination had much wider ramifications. It was the view of Nepal that caste based systems did not have relevance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea was fully committed to the fight against racism and was totally engaged in the Durban Programme of Action; such common approaches were necessary. The Durban Declaration was the cornerstone of the global fight against racial discrimination. Despite the efforts, an alarming expansion of xenophobia was being witnessed. Cyberspace was becoming a breeding ground for hatred. On the freedom of religion, it was believed that international human rights law should protect individuals. But it was important to remember that freedom of religion also meant to respect the religions of others.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that Mr. Diene alluded to an alarming trend of racism and intolerance. Ideologically accepted racism, particularly with regards to national immigration policies, needed to be combated. Muslims had been unfairly targeted in many instances, including in the publication of religiously charged caricatures that were still condoned in certain countries. The Council needed to wage a hard campaign against racism and States should implement national legislative measures in line with the Durban Action Plan. Like the Special Rapporteur, Bangladesh had high hopes for the Durban Action Plan and urged all States to work towards its application and implementation.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, noted that the report of the Special Rapporteur rightly highlighted the deepening and increase of the various forms and manifestations of contemporary forms of racism and their constructs, in an extremely and unfavorable global context. The Special Rapporteur had cited the erosion of political will as the single most potent danger to combating racism. This stark reminder, mentioned in his last report, could not have been timelier. The prevalence of racism was by far the largest threat to peace and stability within and among nations, but the political trivialization of racism was ripe in some parts of the world. Certainly, racism and democracy did not go hand in hand, and those who knew history and that history repeated itself knew too well the price of the intellectual and scientific legitimization of racism.

As noted by the Special Rapporteur, political and legal strategies, as well as intellectual and ethnical approaches, were necessary for the fight against racism, and could only complement and reinforce each other, the African Group added. Moreover, the report again emphasized the alarming increase in instances of incitement to racial and religious hatred, and stressed the dangers associated with the practice of defamation of religions, amidst continuing denial and refusal by some States to comply with their international obligations and make such acts punishable by law. The African Group fully endorsed the Special Rapporteur’s proposal to convene an international seminar addressing this subject. The African Group also welcomed the report by the Working Group on African Descent and fully endorsed the recommendations therein to the Durban Review Process. Moreover, the recommendations pertaining to the criminalization of racial profiling, combating racism in the media, among others, should be pursued with vigour.

MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria) said that Algeria endorsed the recommendations in both reports of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism. Algeria was profoundly concerned over the fact that nobody was in a hurry to implement the Durban recommendations. The resurgence of racism was also worrying. Attacks targeting social groups sharing a common religion and the amplification of Islamophobia and Chrisitianophobia were seen as alarming. An end should be put to these practices. The Council had to wage a war on the areas recommended by the Special Rapporteur. The conviction of the Special Rapporteur that the Durban Programme of Action was to date the best answer to these phenomena was shared. The international community should seize this opportunity.

FRANCIS NGANTCHA (Cameroon) said that Cameroon was concerned that there was a regression of the combat against discrimination and a revival of racist acts. The struggle against racism and discrimination was a fight for peace, international security and the respect for cultural diversity. As a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Cameroon was a multi-ethnic country where more than 230 ethnicities co-existed peacefully. There were several religious groups, including Christians, Muslims, and Animists, living in the country. This multi-ethnic makeup of the country was not a source of tension but on the contrary was the source of mutual enrichment. The Government welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation for an egalitarian, democratic and interactive multiculturalism. It also denounced the decline of the combat against racism and urged countries to effectively engage in ensuring the implementation of the Durban Action Plan.

EDUARDO CHIHUALIAF (Chile) referring to the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, in particular to paragraph 60, noted that the Special Rapporteur mentioned that "Christianophobia is spreading in a disturbing manner, driven by the twin forces of: (a) the association of Christianity with the West, resulting from their historical closeness during the era of European colonization and current political and intellectual rhetoric about the Christian identity of Europe, and notably opposition to Turkey’s admission to the EU; and (b) the proselytism of certain evangelical movements, particularly in South America, Africa and Asia." In this regard, the Special Rapporteur was asked specifically what he meant by “proselytism” and whether it dealt with Christianophobia.

ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO RODRIGUEZ (Uruguay) said that fighting racism was an absolute priority for Uruguay and today’s dialogue was very instructive. On the Dominican Republic, Uruguay endorsed the complaints lodged by them this morning. The deadline before making the report public had not been respected. It was hoped that next time due respect would be given to the Code of Conduct.

OMAR KADIRI (Morocco) said that Morocco endorsed the statements made by the Non-Aligned Movement and the one forthcoming by Arab Group. Unfortunately, the Special Rapporteur’s report outlined the resurgence of racism and racial hatred throughout the world. Morocco welcomed Mr. Diene’s recommendations, many of which echoed the calls made by the Moroccan delegation. The Human Rights Council needed to be resolute in its approach to racism and intolerance. Freedom of expression and freedom of opinion were important but should not be used to justify the incitement of racial hatred. Moreover, all acts of Islamic hatred should be condemned explicitly by Governments.

IMAD ZUHAIRI (Palestine), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the Arab Group expressed its concern over the inability of the international community to deal effectively with cases of racism against Arab immigrants and their effective participation in societies. The Arab Group found that Israel was still developing new forms of racist discrimination against Arab citizens in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, despite United Nations resolutions and the Advisory Opinion of the International Criminal Court. However, the Israeli Government had chosen to ignore international opinion by continuing to build its separation wall. Arab citizens had been deprived of their right to Arab identity by having Israeli documentation imposed on them. The Arab Group supported the Durban Review Conference as an opportunity for it to express its concern with regard to racism.

ARUNA SHARMA, of National Human Rights Institute of India, said that, on the discrimination on the ground of caste, the Constitution of India had flagged the issue of discrimination on the grounds of caste. For the scheduled caste it was important to have affirmative steps for an inclusive approach for education. The scheduled caste was spread over all ethnic groups in India, naming this racism was overlooking this fact. India had taken note of instances of discrimination and had given specific recommendations. India’s National Human Rights Institute had been proactive in identifying districts with repeated instances of discrimination and initiating special measures to spread awareness. Also the Institute did not stop just after making recommendations but was also monitoring the measures taken.

MICHEL FROST, of Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l'Homme de France in a joint statement, said that the Special Rapporteur’s report stressed the importance of intercultural dialogue. Most recently, at the second Arab-European High Level Human Rights Dialogue Meeting on Discrimination, held in Copenhagen from 21 to 23 October 2007, members agreed to work towards securing national legal frameworks promoting and protecting human rights. The Platform wished to also play a key role through joint research and analysis in developing a knowledge base necessary to develop indicators and criteria that could be used to document and publicize facts and to monitor and report human rights violations resulting from discrimination. Lastly, it stressed the importance of strengthening the collaboration between Arab and European countries.

DIANE ALA'I, of Baha’i International Community, noted that over the past three years there had been a sharp increase in violent and derogatory attacks against the beliefs of those belonging to the Baha’i faith in Iran. Slogans such as “Death to Bahai’is” had been painted on the walls of Baha’i homes, shops, orchards, and even cemeteries, which had also been vandalized. All of this had followed a systematic campaign of defamation in government-controlled media, inciting the public to religious hatred. The Special Rapporteur was asked whether he had contacted the Iranian Government about these violations, and if so, what response he had received.

PAPE DIOUF, of Action internationale pour la paix et le développement dans la région des Grands Lacs (AIPD), in a joint statement, expressed deep concern regarding the emergence of racism in Europe, and particularly in Switzerland. There had been many cases that had undermined the dignity of Africans around the Continent, in particular in the context of sporting activities. Among examples, in Luxembourg, a woman of Congolese origin had set herself on fire upon the refusal by the relevant authorities of a loan, for which she had qualified. Extremist groups had also held minority groups responsible for a number of things, including the recent credit crisis. Moreover, with the advent of the "war on terror" there was no longer a presumption of innocence. Action Internationale demanded an end to police violence against black people, an end to discrimination in the area of housing and employment, and an end to the humiliating actions against them in the context of the fight against drug trafficking.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of the Association of World Citizens, said that the Special Rapporteur had helped the international community by setting up recommendations to properly monitor acts of racism. This was an important working tool that all Government should carefully consider and implement. The stigma against immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers made victims into perpetrators. All citizens needed to receive equal treatment and access to health coverage. Often national institutions turned a blind eye to such racist practices and the Association hoped that Mr. Diene had managed to open the Council’s eyes to these ongoing injustices. The Association also hoped that it would be possible for more representatives from the developing world to have their voices heard at the Council.

SUMIE OGASAWARA, of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, welcomed the emphasis of the Special Rapporteur on the role of education in combating racism, and encouraged the Government of Japan to make further efforts in this regard, so that its approach mentioned in the report led to the elimination of discrimination and racism in a concrete form. It was unfortunate that the recommendations stemming from the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Japan in 2005 remained almost entirely unimplemented. In Japan, there was still no legislation against discrimination, or an independent national human rights institution. Furthermore, recent actions by the Government of Japan raised additional serious concerns. In particular, the revised immigration law collected and controlled biometric information from the majority of foreigners entering Japan. The Movement urged the Japanese Government to implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur as soon as possible. The Government of Japan was also urged to take up the observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination referred to by the Special Rapporteur.

LISA LEVY, of the European Union of Jewish Students, said that she was speaking on behalf of 220,000 European Jewish students. The fight against racism and anti-Semitism was a fight for improved co-existence among peoples, religions and cultures and it had to be a priority. The European Union of Jewish Students would be heavily involved in that undertaking and would support the Council in that regard. They had undertaken a number of actions to fight against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Christianophobia, and to commemorate the Genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda. They could only encourage the holding of an international conference against racism in principle. However, they should be careful: during Durban a number of countries had trampled on the fundamental values of the United Nations, distributing caricatures of Jews, and people of the Jewish faith had been attacked. It was hoped that that would never happen again. However, the next Conference was to be presided over by Libya and co-organized by Iran, a country that denied the Holocaust. So there was a troubling paradox for those fighting racism. Would Durban two be a repeat of Durban one?

ARIEL RODAL, of the World Jewish Congress, said that the World Jewish Congress had a long and distinguished record in promoting human rights both domestically and internationally. Their constituent communities, long subjected to manifestations of anti-Semitism, recognized that fighting racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia was a universal imperative. Although the Durban Programme was a constructive outcome document, the 2001 Durban Conference and the related NGO Forum were tainted by overt manifestations of racism and anti-Semitism. Early indications had now raised serious concerns that such an inappropriate environment could pervade next year’s Review Conference and negatively affect the constructive work of the Conference.

REGINA BUBLIL WALDMAN, of B'nai B'rith International, speaking on behalf of Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations; and United Nations Watch, referring to Libya’s treatment of ethnic minorities, said that only with historical truth could the international community build a good future. One million Jews lived in the Middle East at the turn of the century, and today less then 5,000 remained. In 1948 there were 36,000 Jews living in Libya, and today there were none. The Government of Libya had ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Libya and Jewish homes were confiscated. Jews had been an indigenous people of the Middle East for over 2,500 years. Arabs had subjected Jews to persecution for centuries. It was hoped that the Special Rapporteur would examine the actions of Libya and other counties that persecuted Jews.

MARYAM SAFARI, of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, recalled that, according to General Assembly resolution 60/251, founding the Human Rights Council, peace and security, development and human rights were the pillars of the United Nations system, interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Today, one of the significant manifestations of racial discrimination was Islamophobia. The adoption of some governmental policies had exacerbated that phenomenon, in particular in the context of anti-terrorism legislation. The Organization for Defending Victims of Violence believed that combating racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance required conviction, even-handedness and determination of all the members of the international community and of international civil society.


Concluding Remarks

DOUDOU DIENE, Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, in concluding remarks, said that there were two important aspects to address. The first was the seriousness of the rise of racism in all its manifestations and the second was the need to adopt urgent measures to effectively combat racism. Both of these points should encourage the Council to revisit Durban to see what had been done and what still needed to be done. The Plan of Action did not contain all the necessary provisions to address issues of racism and in a democratic framework it needed to be re-evaluated to more effectively combat its shortcomings.

Mr. Diene said that at the crux of the issue of contemporary racism was the complexity of balance between freedom of expression, a fundamental right, and the safety barrier of religious sensitivity. The use of freedom of expression to disseminate racist discourse had to be firmly condemned. The United Nations human rights system and national Governments needed to reaffirm the importance of racial tolerance. To achieve the goals of the Durban Action Plan, more resources and will power needed to be injected by State parties. He also noted that the more multicultural societies were the more political parties depended on ethnicity to erode multiculturalism. There needed to be interaction and exchange between religious groups, not merely a respect for cultures that were locked into a ghettoized identity. Caste discrimination was still very much alive and was destructive to communal identities. Finally, religious conflicts and Islamophobia needed to be addressed in Europe, but also elsewhere. However, the Council must not forget or ignore the phenomenon of Christanophobia. This also existed in Asia, particularly with Hindu religious groups, and he hoped that Governments would work on reconciliating disparate religious groups within their borders.

GAY McDOUGALL, Independent Expert on Minority Issues, in concluding remarks, said, as to the inaccuracies in the report suggested by the Dominican Republic, the findings in the report on the Dominican Republic had been endorsed by the observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as well as by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights; those issues pertained to the lack of legislative measures to ensure equal access to birth certificates to all children in the country. The complexities stemming from the shared border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic were realized. And there was recognition that more international support was required in that regard in order to ensure a mutually beneficial development with regard to those two counties and their relationship.

PETER KASANDA, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on People of African Descent, in closing remarks, said that he was in the privileged position of having received only words of support and encouragement from delegations. Perhaps that was because the Working Group had established the practice of not putting forth wordy, long recommendations where the substance was lost in prose. Their recommendations were short, concrete and implementable. There was a need for Governments to create national institutions to advance the rights of people of African descent. There was also a need for national action plans in this area, which, when they were drafted, had to involve people of African descent to ensure that correct policies and strategies to remedy their situation would actually be provided.

Mr. Kasanda thanked all the delegations for their support, but particularly appreciated the message from Egypt, who had spoken on behalf of the African Group. Throughout the six years of the existence of the Working Group on People of African Descent, the African Group had provided support and insight for the Working Group's discussions. He was sure that that support, and the support of other delegations, would continue in the future.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08033E