Durban II
About The Conference
Durban 2 Update - 21 April 2009
1. The Durban II or “Durban Review Conference 2009” began in Geneva on 20 April 2009. The conference is a follow-up to the 2001 “UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance” held in Durban, South Africa.
2. The conference declaration has been a contentious issue.
a. The draft document produced by preparatory conferences had previously contained dramatically anti-Israel, anti-Western, and anti-free speech provisions. These were removed suddenly in March, then reinstated, only to be apparently removed yet again.
b. The drafting process was conducted largely in secret and was tightly run by organizers, including the conference chair from Libya.
3. At the last moment the United States announced that it was ‘reluctantly’ boycotting the conference.
a. President Obama stated “I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe.” But the 2009 session “raised a whole set of objectionable provisions" and risked a reprise of the 2001 Durban conference “which became a session through which folks expressed antagonism toward Israel in ways that were often times completely hypocritical and counterproductive.”
b. Obama continued to say that “We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that's not something we can sign up for…Our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn't believe in.”
4. Canada and Israel had previously expressed their intention to boycott the conference. Following the U.S. announcement Australia, Italy, Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Poland, the CzechRepublic, and the Netherlands announced they would be boycotting the conference.
5. Those attending the conference include Switzerland, the host country, and Iran. The United Kingdom has sent a low level delegation. France announced it will attend but threatened to withdraw at the first sign of anti-Israel or anti-Western bias.
6. The U.S. boycott was condemned.
a. UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay stated “I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States' decision not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide.”
b. Congressional Black Caucus chair, Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, stated “This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with…By boycotting Durban, the U.S. is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple.”
c. The U.S. decision was condemned by Human Rights Watch for ‘undermining’ the conference.
7. Israel has recalled its ambassador to Switzerland for consultations in protest of the meeting between that country’s president, Hans-Rudolf Merz, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
8. Ahmadinejad speech on the first day of the conference provided some drama:
a. Before the speech began three French Jewish student protestors dressed as clowns heckled Ahmadinejad before they were removed.
b. As the speech began HarvardUniversity law professor Alan Dershowitz rose and shouted that the lack of translation from Farsi meant that attendees were being denied the opportunity to participate in the conference.
c. A group of students carried out a preplanned walkout during the speech.
d. In Ahmadinejad’s speech he called Israel a “racist government,” asserting that Israelis were “racist perpetrators of genocide.” and that Israel had been founded "on the pretext of Jewish suffering" during World War II. He also stated “Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights at eradicating this barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism,”
e. After his attacks on Israel the speech was interrupted by a preplanned walkout of 23 European Union (EU) diplomats along with a number of others.
f. The speech was interrupted by hecklers from the balcony.
g. The remaining delegates, including a large Iranian contingent, applauded the speech.
h. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store followed Ahmadinejad and stated that the preceding speech “threatens the very focus of the conference.. the need to protect against incitement to hatred. I heard the messages inside the president's speech. I heard incitement and hatred. This is not a finger-pointing exercise. The president has made Iran the odd man out, and Norway will not accept the odd man out hijacking the efforts of the many. ... We cannot surrender the floor of the United Nations to extremism.”
i. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon remained in his seat behind Ahmadinejad during the speech. Afterwards Ban issued a statement expressing regret. “I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian president to accuse, divide and even incite…We must all turn away from such a message in both form and substance.”
9. Syrian Foreign Minister Dr. Faysal Mekdad addressed the conference on the second day.
a. He stated that the purpose of Durban 2 was to combat “racism, discrimination, foreign occupation, and intolerance.”
b. Israel was accused of having conducted ‘ethnic cleansing’ since 1948 and Mekdad stated that Israel sought to “throw the Palestinians into the sea.”
c. Mekdad also decried “misrepresentation of religious symbols” and stated that discrimination against Muslims has reached “unacceptable levels.”
10. Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Riyad al-Maliki addressed the conference on the second day.
a. Al-Maliki condemned the Israeli ‘occupation of Palestine’ as “the worst violation of human rights” and “the ugliest face of racism and racial discrimination.”
b. The “separation wall,” the ‘Judaizing’ of Jerusalem, use of security check-points, “robbery of water,” and the blockade and “collective punishment” of Gaza, were condemned.
c. Al-Maliki concluded by ‘recognizing’ the rights of Israel and Israelis to live in security, but also advocated the Palestinian “right of return.”
11. The unofficial non-governmental organization (NGO) forum has been the focus of intense anti-Israel activity.
a. Two events, the ‘Israel Review Conference’ and the ‘Civil Society Forum,’ are designed to focus on Israel.
b. The ‘Israel Review Conference’ was organized by ’United Against Apartheid, Colonialism and Occupation, Dignity & Justice for the Palestinian People.’ The Palestinian NGO Badil presented a report on “Israel’s Practices in the OccupiedPalestinianTerritories and the International Legal Prohibition on Apartheid.”
c. The ‘Civil Society Forum,’ was organized by anonymous NGOs. The main speaker was Dr. Jamal Zahalka, a member of the Israeli Knesset from the Balad party.
d. Reports indicate the UN is preventing the dissemination of anti-Israel materials at the NGO forum, which is taking place at a UN facility.
e. Palestinian NGOs now claim that the UN has ‘banned’ events on the issue of Palestine.Primer
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS (SUMMARY)
What is ‘Durban 2’?
The Durban II or “Durban Review Conference 2009” (Geneva, April 20-24, 2009) is a follow-up to the 2001 “UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance” (WCAR). The United Nations Human Rights Council is mandated to undertake “effective and comprehensive implementation” of the conclusions and recommendations of WCAR, and to continue the “global drive for the total elimination of racism.”
What Happened at Durban 1?
The first Durban conference was held immediately before September 11th 2001. A number of planning conferences were held prior to the Durban meeting, including one in Teheran that excluded Jewish and Israeli participants from governmental and non-governmental meetings. The official declaration produced at the Teheran preparatory conference defined Zionism as a form of racism, accused Israel of committing ‘holocausts,’ and being guilty of ‘anti-Semitism,’ ‘apartheid’ and ‘ethnic cleansing.’
The US strategy was to remain engaged with WCAR in the hope of changing antisemitic and anti-Israel texts. When this failed Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to attend.
The actual conference in Durban was a debacle, with routine condemnations of Israel. Most problematic was the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Forum, heavily populated with organizations from the Arab and Muslim worlds. With the complicity of mainstream NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the NGO Forum’s official declaration stated that Israel was a “racist apartheid state” guilty of “genocide” and called for an end to its “racist crimes” against Palestinians.
The NGO Forum also saw vicious antisemitism including official distribution of “political” cartoons employing obscene antisemitic stereotypes, sale of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and offensive and threatening behavior against Jews.
What are the concerns about Durban 2?
WCAR is effectively controlled by Arab and Muslim countries and their allies. Libya is chair of the preparatory committee charged with creating the agenda for the 2009 review conference. Cuba is the rapporteur, and Iran is an executive member.
Despite objections from some NGOs and Western countries, the draft document pressed and expanded the anti-Israel agenda of the 2001 conference. The Palestinian issue was the only one named, and Israel was accused of racial discrimination against Palestinians, collective punishment, and torture. ‘Occupation’ is defined as a “contemporary form of apartheid.”
A new development was the definition of defamation of religion as a form of institutionalized racism and discrimination, along with ‘defamation of religious personalities,’ ‘profiling’ and ‘Islamophobia.’ The WCAR draft would institutionalize a special, protected status for Islam and restrict traditional Western concepts of free speech, at the behest of Arab and Muslim countries.
Current Status
Faced with threats from France, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Australia, Canada and the United States to withdraw from WCAR, the draft document was suddenly modified in March 2009 by the conference organizers. The passages referring specifically to Israel and the Palestinians were omitted, along with most of the anti-free speech language and provisions protecting Islam from criticism. An endorsement of the 2001 WCAR declaration, with its anti-Israel provisions, remained.
As of late March 2009 Western states have not yet announced whether or not they will attend the conference.
Research Publications
- NGO Monitor, UN tries to avoid NGO incitement, but gives Ahmadinejad a platform
- Gerald M. Steinberg, Strategy needed to preserve Durban 2 victory
- Gerald M. Steinberg, The Centrality of NGO’s in The Durban StrategyDavid Harris, In the Trenches: Durban Diplomacy, Durban Delirium
- Tom Lantos, The Durban Debacle: An Insider’s View of the UN World Conference Against Racism
News Media
- Caroline Glick, Melanie Phillips and Anne Bayefsky, Guest Blog: A response to David Harris
- Gerald M. Steinberg, Strategy needed to preserve Durban 2 victory
- Gerald M. Steinberg, Bureacuracy and hypocracy in Geneva, Jerusalem Post
- Bradley S. Klapper and Alexander G. Higgins, Ahmadinejad dropped Holocaust denial from speech, Washington Post
- Yael Levy, Students face off with Ahmadinejad, Ynet
- Roger L. Simon, Durban II Diary - Part 3: The Clowning of Ahmadinejad
- Zvika Krieger, Durban II Dispatch: Live-blogging Ahmedinejad, The New Republic
- Benjamin Weinthal, Berlin's spectacular policy reversal, Jerusalem Post
- Roger L. Simon, Durban II Diary - Part 2: Sleeping with Ahmadinejad, Pajamas Media
Primary Documents
Videos
- UN's Durban II Racism Draft Breaches Red Lines, UN Watch
- Highlights from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. Durban II conference in Geneva, April 20, 2009.JTA News
- Pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian advocates hold rival conferences in Geneva, JTA News
- UN Watch and Victim Turn Tables on Libyan Chair, Expose Durban 2 Hypocrisy UN Watch
- Elie Wiesel Verbally Abused as "Zio-Nazi" by Ahmadinejad Entourage at Durban II Simon Wiesenthal Center