This fear led to a sudden revision of the draft declaration, one month before the conference, and the removal of most of the OIC's language. As this publication goes to press, the implications are being assessed, but at least tactically, the change in the draft - which can still be reversed - can turn into an important victory in the restoration of universality and morality to human rights.
Gerald Steinberg van NGO Monitor klinkt hoopvol dat de vervolgconferentie op Durban 1 alsnog een evenwichtige verklaring kan opleveren, dankzij de druk van een aantal Westerse landen die een heel vieze smaak hadden overgehouden aan de "anti-racisme conferentie" van 2001...
Wouter
_______________
The Durban Review Conference (DRC, or Durban II), scheduled to be held in Geneva beginning on April 21, 2009, was called to provide a "follow-up" to the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism (the Durban conference). The 2001 event marked the escalation in the process of politicizing human rights, and accelerated the erosion of the moral principles as established in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The hijacking of this mechanism by the worst human rights offenders - Iran, Libya, and Cuba - led the American and U.S. delegations to walk out of the governmental meetings, and built the foundation for the strategy of demonization adopted in the parallel NGO Forum.
But the starting conditions for the DRC are very different - some important lessons have been learned, and this time, governmental and NGO delegations that oppose this agenda have been involved from the beginning. This guide provides a summary of much of this preparation, identifying the main issues and the principle actors - including both the governments and the powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs) - that have been active in shaping the DRC and are expected to impact the outcome of the conference itself.
As shown in this overview, the preparatory meetings pointed to another human rights catastrophe. However, the determined efforts of a few governments, and the opposition that arose within the NGO community, have created the opportunity for a reversal of the 2001 outcome. First Canada, and then Israel, the United States (under the Obama Administration), and Italy declared that they would not participate in another virulently antisemitic event that singled out Israel for attack.
Other European governments discussed a similar move unless the language preventing free speech, and giving Islam a privileged position, was removed.
This would have left only the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and a few other countries in the room, thereby delegitimizing the DRC.
This fear led to a sudden revision of the draft declaration, one month before the conference, and the removal of most of the OIC's language. As this publication goes to press, the implications are being assessed, but at least tactically, the change in the draft - which can still be reversed - can turn into an important victory in the restoration of universality and morality to human rights.
In parallel, the role of the powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the DRC has been greatly reduced, thereby removing much of the political momentum behind the Durban strategy of boycotts and demonization, including the abuse of pseudo-legal and genocidal language aimed at Israel. In contrast to the 2001 conference, the UN has not allocated funds or facilities for an NGO Forum in Geneva, and other sponsors of mass NGO participation in Durban, such as the Ford Foundation and the Canadian government, have also changed their policies to avoid a repeat performance. In addition, more than 100 NGOs signed a "Statement of Core Principles for WCAR Follow Up," which "thoroughly rejects hatred and incitement in all its forms, including anti-Semitism" and calls Page 3 on other NGOs to "learn from the shortcomings of the 2001 WCAR.." Unfortunately, some of the NGOs that contributed to such "shortcomings," and are active in demonization, such as Human Rights Watch, refused to join this call. HRW leaders also campaigned against the central Canadian decision to pull out of the DRC.
Even without an NGO Forum, the opportunity continues for NGO involvement in the governmental proceedings and in various side events in the UN. In theory, the thousands of NGOs that are accredited under the Economic and Social Council, or which received special accreditation for the 2001 conference, will be able to participate in the DRC. European government funders of non-governmental organizations, including aid agencies and the European Commission, have not restricted the use of their funds for this conference. And some newly accredited NGOs - such as the "Palestinian Grassroots Anti-apartheid Wall Coalition" - are likely to promote the virulent anti-Israel agenda.
Additionally, on the fringes of the DRC, the Palestinian National Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Committee is organizing the "Israel Review Conference" for April 18-19, 2009 in Geneva, "unit[ing] against apartheid, colonialism, and occupation." The play on the official conference name (the group has also modified the DRC logo for its event) is another indication of the intention to resist efforts to undo the damage of the 2001 NGO Forum.
Thus, in addition to close examination of the policies of the participating governments and UN officials at this conference, it will be very important to analyze the role of the NGOs, and to hold their officials and the funders - including European governments - accountable. This resource guide was assembled and published in order to assist in this critical aspect of the DRC process.
But the starting conditions for the DRC are very different - some important lessons have been learned, and this time, governmental and NGO delegations that oppose this agenda have been involved from the beginning. This guide provides a summary of much of this preparation, identifying the main issues and the principle actors - including both the governments and the powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs) - that have been active in shaping the DRC and are expected to impact the outcome of the conference itself.
As shown in this overview, the preparatory meetings pointed to another human rights catastrophe. However, the determined efforts of a few governments, and the opposition that arose within the NGO community, have created the opportunity for a reversal of the 2001 outcome. First Canada, and then Israel, the United States (under the Obama Administration), and Italy declared that they would not participate in another virulently antisemitic event that singled out Israel for attack.
Other European governments discussed a similar move unless the language preventing free speech, and giving Islam a privileged position, was removed.
This would have left only the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and a few other countries in the room, thereby delegitimizing the DRC.
This fear led to a sudden revision of the draft declaration, one month before the conference, and the removal of most of the OIC's language. As this publication goes to press, the implications are being assessed, but at least tactically, the change in the draft - which can still be reversed - can turn into an important victory in the restoration of universality and morality to human rights.
In parallel, the role of the powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the DRC has been greatly reduced, thereby removing much of the political momentum behind the Durban strategy of boycotts and demonization, including the abuse of pseudo-legal and genocidal language aimed at Israel. In contrast to the 2001 conference, the UN has not allocated funds or facilities for an NGO Forum in Geneva, and other sponsors of mass NGO participation in Durban, such as the Ford Foundation and the Canadian government, have also changed their policies to avoid a repeat performance. In addition, more than 100 NGOs signed a "Statement of Core Principles for WCAR Follow Up," which "thoroughly rejects hatred and incitement in all its forms, including anti-Semitism" and calls Page 3 on other NGOs to "learn from the shortcomings of the 2001 WCAR.." Unfortunately, some of the NGOs that contributed to such "shortcomings," and are active in demonization, such as Human Rights Watch, refused to join this call. HRW leaders also campaigned against the central Canadian decision to pull out of the DRC.
Even without an NGO Forum, the opportunity continues for NGO involvement in the governmental proceedings and in various side events in the UN. In theory, the thousands of NGOs that are accredited under the Economic and Social Council, or which received special accreditation for the 2001 conference, will be able to participate in the DRC. European government funders of non-governmental organizations, including aid agencies and the European Commission, have not restricted the use of their funds for this conference. And some newly accredited NGOs - such as the "Palestinian Grassroots Anti-apartheid Wall Coalition" - are likely to promote the virulent anti-Israel agenda.
Additionally, on the fringes of the DRC, the Palestinian National Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Committee is organizing the "Israel Review Conference" for April 18-19, 2009 in Geneva, "unit[ing] against apartheid, colonialism, and occupation." The play on the official conference name (the group has also modified the DRC logo for its event) is another indication of the intention to resist efforts to undo the damage of the 2001 NGO Forum.
Thus, in addition to close examination of the policies of the participating governments and UN officials at this conference, it will be very important to analyze the role of the NGOs, and to hold their officials and the funders - including European governments - accountable. This resource guide was assembled and published in order to assist in this critical aspect of the DRC process.
Gerald M. Steinberg
Executive Director, NGO Monitor
March 22, 2009
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
Executive Director, NGO Monitor
March 22, 2009
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten