|
Durban II - The Human Rights Fraud |
| The UN Durban II conference is a no-holds-barred assault on the international protection of human rights. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the preparatory meeting which ended on Friday in Geneva. For all those democratic governments - and especially that of President Obama - still sitting on the sidelines on the issue of participation, the stakes have never been clearer. The chief "anti-racism" negotiator at Durban II is Iran. Iran spoke more often than any other single state during the drafting of the "outcome document", which will be adopted at the conference itself. The Chair continually asked Iran if it agreed with proposals, or suggested to the European Union that it negotiate agreed language with Iran. The countries present at the negotiating session tried desperately to keep a lid on the real agenda and reveal as little as possible of the serious menace that lies ahead. On Thursday, January 22nd, the Chair went so far as to order a television crew to stop filming during a discussion of the pros and cons of freedom of expression. The demand came from Nigeria, a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Regional Group. The week-long UN meeting turned into a "human rights" travesty. Instead of going through the draft document before them from beginning to end even once, the assembled countries proceeded - in the words of the Chair - at a "snail's pace." They read 40% of the draft and agreed upon only 20% of that. Even still, they were unable to cover up their real intentions, as the world's worst human rights violators could not manage to keep their vile anti-human rights opinions to themselves. Democratic states have long taken the general approach that the institution of the UN must be supported regardless of the substance of its activities. Such countries are now in a major quandary. Proceeding to adopt a Durban II outcome will undoubtedly be a major setback for the international protection of human rights. But refusing to lend the forum credibility - on the grounds that this is a racist "anti-racism" platform - will subject these states to sticks and stones. Many developing countries will scream racism, colonialism and insensitivity to cultural differences. The fact that these accusations emanate from states with the worst human records on the planet, however, may not be enough to fortify the backbone of the European Union. But these labels should not easily stick to President Obama. The key point is that this is not a dialogue from which democratic states and values can emerge triumphant. At the United Nations they do not have the numbers to prevail. This puts them at a tremendous disadvantage at the negotiating table. This is particularly true because the European Union always wants any outcome at all costs. At the UN, it is not prepared to walk away. Of course, this fact is well-known to the anti-human rights crowd, who hold out until the end, throw the EU a bone as a "compromise" and watch them hold news conferences for the hometown crowds feigning "success." If Obama decides to go, he will legitimize a human rights fraud. American values and interests will be pushed to the fringes while the Europeans hang on to center stage - busy negotiating 'compromises' with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In the end, Obama will either have to abandon real human rights victims around the world including Jews, or be forced to walk out and denounce the "consensus" - leaving him marginalized early in his administration. The obvious solution is to maintain the status quo for the last 7 ½ years - U.S. non-participation in the Durban forum - and undertake to fashion a more advantageous playing field for engaging in the business of the international protection of human rights. Here is the solid evidence of the fraudulent "human rights" discourse - representing verbatim text taken from the transcript of the final two days of last week's Durban II preparatory proceedings. Main features:
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2009 Bargaining with Iran about what counts as racism or human rights 16. Emphasizes that the multiple factors of a situation that might lead to genocide, as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, include the resurgence of systematic discrimination, the prevalence of expressions of hate speech targeting persons belonging to national, ethnic, racial or religious groups, especially if they are uttered in the context of an actual or potential outbreak of violence, and serious and systematic violation of human rights; (para 64 section 1) Iran "My proposal is to delete this section [beginning with "especially"]. We don't need to wait and see an outbreak of violence before we stop the genocide or prevalence of hate speech." European Union "I would be hesitant to drop …" Chair "Iran can you accept this proposal?" Iran "May I suggest we would make quick consultations?" Chair "Let us leave this for now." … Chair "Iran I want to ask whether you agreed on paragraph 16?" Iran "Frankly not yet, but we will do it quickly." … Iran "We approached the EU and are waiting for their response." The Israel-bashing continues under the banner of a thematic anti-racism conference which addresses not a single other state 30. Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinian people as well as other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence and prevent the enjoyment of fundamental rights, and renews the call for the cessation of all such practices; (para 93 section 5 streamlined and shortened) "I want to make amendments in conformity with the essence of the OIC contribution to the Durban Review Conference. So second line should read "as well as Syrian nationals of the occupied Syrian Golan" and delete "other inhabitants". Let me repeat: "Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinian people as well as Syrian nationals of the occupied Syrian Golan."" Morocco "…I ask that section on Middle East be added to section 5…" South Africa "On behalf of African group we …support Morocco to have a paragraph on the Middle East in section 5…The issue of Palestine is an important part of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and has important place in the context of this conference and the African Group will continue with consultations with Palestine and other delegations in this regard." [Ed. Note: There are currently six paragraphs on Israel in the draft outcome document (and none on any other state). In the face of opposition and a call to delete these paragraphs, the strategic response of Arab, Islamic and African negotiators is to call for more offensive paragraphs denouncing Israel.] Netherlands "Paragraphs 30-34 are unacceptable to us. It is inappropriate to single out one situation or region as is done in these paragraphs. Many other conflicts are not…As Pakistan said, we realize that in 2001 there is a mentioning as well of the Middle East. We had great difficulties with those paragraphs then and even greater difficulties now, so we request deletion of these paragraphs whether in section 1 or section 5." Sudan "We would like to support statement of Pakistan, Palestine, South Africa and all the Arab delegations who have spoken. We underline the importance of maintaining paragraph 30 and indicate our intention to continue formal and informal consultations with Palestine. We address the question of paragraph 29 that speaks of one people, whereas paragraph 30 speaks of several and we underline the importance of maintaining paragraph 30." [Ed. Note: From human rights authority figure Sudan - mention of Jews in connection with the Holocaust is equivalent to a mention of Palestinians and a denunciation of racist Israel.] United Kingdom "We echo points made by Czech yesterday that this is longstanding position and nothing to do with issues raised on para in question. Not singling out country specific situations with has to do with global fight against racism. Attempts to add further paragraphs will cause great difficulty for my delegation, and we appeal to all delegations in that respect. We also note that there a number of fora where these are discussed and we engage fully in those like special sessions and agenda item of HRC." Switzerland "…We might be prepared to discuss paragraphs 33 and 34." [Ed. Note: Switzerland breaks ranks with all other European states and announces it will accept Israel-bashing resolutions.] European Union "I just want to recall that all of my general remarks from yesterday [in which I called for deletion] apply to all the paragraphs contained in this subsection." Indonesia "…We appreciate Palestine's flexibility - they don't want this issue to be hostage to other delegations in this meeting. Indeed, as we heard arguments from others that we should not single out this issue to this conference, but anyway this is already done in 2001 and this is a Review Conference. That's why it is important to continue what we have done in 2001. The other point is, the pertinent issue is very unique because this is in our view colonialism at the present time and we just keep silent on this and important to discuss in this forum and since Palestine already said preferred not to be hostage and not quantity but quality, I think we can work it out. But deleting the paragraphs from this document is unacceptable to us." Nigeria "If you look at the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, paragraph 63, on the matter of Palestine, where the plight of Palestinians under foreign occupation was recognized…All these things if you remember are so timely, even in 2009 when this decision actually took place in 2001, and is still very relevant. How can we then say that there wouldn't be any discussion in 2009 in our review when in fact this is reflected in the document? To say you want nothing on the Middle East in the document, doesn't speak well…" Denmark "My delegation finds that despite the mentioning of this issue in the original Durban Declaration and the Program of Action, that a general review conference on racism and racial discrimination cannot and should not focus on just one particular region or on one particular situation especially when other conflict situations in the world - including those where race is arguably a major element - do not feature in the current outcome document…No other grave situations are currently touched upon in this document. Therefore, it would simply not be credible to the international community at large if member states in this room only focused on one particular conflict situation." Libya "My delegation would like to associate itself with statements from South Africa and OIC, Syria, Sudan. We are astonished at the request of some delegations to delete paragraphs 30-34 although question of Palestine is one of the most important on international scene." Saudi Arabia "We continue insisting that this has to be covered by consultations with Palestine." Cuba "I join what Pakistan and South Africa said on behalf of the OIC and Africa and other colleagues - Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and others on this issue. It is completely unacceptable that we would not discuss the Palestine issue in the context of this text. We have looked at the argument that we can't focus on a single situation. This is completely out of place. This just does not focus on a single situation. It takes into account an aberrant situation that should be addressed with rigor. It is addressed in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and what we are edifying in 2009 is to review the implementation of what was looked at in 2001 and then of course the path ahead for discussion to take place in the future. Paragraph 30 is entirely relevant and should be discussed in the context of this review conference and its mandate. We listened to the statement of our distinguished sister of Palestine and it was constructive. What have we seen by other speakers? Irrationality. So we have spectrum, with constructiveness on one end and irrationality on the other. We endorse paragraph 30 and will work with all delegations and Palestine to look for a consensus- based solution to comply with responsibilities of this conference to address this issue in a way that is updated and takes into account the current situation of Palestine including Gaza." Algeria "…We should not contradict ourselves. We are not renegotiating. We are evaluating and making recommendations for new measures and on this issue specifically section 5 should take a stance." Pakistan "…The relevance of the situation with this conference subject - that relevance was established in 2001 so we do not need to get into a discussion of whether to renegotiate or not. As a review conference we have to address this issue. I appreciate comments made by Switzerland...As for appropriate language for the OIC, I mentioned it yesterday. It must take into account three things: what we agreed, was it implemented or not, the situation in the last 7-8 years and what future course of action this conference suggests for this conflict. And lastly recommendations in chapter 5. We are ready to consult all partners, all colleagues to come to a mutually agreed solution, will be working on this language from outside this hall and hope to come to consensual language acceptable to all." Poland "We echo what was said by the Czech Republic for the EU yesterday on paragraphs 30 and 34. I am not going to repeat all the arguments but we cannot agree to the singling out of one specific region and one country in the outcome document of the review conference and we support the deletion of paragraphs 30-34." Egypt "…We were very happy to hear the delegation of Palestine…and we thank Switzerland for their very constructive approach." Iran "On the necessity of maintaining paragraphs that are mentioned in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action as highlighted by previous speakers. Conditions and circumstances which led to it being addressed at Durban has not only not been resolved, but aggravated immensely and worsened since then which makes it even more reasonable and essential for us and the Durban Review Conference to address it in its entirety and commensurably. A few delegations argued that it is not a place for country situations, or maybe not focusing on country Palestine and single out situation as such…Just a reminder that the same countries who were of this opinion were themselves advocating and insisting on a situation and maintaining a reference in previous paragraph 29 which address an issue which pertains to a single country and we would have to be consistent." [Ed. Note: This means the following. The bargaining position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference - just as it was in Durban I - is 'you give me 'Israel is racist' and we'll allow a reference to the Holocaust.'] Iran cont. "But what makes it even more relevant is that while there are other forms of racism, there are no other forms which contradict the purposes and principles of the Charter of the UN and which constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and a crime against humanity, and really a contemporary form of apartheid, and a serious threat to international peace and security, more than what we are seeing in the occupied land of Palestine. The perpetrators whom we know. So it would be totally out of question to have a conference on racism and not to mention the circumstances and situation in Palestine…We equally are not keen to allow any other delegation to take hostage the interpretation which comes from the Palestinian delegation. Nobody is trying to minimize the dimensions and nature of what is going on in Palestine. .. We have to maintain these paragraphs and equally corresponding paragraphs should be figuring in the chapter 5 of our document." China "…The purpose…here is not to single out one country or single out one single geographical area…but however we successfully reached consensus in the 2001 and I believe that…we can find a consensus text…" Palestine "…The issue is not whether to have the paragraphs on Palestine or not. This is not the issue. This is not subject to discussion. But we are referring to adequate language that will lead us all to consensus." Germany "…I have difficulties to see how the Palestine people is defining itself here as a race. If you speak in paragraph 30 on racial discrimination - and one colleague used the word of apartheid - I do not think we will have a great success in communicating to the outside world, if we work with mixed up notions and definitions. We should reflect on this. Whatever was put in Durban 2001 is not helpful language." Syria "The issue of Palestine is not a new issue for the Durban conference and not a new issue when it comes to racism. Indeed, it is the clearest example of racism. Support for most countries here for this subject proves that this is a universal subject, the more so since Palestinian questions effects the entire Middle East and has direct effect on all countries including Syria…In the Durban Declaration there is a full paragraph on Palestine, namely 63…To this we should add that it is an international issue which has been mentioned in 15 and 28 of the Durban Declaration, under the section on racism as a crime against humanity. Moreover at this point in time, when whole world is discussing globalization…after the fall of Berlin wall, we see a new wall has been built in Palestine. I don't know what is the opinion of our colleagues from the EU of the construction of a wall between peoples, erected since Durban 2001. We want to add amendments to the paragraphs." Paragraph 31 - add "Israeli" before "occupation" Also "notes with concern" - add "with concern" Final line: reads "in the occupied Arab territories since 1967" Paragraph 32 second line: "discrimination with aim …. "territories" should be plural At end add "and violates the basic principles of the international human rights law'" "There should be a reference to what we have seen in recent weeks with regard to the aggression against Gaza. At this time, we don't have any language but we would reserve the right to propose a specific paragraph that would directly reference what happened recently in the aggression against the Gaza strip." Iran "Paragraph 32: add after villages and cities we would like to have... "totally contradicts the purposes and principles of the Charter of the UN and constitutes a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, a crime against humanity, a contemporary form of apartheid and a serious threat to international peace and security." Jordan "We support statement of Palestine and constructive dialogue to achieve consensus without deleting paragraphs." Syria "Add to paragraph 33: "reiterates deep concern about the plight of the Palestinian people as well as inhabitants of the other occupied territories under foreign occupation, including the obstruction of the return of the refugees and displaced persons, and the construction of the segregation wall…"" Add to paragraph 34: "intolerance for Palestinian civilian populations." ****** And as the sun set on UN preparations for this "anti-racism" conference, the very first state to express its satisfaction and address the Chair with thanks was - Iran. Its President, who openly advocates genocide and denies the Holocaust, was pleased by UN preparations for Durban II.Iran "We hope we will continue in the same spirit with our work. Thank you Mr. Chairman." Bargaining with human rights abusers about what counts as human rights abuse 15. Deplores the numerous occurrences of internal conflicts and inter-ethnic and intra religious or communal violence, including those that appear to be based on tribal lines, which have lead to casualties and killings, torture, massive displacement, rape and destruction of property and infrastructures, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; Sudan "We have strong reservations on this paragraph…" 18. Deplores also the use of Government-aligned or -organized irregular militia to oppress, murder and displace ethnic populations; South Africa "We call for paragraph 18 to be deleted…" Syria "I would support the deletion …" Sudan "We support South Africa and Syria and the deletion of this paragraph 18." 20. Welcomes the actions taken to commemorate the memory of victims of slavery and the slave trade, in particular the transatlantic slave trade, and the abolition of those historic tragedies, and stresses the need to similarly address the trans-Saharan slave trade and the slave trade in the Indian Ocean. Welcomes the adoption of GA Resolutions 61/19 and 62/122 related to the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade and remembrance of its victims and, in particular, the designation of 25 March as the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade; (merger paras 127, 338 section 1) South Africa "After "tragedies" we want a full stop and the deletion of the remainder…" [Ed. Note - Africans and the rest of the developing world don't want to talk about their own legacy of slavery. They want to delete any call to "similarly address the trans-Saharan slave trade and the slave trade in the Indian Ocean".] 22. Draws attention to the impact of counter-terrorism measures on the rise of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including the practice of racial, ethnic, national and religious profiling; (para 34 section 1) European Union "We don't see the link between counter-terrorism and profiling, and racism and racial discrimination, so we have difficulty with the very gist of this paragraph…We propose deletion of this paragraph." Pakistan "It is very important…and we have additions "We would like to state strongly deplores the counter terrorism measures" and after that words "that have led to" and then you have rise of racism." European Union "…I cannot give consent to…link between fighting terrorism and racism and related intolerance." Iran "We support Pakistan." 23. Reaffirms the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and expresses concern over intolerance and discrimination in the name of religion or belief (merger paras 55, 325 section 1) Syria "This paragraph is not structured to give any sense. The last line reads discrimination in the "name of religion." How can it be "in the name" correctly? It should be on the "grounds of" religion or belief." European Union "These are two different things. "In the name of" religion you are using as an excuse to act in a discriminatory manner, while on the "grounds" is reason this person having that particular religion not reliving this. "In the name" has to stay in." Iran "We view "in the name of" religion misleading… " Bargaining with a negotiator who has no respect for the rules of engagement European Union "I have been checking what is agreed language and I found "in the name of religion or belief" in our last religious intolerance resolution adopted by consensus in the UN General Assembly, so we have to preserve this phrase in that paragraph." Pakistan "I just wanted to highlight the fact that we are trying not to just get back to whatever was once decided and can never be changed…I'm sure our Czech colleague would agree that resolutions are not religious scriptures that cannot be changed." Manufacturing Arab victimhood 24. recognizes with deep concern the global rise in the number of incidents of intolerance and violence against members of religious minorities in various parts of the world motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Arabism, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia; European Union "We would propose to finish the paragraph before the list of the different phobias. Anti-Arabism does not fit among Abrahamic religious groups." Singapore "…Certain religions are not listed here - Hindus, Buddhists. So agree with EU." Denmark "…One group is a racial group and the others are religious minorities. We all want to focus on what is at stake, religious minority groups." Pakistan "…Those three or four are particularly discriminated against, or had specific problems in the recent past." Iran "My delegation is for maintaining this paragraph as it stands…We are talking about specific phenomena which have been here with us for the past several years and we cannot just ignore them." United Kingdom "Anti-Arabism, as heinous as it is, is not a form of religious intolerance so it doesn't fit logically into this paragraph." Algeria "The key problem is that there is identification of individuals belonging to a race or religion, Islam. If you identify Arabs with the Muslim community, the Muslim faith then there is a problem of anti-Arabism and my delegation would be extremely or strongly in favor of including this reference where it needs to be." Saudi Arabia "We would like to support what has been mentioned by Iran, Pakistan and Algeria in terms of keeping this paragraph as is…Pakistan is speaking on behalf of the OIC members and it is a very important paragraph for all members of the OIC." Abandoning the rule of law and an independent judiciary 25. Condemns any advocacy of racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and recognizes that only a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law may determine, case by case, in a fair and public hearing, whether the facts presented qualify as incitement to racial or religious hatred European Union "At the end of the paragraph, after "religious hatred", add "prohibited by law."" Pakistan "Our proposal on this particular paragraph is that we say "any advocacy of racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and should be prohibited by law." Full stop and rest of the paragraph should be deleted. We are not here basically to judge what is an independent, what is an impartial and what is a competent court of law. These are the things… which can lead to further discussion…"" European Union ""…Prohibition by law certainly that is one thing…but then you have to have some sort of criteria and some sort of instances which are able to apply those criteria to determine independently and objectively whether the situation applies to the prohibition. So the reference to independent judiciary as an instance in fact the only instance which has a role to play in such determination is of utmost importance to us and we would need to see this part of the paragraph retained."" Iran "…defamation of religions for certain delegation might have been problematic, so the [OIC] thought…let's talk about incitement….Very reasonably refers to the fact that once an action constitutes an incitement it should be dealt with promptly and without any delay. That is the reason we should not be conditioning the incitement to "be prohibited by law" because then we enter to a very, very, very difficult Pandora box." Pakistan "…We are not discussing the independence or impartiality of judiciary…We believe like our country, all countries represented in this hall have an impartial, competent and independent judiciary and when it comes there it will be decided in accordance with those standard criteria so we don't really need to mention it." Algeria "The paragraph…by our partners would suggest that there would be judicial bodies which are impartial and would not provide the necessary guarantees of impartiality." Manufacturing "defamation of religions" and attacking free speech 26. Notes with concern instances of defamation of religions, which manifests itself in generalized and stereotypical association of religions, in particular Islam, with violence and terrorism, thus impacting negatively on the rights of individuals belonging to these religions, including Muslim minorities, and exposing them to hatred and discrimination. Such situations are further aggravated by the imposition of restrictions on the profession of religions, including restrictions on the construction of places of worship and their surveillance; (merger paras 2, 42, 43, 45, 46 section 1) Pakistan "Our specific proposal to improve this paragraph goes as follows…After "which manifests itself in" add "projecting negative, insulting and derogatory images of religions and religious personalities," and then it goes on as it is." European Union "Pakistan more or less proves the importance of the independent judiciary element we have been insisting on in the previous paragraph, because all those objectives with serious implications - negative, insulting derogatory - who will determine whether the threshold has been reached or not? This is why we insist on reference to an independent judiciary as an instance to determine those occurrences. With regard to paragraph 26, this whole paragraph is based on a concept we cannot recognize and we would need this to be deleted." Denmark "…Only rights of individuals are protected in law. Freedom of religion is an individual right. The current formulation may indicate that only one group is feeling defamation…We want complete deletion of this provision." South Africa "Support Pakistan and Syria on this paragraph and we can accept it as it is." United Kingdom "The concept of defamation of religions is unacceptable in this document and damages the likelihood of a successful outcome to this conference." Pakistan "I heard one comment and one threat…I would urge my distinguished colleague to adopt language which is more appropriate for the stature of people who are sitting in this hall who talk decency and diplomatic manner and not language of threats…Anything which goes around comes around. It's just one conference. There are hundreds of conferences that we are assisting in different fora and there are issues that are dear in one group and urge colleagues to use appropriate language." [Ed. Note - Pakistan threatens to disrupt all other UN conferences on issues "dear to" the West, if it doesn't get its way in Durban II.] Pakistan cont. …groups of individuals who bear rights in different manner in social groupings, in their human cultural and ethnic and religious grouping. They bear certain rights…People of believers and followers of that ideology which are affected here…"" Iran "We fully support Pakistan comments on behalf of the OIC…" Netherlands "Defamation is not a human rights concept. Strongly favor deletion." Belgium "Defamation is fully unacceptable. This is not a human rights concept…Defamation, if accepted, could lead to abuses which are unacceptable. It could prevent people from practicing other beliefs. Everybody should speak freely. Defamation could restrict the human rights of the individuals." Syria "We listened to Holland and I understand that a parliamentarian will be put on trial at a competent court in the Hague on the grounds of incitement of religious hatred. So I wonder if my colleague is aware of this and if it conforms with what has been explained by Pakistan and stipulated in paragraph 26." Pakistan "Let me say once and for all in my role as coordinator …Defamation has no link to freedom of expression. It has link to abuse of this freedom. We reiterate - we are not talking about freedom of expression." Netherlands "To answer Syria whether we are aware of the fact Mr. Wilders is prosecuted. It would be very strange if we were not aware of the fact. As far as we know, he is not prosecuted for defamation of religion but incitement to hatred. In our view freedom of expression is fundamental right and if there is abuse there is judicial system should deal with that. And what happened is proof the system works at least on our country and it is up to the judge to decide if he went too far. " Freedom of expression - except at the UN -- Drafting group on Durban II stops film crew (they reversed the edict the following day after an international outcry and the film crew had left the city) Nigeria "I know this is not very popular but when did we start using cameras and photographers in an informal working group in the UN system? If it is a rule fine but if it is not a rule you have to explain why." Egypt "Freedom of expression nowhere is absolute…European courts restrict freedom to insult. We are talking about those who use it to insult other religions…" Chair "I have received a request to stop this filming…I request the journalists to stop filming. " Nigeria "I think Secretariat should explain for us to understand it very clearly…Those accredited cover them in plenary session not in drafting working groups…There are times when we are meeting and we need to be covered. Is that all times? It is not so." Chair "One group requested the team to finish the filming…We suspend the filming of our deliberations." Filming Stops - Trashing Freedom of Expression Continues 28. Reaffirms a holistic approach to human rights guaranteeing the indivisibility of all human rights, and stresses that the fight against racial and religious hatred should not serve as a pretext to legitimize impermissible limitations to freedom of expression; Angola "We feel paragraph 28 is inappropriate since…this could convey that freedom of expression can excuse racial and religious hatred." Denmark "…On deleting second sentence in current provisions - We cannot support that…" Iran "Paragraph 28…we are up for its deletion." Morocco "We request the addition of a new paragraph…"Recognizes the importance of…a responsible media that abstains from defusing hate or defamatory information and that engages to fight against such practices."" Holocaust deniers provided a platform for hate at a UN "anti-racism" conference (Holocaust) South Africa "We wish to - from the African Group - want it replaced by…"the Holocaust must never be forgotten."" Syria "I would support the South African proposal…I don't think we should get into a kind of statistical debate. As far as I know, that there is no agreement or consensus on the percentage of those who perished in the Holocaust. Maybe there is some kind of consensus on the figures or the percentage, but we are not quite sure. Maybe those who perished were half of the Jewish people, maybe less than half, maybe a third, maybe less, I don't know." Iran "…There is notion inside this paragraph where there is a talk about condemning without reservation any denial of holocaust. This entails implicit restrictions on elaboration and review and critical examination of holocaust. This is a very clear example of a violation of freedom of expression…For these two reasons we…suggest the deletion of this paragraph…We don't think this belongs to this text..." Israel demonized - Zionism is racism revisited (Middle East) European Union "It is our position this is a thematic conference about racism and…we should refrain from addressing any country situation whatever it may be in the outcome document. Paragraphs 30 - 35 concern one country situation in the world. We don't think inclusion in the outcome document is appropriate at all." Saudi Arabia "We believe that paragraph 30 is a very important paragraph…In light of the massacres we all witnessed a few weeks ago, I believe we should pay further attention to the suffering of the Palestinian people…We believe that we have to mention here all that has happened and all sufferings of these people in terms of massacres and displacement, so we cannot overlook such a situation." Pakistan "May I remind the EU we are not here to renegotiate the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It is already there and we are at a Review Conference and we cannot renegotiate. We have to review whatever was decided then, has it been implemented or not; what is lacking and what possible course of action can we suggest for addressing this particular cause. I request our colleagues not to get into this discussion, and let's try to see what is the most appropriate language which we can suggest here."" [Ed. Note: Recall Pakistan said exactly the opposite earlier in the day: Pakistan Pakistan cont. "I just wanted to highlight the distinction between thematic and specific situations. One paragraph earlier [the Holocaust paragraph] we were saying something else, and on this new paragraph we started saying something different. We just discussed a specific situation in the paragraph we discussed before. Now when we are trying to discuss another situation, it becomes "we cannot discuss it because it is something thematic". There should be some coherence in the argument. We must see what we decided whether it has been implemented or not, second point - what are the current realities, and lastly what is the course of action." [Ed. Note: This means the following. The bargaining position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference - just as it was in Durban I - is 'you give me 'Israel is racist' and we'll allow a reference to the Holocaust.'] Palestine "We will not allow taking the issue of Palestine as hostage to threaten the ongoing process of negotiations or the Durban Review Conference in general. We…welcome any positive input in line with our priorities." [Ed. Note: As is usual practice for Arab parties at the UN, reality has been turned on its head. It is the Palestinians who have taken the Durban Review Conference hostage. They threaten to thwart any agreed outcome document unless they alone are included, knowing full well that no other country-specific situation in the world will be included.] NGO -- David Littman - Association for World Education "…On December 19, 2008, the OIC organized a Conference here for the 60th anniversary of the UDHR Conference at which two books - defaming Judaism throughout - were available…These books were published by the OIC's ISESCO, which has direct links to UNESCO. We agree entirely with the position of the Czech delegate, speaking on behalf of the European Union, on the reference to the Holocaust…The comment by the delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Holocaust is revealing in view of the fact that only four days ago Reuters reported from Teheran that, and I quote: A student-linked Iranian publisher plans to launch English - and Arabic - language versions of a book of caricatures and satirical writings about the Holocaust (…) The book deals with the "big historical distortion" of the Holocaust…." Chair "We have a point of order by Iran." Iran "Just to remind us that this process is of negotiation, intergovernmental exercise. In no way should the NGO being given the permission to express views should exploit that right…No references to any names. I would kindly ask you to give the proper notice to the respective NGO." [Ed. Note: One rule for Israel, and another for Iran, in this "anti-racism" conference.] Chair "I'd like to remind you briefly that the agreement on participation of NGOs and other observers was you may make comments on issues discussed by the group. I request you to complete your statement briefly…" Litmann "I will conclude by saying that…We ask for all to heed the words and the constant acts of a certain President's "direct and public incitement" to annihilate a Member State. Those who drafted the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide had in memory the long incitement to hatred against the Jews by the Nazi leadership. Few took the Nazis seriously in the mid-1930s and did not foresee that hate constantly repeated would lead to systematic genocide. This Iranian book of caricatures and satirical writings on the Holocaust is more writing on the wall. It should inspire this Durban Preparatory Committee to remain firm." FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2009 |
Comments