A report on the World Conference Against Racism

A report on the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

by A. Rico Speight

The UN World Conference on Race (WCAR) held August 31-September 8 in Durban, South Africa, has been sidelined in the media by occlusive coverage of the September 11th World Trade Center attack. Few of WCAR’s many critics have linked the horrific attack with the dissension over the Middle East that was fomented at Durban. But few observers have drawn the connection that should be made between the anti-racism conference and the World Trade Center attack.
Ironically, it was President Bush, clearly not a fan of the conference, who came closest to making the connection between the two events. In his address on terrorism before a joint session of Congress, Mr. Bush asked “every nation to join …(in the)… fight of all who believe in …pluralism, tolerance and freedom..” Basically, his appeal was a restatement of the objective of the conference to “reaffirm principles of…international cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights…”

Terrorism is a political derivative of racism and related intolerances. This was acknowledged in paragraph 18 of the NGO declaration: “…racism…and related intolerance are the basis of gross violations of human rights and hate crimes…” Pity that our nation (and the world) should be so immediately awakened to the tragedy of isolationism just 3 days after the conference ended.

From the start, some grand purpose appeared to be in progress at Durban. The officious opening ceremony of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance--even the name implied a certain munificence and scope—set a tone. As the procession, led by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, South African President Thabo Mbeki, Cuban President Fidel Castro, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, filed into the hall of Durban’s International Convention Center (ICC), thousands of delegates from more than 150 countries stood in reverence. Some applauded as El Jefe, Cuban President Fidel Castro walked pass. Yassar Arafat, Algeria’s Abdelazia Bouteflika and Democratic Republic of Congo President Joseph Kabila were also among the 16 heads of state in the impressive entourage.

In his opening remarks, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared “…if we leave here without agreement, we shall give comfort to the worst elements in every society.” That theme was repeated by Cuban President Castro who warned that if the conference didn’t succeed, “what lies
before us can only be worse than what we have left behind.” But it was host President Thabo Mbeki whose remarks presaged the contentious negotiations soon to follow, “…there are many in our common world who suffer indignity and humiliation because they are not white …These are a people who know what it means to be the victim of rabid racism and racial discrimination. Nobody ever chose to be a slave, to be colonised, to be racially oppressed. The impulses of the time caused these crimes to be committed by human beings against others.”

In a world where race remains a deeply divisive force, it came as no surprise that a world conference against racism would generate vigorous and even virulent political debate. But as awful as the strife observed in Durban was the inflammatory venom put out by some mainstream media regarding conference proceedings. At one point, UN Commissioner Mary Robinson told delegates that “the press wants us to fail”. And so it seemed. On 17 August, the NY Times editorialized in a piece titled “A mean spirited UN conference”. Later, NY Times columnist Bob Herbert thrashed the WCAR in a commentary of his called, “In America; Doomed to Irrelevance”. The negative tone struck in the NY Times was reprised in the London Daily Telegraph’s September 4 article, “A hateful Conference”.

In the weeks and days leading up to the conference, US threats to boycott dominated American press coverage. After deciding to send a low ranking delegation to Durban, Secretary of State Colin Powell summoned them back to Washington two days later. The precipitous withdrawal was said to be in response to “hateful” anti-Israeli language in conference documents. However some EU delegates suggested it was fear of massive reparations claims by African Americans that prompted the recall of the American delegation. This view was shared by the African and African Descendents Caucus at the NGO Forum. In its statement issued September 4, one day after the walkout, the Caucus charged that the US had “…rationalized its opposition to even a discussion of reparations by unfairly linking it to the demands of the Palestinian people that the national oppression and racial discrimination visited upon them by the State of Israel be condemned.”
1 2 3 >>