A report on the World Conference Against Racism

World Conference Against Racism cont'd.

As host nation, South Africa wanted the conference to succeed. But not every South African favored the idea of hosting the notable event. Some white South Africans had been alienated by a national anti-racism conference held in South Africa the year before and were skeptical of having another race conference. On the opening day of WCAR, a coalition of South African grass roots activists, squatters, workers, and students calling themselves the Durban Forum staged a mega demonstration, more than 10000 strong, to protest the failure of the conference to address South Africa’s own economic discrimination issues. Simultaneously, the South African

Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) held a 2-day general strike condemning the ANC Government’s moves to privitise. Despite spirited protests in the streets of the beautiful port city, thousands of delegates made their way to Durban. Into the thick of the highly-charged political milieu, they continued to arrive, not knowing exactly what to expect of the historic endeavor. Some of the comers were true believers, some were merely hopefuls, while others were skeptics and a bit cynical of what really could be achieved. There were also those that questioned whether democratic South Africa was materially equipped to handle the logistics of such a mammoth event.

WCAR, the main intergovernmental conference, drew over 2500 delegates from 163 nations. That sophisticated gathering of governmental delegates—mostly men (and a few women) in suits--was singularly impressive in its uniformity. But there was one Canadian delegate who arrived in the full regalia of traditional attire, topped with a very large, beautifully multi-coloured feather headdress. Hundreds of media paparazzi were also on hand and ubiquitous security personnel.

Across the street at Kingsmead Stadium, the NGO Forum (August 28-September 1) was anything but uniformed. That parallel event of more than 7000 delegates from 150 nations was a funky grassroots affair. On the grounds of the cricket field one could see the Dalits (“Untouchables”) from India connecting with dreadlocked Rastafarians from Jamaica. Blacks from the Americas and across the continent traded experiences with dozens of ethnic minorities including indigent Polynesians, Sri Lankan Tamils and the Buraku people of Japan. The Kurds from Turkey, the Romas (“Gypsies”), the Osu and Oru people of Nigeria, Tibetan monks, British Muslims, Eskimos, American Indians and the indigenous peoples of Canada all came together. The diversity of participation was one of the high points of being there.

As expected, the hundreds of African Americans at Durban were a strong vocal presence. Professor Manning Marable, Chair of Columbia University’s Department of African American Studies, caused a stir when he presented theories on “whiteness”, connecting it conceptually with property and theft. And it was the African Americans who led the push for reparations for the victims of slavery. The African and African Descendents Caucus and the December 12th Coalition were among the African American organizations that lobbied assiduously to have reparations included in the intergovernmental document. Several African American Congressmen, members of the Black Leadership Forum, denounced the US Government for dodging the reparations issue.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade and colonialism dominated negotiations in the latter days of the conference. Those discussions caused great dissention. And at one point it was feared that WCAR, like two previous UN race conferences in 1978 and 1983, would collapse before reaching closure. When the US and Israeli delegations pulled out, some US diplomats expected the Europeans to follow suit. However, the EU delegates did not leave, choosing to stay in Durban to protect their interests. Some German officials reportedly criticized the US for pulling out and even the British called the US decision “a pity”. At the outset, the Europeans were split on the issue of colonial responsibility. Britain and Spain were very concerned about legal liabilities. Both adamantly opposed apologizing for their role in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. On the other hand, the Germans and the French were willing to issue some form of formal apology for their role in the slave trade and colonialization.

There was also a range of views among the African states regarding the slavery debate. Namibia demanded an explicit apology from states that benefited from slavery and colonialism. And Namibian delegates as well as the African Americans and some African leaders were in favor of some form of reparations. But other African leaders, including President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal were not in favor of reparations, and instead pushed for trade benefits and foreign aid. In order to avert a deadlock, South African delegates moved away from insistence upon an explicit apology. In lieu of reparations for slavery victims and descendants, the South African leaders sought debt relief and foreign aid without strings for colonized African nations.

It took an extra day to reach agreement on an intergovernmental document. Finally, on the eighth day, a compromise was reached calling upon signatories to acknowledge “that slavery is a crime against humanity and should always have been so” and expressing an apology in the form of an “acknowledgment for the wrongs of slavery” and offering economic assistance to Africa. By confining the conception of “slavery as a crime against humanity “ to the present and not dealing with its criminality in the past, legal liabilities were apparently avoided. Also, in the agreement the idea of reparations was not connected to the slave trade.
1 2 3 >>