 |
|
|
In defence
of Durban: racism is back on the agenda
Pierre
Sané, assistant director-general for social and human sciences of UNESCO and
former secretary-general of Amnesty International |
A protest against racism and poverty held in Durban.
A mural in Namibia celebrates unity between people of different colour.
|
Ten
years of
world conferences
1992.
UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro)
1993. World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna)
1994. International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo)
1995. World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen)
1995. Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing)
1996. Second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Istanbul)
1996. World Food Summit (Rome)
2001. World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and
Related Intolerance (Durban)
|
For
the first time,
the international
community recognized
that slavery and
the slave trade
formed a
“crime against
humanity” |
“Total
fiasco,” “a congregation of the converted,” “a lot of hot air”–the media’s verdict
on the Durban conference against racism was a harsh one. It was also unfair, says
Pierre Sané, who led Unesco’s delegation
Since racial segregation
ended in the United States and apartheid was abolished in South Africa, many governments
have denied the existence of racism in the world, and particularly in their own societies.
Despite this, a world conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia
and related intolerance in Durban, South Africa, (Aug. 31-Sept. 7) managed to draw
delegations from 170 countries. It was an extraordinary admission by those who took
part that racism exists in all societies.
The job of the conference was to point to new kinds of racism1 that today affect
immigrant workers, asylum-seekers, refugees, displaced people, those with HIV/AIDS
and others. It was also intended to denounce moves towards “genetic discrimination,”
for example when a firm asks a future employee for his or her genetic imprint with
the excuse of looking for possible “abnormalities.” The Durban conference brought
debate up to date on all these points.
These kinds of political gatherings invariably give rise to trials of strength, and
there are failings. The final documents in Durban do not mention the biggest group
of human beings affected by discrimination–South Asia’s 260 million dalits, or untouchables.
Neither was there mention of black people living in Arab countries, nor of the Palestinians.
Putting
faces on the victims
But
many “invisible” victims did show their faces to the world at the conference. Seemingly
trivial but really very telling was a delegation of “Pygmies,” who came to publicize
for the first time at a world conference the threats to their society from war in
Central Africa. Afro-Latins–people of African origin from Colombia and Venezuela–also
spoke of their suffering.
The presence of delegations of Roms, Gypsies, Sindis and other travelling people–all
victims of a racism ignored by the international community–were able through their
links with NGOs to have their say in the conference’s final declaration and action
plan. Many other victims were clearly identified. Now it is up to governments to
do something about them. This was a significant achievement for the conference.
Some critics have singled out the “catch-all” nature of the gathering and claimed
that it was submerged by disputes of “questionable relevance”–arguments about whether
reparations should be made for slavery, or whether Israel should be condemned on
the grounds that Zionism is racist.
The task of the conference was to list the causes of racism, and slavery was seen
in this context. The slave trade and colonialism were probably legitimized by racism
and in turn encouraged it. They were denounced in these terms. And for the first
time, the international community recognized that slavery and the slave trade were
“appalling tragedies in the history of humanity” and that they formed a “crime against
humanity.”
All this is only a start. Unesco, for example, argues that people have a duty to
remember the past and is calling for scholars to be allowed access to all records
so that the extent and effect of the slave trade can be conclusively assessed. It
is also asking that school textbooks reflect the importance of this tragedy and its
criminal nature.
Hidden
guilt
The
conference had no brief to work out details relating to the controversial issue of
compensation for slavery during its 10-day session. But it carried out its job by
making a declaration of principle over the “moral obligation” to pay financial compensation
for wrongs committed, and for me that is stronger than a “legal obligation.”
Giving the status of victims to Africans, who were the objects of this trade, finally
enables their descendants to lift their heads high, while allowing the descendants
of those who committed the crime to end their silence. I have always regarded development
aid as the unhealthy product of a secret feeling of guilt. With the crime recognized
for what it is, such aid can be replaced by fair compensation that will put the parties
involved on an equal footing.
Some people think the Palestinian issue was intrusive, but it was inevitably going
to come up in Durban at a conference organized by the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights. For delegations from Arab and Muslim countries, the issue is one of human
rights, discrimination (some Israeli laws discriminate in this way), violence against
a people and violation of the right to self-determination. It is in the news and
had to be raised, as apartheid was in its day.
The United States and Israel, who were against allowing the issue onto the agenda,
withdrew from the conference. But the agenda was democratically drawn up by all the
working groups. If a topic appeared relevant to the aim of the conference, they could
decide to include it for discussion. They did so, and the final conference declaration
expressed “deep concern” over “the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in
various parts of the world,” while emphatically rejecting any equivalence between
Zionism and racism.
A
moral re-armament
Can
we trust the countries that promised the conference they would fight racism? The
first test will be whether they come up with national plans to do so, along with
a budget, identification of perpetrators and victims, legislation and a timetable
for action. They have said they will. To help them, the conference has drawn up a
list of “best practices,” such as banning all kinds of discrimination in the workplace
and in housing, devising ways to measure progress in education by the most disadvantaged
groups, and assuring that those who file complaints about racism (especially concerning
the police) are protected.
All this might seem wishful thinking. But all world conferences–Rio on the environment
and Beijing on women’s rights–have ended the same way, namely with a declaration
and a plan of action that is not binding but which is based on existing conventions
and law. The aim of such gatherings is to get countries to re-commit themselves–a
kind of moral re-armament–towards working together to solve a problem that depends
on international cooperation. Nobody forces governments to take part in these events.
But the fact that negotiations over the final declaration were so tough shows exactly
how important countries thought it was. By signing that declaration, they pledged
their word and their credibility, and agreed to make regular reports on how their
promises were being put into effect. Everything also depends on how far civil society–the
1,000 NGOs who attended the conference–get involved. When they get back home, they
can say to their government: “You’ve signed. Where’s your action plan?”
Some people accused these NGOs of going to extremes in Durban, to the point of stifling
debate. But there was plenty of impassioned argument at the conference. It was only
natural for associations supporting murdered victims to lose patience with the “realism”
espoused by governments. So the debates were very lively, but not violent.
The conference put the fight against racism on the agendas of all NGOs. Governments
have made progress too by joining a democratic debate ultimately aimed at the shared
management of global society. Durban was worth it.
1. See
UNESCO Courier, September 2001. |
|
A
forum of sound and fury
Durban gave
the final proof: the gatherings of NGOs that are now part and parcel of all major
UN conferences are turbulent affairs. To make matters worse, they are often infiltrated
by “false NGOs,” associations created especially for the event by undemocratic states,
political parties or industrial lobbies. But even so, these assemblies are valuable
hothouses that have facilitated the gradual emergece of a “global civil society”
intent on talking on equal terms with the powers that be.
Durban, the first major conference of the 21st century, formed the latest instalment
of a series of similar events (see p. 11) over the last decade, meetings that have
heralded the ascent of non-governmental representatives into the management of international
affairs.They may be accused of squandering funds (budgets vary from two to 10 million
dollars each), but today’s UN conferences are no longer mere stages for states to
lock horns. Aside from revealing the differences between governments and other parts
of society (such as NGOs, cities and businesses), the summits also vent the disputes
within civil society itself. The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 was the first occasion
in which NGOs, until then excluded from large global gatherings, played an significant
part in shaping debate–even if their representatives were shunted several kilometres
away from the official conference. But all the same, they were there in force (over
2,500 of them), denouncing injustice, blaming market economics for its undesirable
effects and proposing “alternatives.”
Sometimes, as in the 1993 Vienna conference on human rights, activists have been
granted a presence on the official podium and a voice in the final decision-making
process. In Beijing, in 1995, they made the front page, which is more than can be
said of the official conference discussions on women’s rights. For the very first
time, Amnesty International’s then secretary-general, Pierre Sané, held a
press conference in China.
As the summits have continued, these NGO forums have grown in importance and diversity,
often with the approval of the UN. Termed the “gringo forum” at Rio due to the preponderance
of groups from the northern hemisphere, these meetings have since welcomed a much
greater presence of delegates from the developing world, testimony to the upsurge
of southern NGOs.
|
|
|
|
