AFRICAN NATIONS URGE GREATER COMMITMENT, ESPECIALLY IN NORTH, TO ERADICATION OF RACISM

22.03.2004

A series of African countries speaking before the Commission on Human Rights this afternoon decried what they said was a lack of effort on the part of developed nations to carry through on international commitments to combat racism, and called for more action to end discriminatory policies in immigration, education, and employment. They also called for more energetic cooperation by Western countries in mechanisms set up in response to the 2001 World Conference against Racism.

A Representative of the Republic of the Congo, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the Group was very concerned by the increased practice of discrimination in Europe, especially in the areas of education, housing and employment, and termed it regrettable that a number of developed countries had not shown any commitment to the success of the Working Group of Experts on persons of African descent which had been created following the World Conference, which was held in Durban, South Africa.

South Africa said it was disappointed by a “half-hearted attitude” among some Western countries, including the Eastern European Group, in the follow-up to the Durban Conference. It was evident that some countries had resorted to defensive tactics and to denying the existence of problems of racism in their regions, the South African Representative said; the international community must deal with that situation, as racism posed one of the greatest threats to humankind’s future.

A Representative of Eritrea said racism and its various manifestations could not be eliminated by the promulgation of legal provisions and the creation of mechanisms only; such measures had to be buttressed by the political will to make them work effectively.

Speakers for a number of other national delegations described Government efforts to promote racial harmony. A Representative of the Russian Federation contended that the appearance of racist trends on a day-to-day level was not rare in any State, and there was a need to find many different ways of combating such problems, in particular prejudices transmitted from generation to generation.
Commission Chairman Mike Smith told the afternoon meeting that he had received a written request from Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), asking the Commission to consider urgently a special sitting on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories following the assassination this morning of Sheik Ahmed Yassin. According to the Commission’s procedures, the written request was being circulated, and the Bureau would consider it when it met on Tuesday morning. If there was consensus within the Bureau, it would make a recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Smith said he hoped to be able to come back to the Commission within 24 hours so that this request could be considered formally.

Contributing to the afternoon’s general debate were representatives of Brazil, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Nigeria, Indonesia, Bahrain, Sudan, India, Argentina (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), Liechtenstein, Yemen, Iraq, the Syrian Arab Republic, Algeria, Norway, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, the International Labour Office, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Venezuela, Madagascar, the Holy See, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Colombia, Romania, Benin, Israel, and Switzerland.

Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also offered formal statements. They were B’nai B’rith International (joint statement with the Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations); International Commission of Jurists (joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights); Pax Romana (joint statement with International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Lutheran World Federation, Anti-Slavery International, and Minority Rights Group); International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (joint statement with Women’s International Zionist Organization); and Liberation.

Representatives of Viet Nam, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, Palestine and Israel spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 23 March, and is expected to begin discussion under its agenda item on the right to development.

Statements


OLGA GUBANOVA (Russian Federation) said there was no need to convince anyone present of the dangers of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, since humanity had been the victim of these more than once. Combating them was one of the priorities of the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations. Their vitality dismayed ordinary people as well as Governments and institutions. On the other hand, the appearance of racist trends on a day-to-day level was not rare in any State, and there was a need to find many different ways of combating such problems, in particular prejudices transmitted from generation to generation.

Racism was dangerous to societies, since it gave rein to medieval prejudices. The fragility of inter-ethnic peace was constantly being demonstrated, as it had been recently in Kosovo. Combating all forms of intolerance was indivisible from fighting for human rights. The Durban Conference clearly had demonstrated the will of countries to fight to the utmost any manifestation of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, and to do their most to eradicate these phenomena.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS.(Brazil) said the relevant feature of the Brazilian population was its remarkable ethnic and cultural diversity, based on various formative templates and influences. Its pluralism was built on Amerindian, European and African roots, and included Arab and Asian components. African roots had been very important in the formation of the nation. More than 40 per cent of the Brazilian population could be considered as descended from Africa. That meant that Brazil had the largest population of African descent outside Africa. Despite its diversity, the population was not immune to the afflictions of discrimination and intolerance. The preparatory process of the Durban Conference had allowed the Brazilian Government and society to engage in in-depth discussions that had given racism and discrimination unprecedented visibility.

Since taking office on 1 January 2003, the Brazilian President had underlined his commitment to the safeguarding, promotion and protection of human rights in general and to combating racism and all forms of discrimination in particular. Among other things, measures had been taken through the creation of a National Council for Combating Discrimination; the adoption of Brazil’s Second National Human Rights Programme; the adoption of a National Affirmative Action Plan; and the creation of a Special Secretariat for the Promotion of Racial Equality. The Brazilian Constitution characterized racism as a crime.

SARALA M. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said both developed and developing countries must guard against the rise of ethno-centric ideologies devoid of the values of tolerance and respect for pluralism, and the recommendations of the relevant Working Group should be closely examined and integrated into the policymaking of all Member States.

As a relatively young nation, Sri Lanka had endeavoured to build an inclusive society that drew upon its rich multicultural heritage. The principles of tolerance, diversity and pluralism reflected in the four major religious traditions of the world were represented in Sri Lanka and had inspired its political process. Recently legislation had been unanimously passed by the Parliament enabling any person of Indian origin who had been a permanent resident of the country since 30 October 1964 -- and his descendents -- to gain Sri Lankan citizenship. That legislation had resolved a long-standing problem of statelessness among descendants of Indian labourers brought to Sri Lanka during the colonial era.

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) said the Constitution of Nepal clearly stipulated that the State should not discriminate among its citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, tribe or ideological conviction, or any other ground. As a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual nation, Nepal was aware of the need to mainstream all underprivileged and marginalized communities into national life and to increase their representation at all levels of decision-making. Therefore, the mandates of Nepal’s National Foundation for the Development of Indigenous Nationalities included the overall development of various indigenous nationalities with their active participation in the process.

The Government had made poverty alleviation the central objective of its tenth Five-Year Plan. Approximately $ 21 million had been earmarked for economic and social empowerment and for traditional skill development and the development of social prestige for the underprivileged, the downtrodden and Dalits. Additionally, the Government had recently called for specific and targeted programmes for the elimination of all kinds of discrimination and exploitation; the inclusion of representatives of ethnic, indigenous and Dalit groups in the upper House of Parliament; the reservation for women of at least 25 per cent of seats in all representative institutions; and improvements in self-governance at the local level. Several measures were being taken to revamp the education system to promote cultural diversity, multiculturalism, multi-ethnicity and human rights.

ABDUL BIN RIMDAP (Nigeria) said racism and racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination had no place in the interdependent global village, and Nigeria was appalled and indeed worried about the increasing wave of man’s inhumanity to man in some parts of the world.

While the good work accomplished at Durban and the renewed political commitment professed by all regions to combating racism was appreciated, there was no doubt that the main challenge at the moment was to see relevant international agreements implemented. There was also concern over worsening racism and xenophobia against migrants and asylum applicants in some countries. No more time should be wasted on words. Concrete action must be taken to pursue the stated goals in the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

SUNU MAHADI SOEMARNO (Indonesia) said it was a matter of great urgency that the world react on all fronts, and with all the means at its disposal, to combat the trend, exacerbated by the climate of tension induced by terrorism, of steadily hardening and polarizing discriminatory attitudes. It was thus heartening to see that United Nations mechanisms had identified a number of top priorities for immediate action, notably: the promotion of awareness and education; the need to address poverty; the need to foster an ethic of human solidarity based on respect for human dignity and diversity; the importance of non-discrimination in combating terrorism; and the need to establish complementary standards to reinforce existing instruments on the elimination of racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance.

While Indonesia was an emblem of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, the economic hardships experienced in the wake of the Asian crisis of 1997 had brought considerable tension to bear on Indonesian society, testing national unity and solidarity through local conflicts sparked by ethnic and religious differences. In the face of such danger, the Government had become aware of the need to implement democratic reform and to inculcate a culture of human rights and tolerance. Over the past five years, it had endeavoured to build a solid, stable foundation upon which social cohesion could be mended and made capable of withstanding future impacts. The Government remained convinced that the promotion of diversity was the key to the country’s political stability.

FATHI AL SABI.(Bahrain) said racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance should be fought for the very reason that they were destabilizing factors within the community of nations. Reports and mechanisms on combating racism could help.

The Durban Declaration and Plan of Action should be implemented by all. The Government of Bahrain was pursuing follow-up to the Durban Conference. The Constitution of Bahrain provided for equality and affirmed equality of rights among peoples. It also guaranteed the rights provided under international instruments. The Government had recently submitted its report to the Committee against All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The Government would promote cooperation with all international efforts at fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.

MOHAMED ELHASSAN AHMED ELHAJ (Sudan) said cultural pluralism had been recognized in Sudan, and the country’s Advisory Council on Human Rights, in conjunction with the Human Rights Standing Committee of the National Assembly, was developing a plan of action against discrimination. In an effort to raise awareness of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, radio and television had started broadcasting programmes specifically tailored to promote an inclusive national culture based on the values of peaceful coexistence, tolerance and non-discrimination. Students belonging to minorities, underprivileged societies and underdeveloped regions were accorded favourable terms in national universities.

After the completion of the country’s peace process, a new Constitution incorporating provisions outlawing discrimination would be adopted. Laws aimed at combating extremism, xenophobia, intolerance and discrimination were already part of the Criminal Code and were scrupulously implemented. Among other national efforts, a conference had been held in Khartoum whose recommendations included revision of the educational curricula to cater to a socially, religiously, ethnically and culturally diverse Sudan. The country’s Committee on the Eradication of the Abduction of Women had also intensified its efforts over the past year.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said that as a nation which had been in the forefront of the international fight against racism and racial discrimination, India was deeply concerned over the recrudescence of racism, xenophobia and exclusivism in the world over the last few years. It was imperative more than ever before to focus on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action without wasting time on sterile debates on issues on which consensus could not be reached in Durban.

Besides theories of racial superiority, which were a legacy of the colonial era, some other important sources and causes of racism and racial discrimination were glaring economic disparities; the onslaught of bigotry, chauvinism and violence; and the absence of democracy, Constitutional order and the rule of law. Equally deserving of condemnation were instances of oppression. Modern communication technologies, including the Internet, were becoming increasingly powerful tools that could be abused by purveyors of racial hatred. True respect for all religions came only with genuine respect for democracy, tolerance and pluralism.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said that in spite of an increased sense of solidarity among the community of nations after the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance continued to manifest themselves in all regions of the world in various forms and with varying degrees of intensity. Most of those present were aware that these scourges would not be eliminated in a short time.

The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was the single most important recent document which could galvanize humanity to recommit itself to the struggle against racism. However, it should be recognized that racism and its various manifestations could not be eliminated by the promulgation of legal provisions and the creation of mechanisms only: such measures should be buttressed by the political will to make them work effectively at national, regional and international levels. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action had opened a new era of struggle, and those marching in its support should reaffirm their faith, identify new problems, reorganize priorities, take new initiatives and adopt new policies and strategies.

PITSO D. MONTWEDI (South Africa) said South Africa welcomed the forthcoming statement by the Republic of Congo on behalf of the African Group and said that since the Durban Conference, the Group had provided leadership at the international level within the framework of the Commission and the General Assembly in relation to follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Programme of Action. The salient mechanisms, including the Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; the Working Group of Experts on people of African descent; the Group of Eminent Persons, appointed by the Secretary-General; and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, were now operational and in place. They should afford the Commission the opportunity to address properly the issue of racism and racial discrimination.

Durban was central to the promotion of human dignity and equality. It was, however, with sadness that disappointment must be registered about the half-hearted attitude of some Western countries, including the Eastern European Group, in the follow-up to Durban. It was evident that most countries within such regions had resorted to defensive tactics and to denying the existence of problems of racism in their regions. The international community must deal with that situation, as racism posed one of the greatest threats to humankind’s future.

ROGER JULIEN MENGA.(Republic of the Congo), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said slavery, colonialism and apartheid had given rise to misery and suffering in Africa. The international community had classified such practices of racial discrimination as a crime against humanity. These offences had allowed the massive exploitation of African wealth by the colonial powers, which had enriched themselves at the expense of Africans. The economic exploitation of and the work of the slaves had generated wealth in the countries of the colonialists. The people of Africa had been involuntarily and forcibly displaced from the Continent to be used as a force of production in Europe and North America. It was surprising today that those Africans in the Diaspora were being rejected and subjected to the worst forms of racial discrimination. The judicial systems in former slave-holding countries did not adequately guarantee protection of the victims, especially protection of persons of African descent. The African Group was very concerned by the increased practice of discrimination in Europe, especially in the areas of education, housing and employment.

It was regrettable that the developed countries had not shown any commitment to the success of the Working Group of Experts on persons of African descent. The African Group took note of the commitment of certain delegations from the developed countries, such as Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand, who were taking the mandate of the Working Group seriously.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), said great worth was attached to the fact that the Durban Conference recognized persons of African descent as a group vulnerable to racial discrimination. The Commission was urged to continue to take into account the global, regional and national dimensions of the human rights of persons of African descent. GRULAC had contributed to the broad-based support for the implementation of the goals set out in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the aims of which were to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of related discrimination.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was urged to strengthen its division working on follow-up of the Durban Declaration, although those who held the main responsibility for the Declaration were States. There was a shared responsibility at the international level and particularly within the United Nations system for effectively pursuing the goals set in Durban. Civil society should participate in this process, helping Governments to create plans and means for implementing the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action to their utmost extent.

ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) said that following the World Conference, an Action Plan, based on the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, had been formulated in Liechtenstein. After concentrating last year on measures to build awareness among public officials and police officers, this year, within the framework of the Action Plan, the Government would organize a seminar for journalists of all national newspapers and radio stations to raise awareness of their responsibility as promulgators of mutual understanding and respect for all people when reporting on questions related to foreigners, different ethnic groups or instances of xenophobia or racial discrimination.

Further foci this year were efforts to collect and elaborate data to identify possible fields of discrimination, for example discrimination related to housing, education or work. Great importance was being placed on the prosecution of violators and on preventing discriminating, xenophobic or racist activities. Integration was the key to a truly multicultural society, where mutual respect and tolerance were an integral part of daily life.

SULEIMAN MOHAMED TABRIZI (Yemen) said that through ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, the Yemeni Government had sought to eliminate all forms of discrimination, as these offences posed obstacles on the road to peace and brotherhood.

Yemeni laws focused, among other things, on issues such as the freedom of foreigners to enter and leave the country, and their rights to a dignified life, personal security and justice. Yemen condemned any racist activity and considered racism as a crime, sanctioned by law. From that premise, the international community was called upon to shoulder its obligation to condemn the apartheid wall being built in the occupied Palestinian West Bank.

MOHAMMED MEJID (Iraq) said the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had not been implemented in Iraq for 30 years because of the dictatorial regime that had been in place. The former regime had hindered people from enjoying the rights provided for by different international instruments. People had been displaced without their will and the rights of minorities had never been respected.

A new Government structure had been established in the country, with all segments of the population represented. Pluralism was at last being practiced, and people would be able to send their deputies to a national legislative body. The new Government Council was composed of persons representing all Iraqis from all regions, all national minorities, all of the country’s different religious groups, and women. The measures taken by the Iraqi people would enable the country to implement the principles of the right to self-determination.

AYMAN RAAD (Syrian Arab Republic) said human rights were universal and indivisible, and racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia were a denial of the very system of human rights based on equality and the respect of the rights of others -- a flagrant violation of United Nations principles and goals. It had been thought that the practice of racial discrimination had had its last stronghold in South Africa under apartheid, and that apartheid’s elimination had been the end of it. However, the policies of Israel in the Golan and against the Palestinian people were prime examples of racism today, and it was ironic that those who had once suffered racial discrimination were today the worst perpetrators of it, as evidenced by the United Nations’ repeated calls to Israel to cease its violations of Palestinians’ rights.

The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action should be reaffirmed, as it was a great step towards the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. In addition, all forms of defamation of Islam should be eliminated.

LAZHAR SOUALEM (Algeria) said that two and one half years after Durban the balance sheet on progress against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance remained varied. However, the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination remained topical. The necessary measures should be taken to allow it to cover new forms of racial discrimination. For example, persons of African descent continued to be subjected to discrimination in many countries, including those where democracy supposedly was established and equal rights assured. Discrimination in such societies was largely invisible and related to issues such as education, social protection, access to employment and lodging.

The dialectic between poverty and vulnerability in relation to persons of African descent explained to a large extent the continued checks to their integration into societies around the world. The contributions of the Special Rapporteur, particularly in regard to the provision of concrete examples of the resurgence of extremism, ethno-nationalism and racist ideology in every region of the world, and especially in the developed world, should be recognized. The climate of suspicion surrounding communities of African descent, ethnic minorities and refugees – inhibited in terms of social integration and economically and culturally vulnerable – helped in some cases to facilitate the commission of deliberately criminal acts.

SVERRE BERGH JOHANSEN (Norway) said racism and racial discrimination constituted one of the most difficult challenges facing societies today and should be a high priority of all States. The struggle against racism was a struggle for all nations, large and small. No region, no country, no community could claim to be free of intolerance.

The main battle against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance had to be fought at the national level, and each State should look afresh at itself: its past, its present, and of course, its future. Racism was also at the root of conflict and tension within and between States. The resulting suffering, inequality and violence should be fought as a matter of the highest priority. Coordinated international efforts to combat racism and racial discrimination were vital.

KIM YONG HO (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was a manifestation of the firm will and determination of the international community to eliminate racism and racial discrimination throughout the world and to realize equality and development for every race, nation and ethnic group. Despite international efforts to implement the Durban Plan of Action, today widespread discrimination and contempt for other races and nations was witnessed everywhere.

Lack of the complete settlement of past injustices through, in particular, acceptance of legal responsibility, apology and reparation on the part of perpetrators had been the root cause for persistent crimes against humanity, injustice and immorality. Colonialist, depredatory and discriminatory acts committed by countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom in past centuries had now given way to the exclusion of other races, nations, religions or beliefs as well as to the tragic catastrophe of the illegal invasion of Iraq. Japan was urged once again to cast off its anachronistic hatred and confrontational attitude towards other nations and in particular to liquidate immediately its past crimes stained with the blood of other nations.

MOHAMMAD REZA ALBORZI (Iran) said it was of profound concern that contemporary forms and manifestations of racism and xenophobia were regaining political, and even legal, recognition in many ways. The platforms of some political parties and organizations were overtly racist and the Internet had facilitated the dissemination of racist misinformation. Subtle manifestations of racism had rapidly increased in recent years, as for example through the targeting of Muslims living in some Western countries. Political platforms and activities based on doctrines of superiority and violent nationalist ideologies must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Building a society free from any form of racism called for a broader understanding of cultural and civilizational differences. All States and non-governmental actors were encouraged to demonstrate genuine commitment to the fight against racism and to engage in meaningful cooperation and dialogue. Concerned by recent developments in some European societies, Iran encouraged European countries to respect the human rights of Muslims, including the right to practice their religious obligations, and invited them to review and revise discriminatory laws and regulations directly or indirectly violating Muslims’ rights. The recommendations contained in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action should be followed up in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation.

MARTIN OELZ, of the International Labour Office (ILO), said the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation was a longstanding objective of the organization. The ILO was attaching increasing importance to the linkages between discrimination and other fundamental labour rights and social and economic development issues. For example, an increased focus was being placed on the link between labour market discrimination and forced labour. Further, groups subject to labour market discrimination in their countries of origin were more likely to fall prey to traffickers or eventually to become traffickers themselves.

The fact that child labour took place predominantly among the most vulnerable socio-economic groups, including indigenous and tribal peoples, migrant workers, and lower classes and castes had become more visible and had resulted in the need for non-discrimination elements to be addressed in linked programmes. The ILO stressed that it was essential for the international community and for national Governments to reinforce their efforts against racism and social exclusion of all kinds.

STEPHEN WAINWRIGHT, of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said the Federation had always acted on its strong basis and firm commitment to challenge discrimination in all its forms. The foundation of that commitment was the second of its movement's seven fundamental principles, which allowed no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. Abhorrence of all forms of discrimination was one of the most deeply shared convictions between the Federation and members of the Commission. The Federation's efforts were currently focused on its programme "Action to reduce discrimination - global approach and local action". Non-discrimination and human dignity were key common elements that bound together human rights law, international humanitarian law and the principles and values of the Federation movement.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies would make every effort to fulfil its pledge made under the Declaration and Agenda for Humanitarian Action at its 2003 International Conference to develop the various facets of its work in the area of reducing discrimination. There would be many hundreds of events around the world on 8 May, World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day 2004, under the theme "Stop Discrimination".

VLADIMIR GONZALEZ VILLAPAREDES (Venezuela) said Venezuela’s position in all international fora was clear and firm in its opposition to all forms of racism and discrimination. Slavery, ethnic conflict, racism against indigenous populations and discrimination on the basis of belief, race or for any other cause were not issues that the State had had to deal with in its history, and in order to keep things that way, the Government had undertaken to work for the development of coordinated action for the promotion and defense of fundamental rights, especially in relation to State security services and health and educational institutions.

Unfortunately, racist sentiment had been detected in certain elements of the political opposition, which was why the Government remained ready to take action to ensure that rationality ruled. It was hoped that recent positive measures taken to protect vulnerable groups and populations would be respected by members of civil society as well as by the Government.

CLARAH ANDRIANJAKA (Madagascar) said racism and racial discrimination had had many victims, and thousands of people all over the world continued daily to suffer from its terrible consequences. Three decades of the fight against racism and racial discrimination had been proclaimed by the United Nations, but these campaigns had not reached their goal, despite the three world conferences held to find the means of combating this abominable scourge. Far from diminishing, the evil persisted, and new, more subtle or diffuse forms of discrimination were appearing.

The Durban Conference had been an historic moment which should have allowed all States and all concerned actors to think further on how to implement and to take efficient measures for eliminating racism and all forms of racial discrimination. States, which were primarily responsible for the fight against racism and racial discrimination, should reinforce their national legislation and take all measures considered efficient towards improving education and eliminating poverty. The fight against racism, racial discrimination, and all forms of discrimination was an arduous one, and a long one, which required the mobilization of all. It was only when armed with sufficient political will and with sufficient means that this scourge would be beaten as was Nazism, as was apartheid, for the greater good of future generations and of humanity.

SILVANO M. TOMASI, of the Holy See, said racism kept returning to poison human relations. The forms taken by contemporary forms of racism were evident in spontaneous, officially tolerated and sometimes institutionalized behaviour. In recent events, intolerance, based on the idea of group superiority on the basis of a group’s origin or attributed characteristics, provoked new violence and death, ethnic cleansing, refugee flows and untold misery. Racist behaviour and self-affirmation became occasionally the cover for an undemocratic hold on power and for a rationalized justification of corruption. The fight against racism therefore remained a contemporary matter.

The challenge now facing the international community was to implement the growing body of directives protecting human rights and aiming in particular at the elimination of every form of racism and related intolerance. The struggle against racism and all forms of intolerance stood a chance of success when human dignity and equality were recognized as the true foundation of social relations. The equal dignity of every person and of every human community provided a launching pad into the future that could stimulate the creativity of the international community to continue devising all practical measures necessary to achieve such a noble goal of eliminating all forms of racism and related intolerance and of promoting fair and inclusive societies.

GEORGES MALEMPRE, of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that since its inception, UNESCO had been committed to the fight against racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. Initially, it had taken steps to mobilize the scientific community with the aim of refuting racist theories. A number of declarations had been adopted that contributed to the rejection of racial prejudice. After consolidating the scientific arguments and the creation of ethics in the fight against racism and other forms of discrimination, UNESCO had oriented its action towards the elaboration of international instruments, defining a whole set of principles and concepts and creating universal standard-setting in the fight against racial discrimination and intolerance.

Among instruments relating to racism, discrimination, xenophobia or intolerance was the Convention against Discrimination in Education, which was the first to provide an exhaustive definition of the term "discrimination", described as "any distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference which was based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion”, among other things.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said the united efforts of State institutions, social organizations and the international community were necessary to fight racism. Unfortunately, Colombia was familiar with the problem of racism, despite institutional efforts to combat it. Racism continued to constitute a threat to Colombian society. Thus, on 21 March 2003, a Task Force had been established to formulate measures to eradicate racism.

The Task Force was to draw up a plan of action on discrimination, to form part of the country’s national plan of action on human rights. Colombia was also seeking to establish an overall approach to the problem of discrimination against populations of African descent, one of the groups most affected by discrimination, along with indigenous groups. With respect to the report of the Special Rapporteur, it should be noted that there was no overall perception in his report of what Colombia considered its “democratic security” strategy. As noted by the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights in his report on the situation in Colombia, it was the armed conflict that had exacerbated the human rights situation in the country.

ION DIACONU (Romania) said the concepts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance had been dealt with in a global manner without defining each different element and by proposing the same replies and remedies. The Durban Declaration and Plan of Action were the latest documents which had recommended that States take a series of measures to combat these phenomena. The Vienna Declaration of 1993 had recommended the same: that States adopt administrative, judicial and administrative measures to combat racism and racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was defined by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965, which requesting States parties to condemn and punish all ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination or acts of racial violence.

Each year, the Special Rapporteur submitted a report to the Commission on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. However, the concepts of xenophobia and intolerance had not been defined. UNESCO had indirectly defined intolerance in its 1995 Declaration. Xenophobia also was considered among human rights violations, and considered a serious obstacle to the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. What was the relationship between racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia? What was the relationship between intolerance and other attitudes? Were the means used so far adequate to counter them all and at the same time? Xenophobia and intolerance were not inherent to human beings: one could not be born a xenophobe or intolerant.

ROSEMONDE DODJI ADJANONHOUN (Benin) said this item of the agenda was of capital importance. All initiatives and actions taken under the umbrella of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and taken to fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of related intolerance should be upheld. Every human creature, of whatever colour, race, religion, culture, or geographical location should enjoy a dignified, equal and equitable form of treatment. The daily lives of men and peoples should be founded on the principles of tolerance, mutual understanding and quite simply on respect of human rights.

The effort remaining and the actions required by States, different structures and institutions, social groups and individuals, in order to uphold these values and to fight against all forms of racism required the setting up of policies on education, sensitization and information on those Conventions that guaranteed fundamental human rights. There was a need to review national and local Government policies and to modify or abrogate any law or regulatory disposition that had the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination.

YAAKOV LEVY (Israel) said the struggle against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was a fundamental and integral part of the promotion and protection of human rights. The past decade had borne witness to terrible acts of violence and vandalism committed in the name of racial hatred and other forms of prejudice and intolerance. Along with the traditional expressions of racism, contemporary forms were expressed through a variety of media, including cyberspace.

Racial discrimination and the multitude of other prejudices that were ingrained in societies around the world had a devastating, destructive effect, in particular with regard to their impact on the realization of human rights. To take effective action in the fight against these prejudices, the phenomenon of racism should be properly understood and addressed. There was an ancient, persistent form of racism that mankind had not yet succeeded in uprooting, and that was anti-Semitism, which had proven to be very adaptable to new surroundings and circumstances. Curbing this ugly scourge along with other forms of intolerance should remain an integral part of the promotion and protection of human rights. Anti-Semitism attacked the very foundations of democracy, decency and humanity.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said today it was a fact that racism was universally condemned. However, too many individuals were still victimized due to their origins, race, age, language, social situation, way of life, or religious, philosophical or political convictions. In too many regions of the world, certain ethnic minorities were forbidden the right to citizenship and related civil rights. Sometimes even citizenship had been taken away from such people by reason of race or national origin, and these policies had sometimes been applied to populations that had been living in a region for generations.

The amplitude and resurgence of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia -- attitudes exacerbated by recent tragic events -- were also worrying. The emphasis in the fight against these scourges should be put on the fundamental role of education, whilst encouraging tolerance, the acceptance of diversity and respect of the other as essential principles.

DAN MARIASCHIN, of B'nai B'rith International speaking on behalf of Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, said the rise of anti-Semitism over the past year in many parts of the world had not only been quantitative in nature, but also qualitative in the sense that verbal and physical attacks against Jews and their institutions were no longer hiding but were returning to the classic anti-Semitic attacks used in the early twentieth century.

If the Commission wished to retain a semblance of credibility in its treatment of racism, racial prejudice and xenophobia, it needed to specify anti-Semitism as one form of racism that deserved study by the Special Rapporteur and condemnation by the Commission on a basis of equality with forms of racism directed against other groups.

HASSIBA HADJ SAHRAOUI, of International Commission of Jurists speaking on behalf of International Federation of Human Rights, said the organizations wished to express grave concern over situations in which people were exposed to discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Discrimination on that basis appeared worldwide and occurred at different levels, including throughout the justice system.

Discriminatory practices had been witnessed as applied to victims of crimes, depending upon their sexual orientations. Even more seriously, State authorities often refused to carry out investigations of extra-judicial executions committed on the basis of sexual orientation. The solemn commitment of the States of the world, made in Vienna, on the inviolability and interdependence of human rights had to be adhered to. It was the duty of States to protect all human rights.

JOSEPH RAJKUMAR, of Pax Romana speaking on behalf of severals NGOs*, said these organizations continued to be deeply concerned by the persistent problem of caste-based discrimination and similar forms of inherited social exclusion affecting some 250 million persons. People and communities suffering that form of discrimination continued to be regarded as polluting, to live segregated lives, and to be required to perform society's most menial and hazardous tasks. They were also subject to the most egregious forms of exclusion and exploitation.

After a long and inexplicable silence on the part of the UN human rights system, it was encouraging to see the increasing attention that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had recently been giving to the matter. The Sub-Commission's ongoing examination of the question had done much to illustrate the truly global nature of caste-based and analogous forms of discrimination. The report submitted by Mr. Diène had indicated that castes in India continued to suffer from discrimination as did the Buraku people in Japan.

MAYA BEN-HAIM ROSEN, of International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists speaking on behalf of Women’s International Zionist Organization, said that since the end of the last Commission, the continued wave of anti-Semitism throughout the world had increased, and these acts included Islamic terrorist attacks against Jews, vandalism committed against Jewish property, and the relentless delegitimization of Israel as a Jewish State in the media. The most worrying phenomenon was the rise of genocidal anti-Semitism.

In striking contrast, the question of Islamophobia had received prioritised attention. The Special Rapporteur should be requested to treat the problem of increasing anti-Semitism as a matter of no less gravity, and the Commission should address the alarming rise, vigorously condemn all anti-Semitic acts, and implement redressing measures.

JEREMY CORBYN, of Liberation, said there was much evidence to suggest that laws on refugees and asylum-seekers in Europe were designed to be target-specific, which was discriminatory. Those uprooted or displaced by political persecution, civil war, economic or environmental catastrophe were the principal victims of a new, institutionalized racism. The demonization of asylum-seekers had become the norm throughout Europe and the developed world. Policies to exclude asylum-seekers from access to benefits and housing support had been gathering pace in recent years.

Moreover, the war against terrorism had accentuated such discrimination by further removing asylum-seekers – and other foreigners – from the safeguards provided by ordinary law. In many places, the State retained the right to detain foreign nationals accused of or suspected of involvement with terrorist activities, denying them access to justice, representation or even knowledge of the charges brought against them. It was essential that the Commission examine the whole process and defend vigorously the right to asylum enshrined in the 1951 Convention.

Right of Reply

TRUONG TRIEU DUONG.(Viet Nam), speaking in a right of reply in reference to a statement made by a representative of the United States at the morning session, said the speaker was self-described as of Vietnamese origin and proud of the success he had achieved in the United States, while many Vietnamese had not been very successful in that country. But many Vietnamese were successful in their own country. Their record in the fight against poverty and hunger, their record in the fight for freedom, their record in the fight against foreign aggression, for independence and freedom, and for building their own country should be highlighted

JONG-HO KIM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said the allegations made by the Representative of the United States this morning were motivated by political purposes and were intended to mislead the Commission. Why was the speaker not boasting about the systematic and consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights taking place in the United States, including discrimination against and hatred of coloured people? If he was interested in promoting human rights around the world, as he said, why did he keep silent about the tragic and bloody situation in Iraq, where civilians were dying as a result of the illegal occupation by the United States and its allies? This preposterous behaviour seriously undermined the credibility of the Commission and should be rejected by all.

JUNYA MATSUURA (Japan), speaking in a right to reply in response to respond to the statement made by the delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, informed the Commission that the Pyongyang Declaration had addressed the issues arising from Japan’s colonial rule in the past. Japan saw no need to repeat what had already been jointly declared under that Declaration. On the status of those resident in Japan of Korean origin, the Government had made all possible efforts to ensure their rights. In regard to property claims, it should be noted that under the Pyongyang Declaration, both sides had agreed to discuss property claims in the course of normalization talks, on the understanding that all claims and those of their nationals originating before the date set would be waived.

NABIL SHEHADA (Palestine), speaking in a right of reply in reference to the statements made by the Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations and the Representative of Israel, said the struggle of the Palestinian people was not against the Jewish people but against occupation. The punishment incurred by Palestinians detained by Israel had been discriminatory. The detainees were not allowed to see their families, while Israelis who committed the same crimes had the right to be visited by their families and even enjoyed weekends off from prison. The struggle of the Palestinian people would continue against occupation and repression.

YAAKOV LEVY (Israel), speaking in a right of reply, said several speakers, referring to aspects of Israeli security measures, had characterized these as racist or racial. Countries ganged up on Israel in the Commission, thus avoiding discussion of racism and racial discrimination in other parts of the world, and this had been the case last Friday afternoon, a time during which a racial and racist incident had taken place in Israel, perpetrated by Palestinians against an Israeli in an area that was not protected by the Wall.

JONG-HO KIM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) , in a second right of reply, said in response to the statement just made by Japan that Japan was engaged in confrontation with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It had adopted anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea laws. If Japan truly wished for good bilateral relations between the two countries, it should sincerely implement the bilateral Declaration.

NABIL SHEHADA (Palestine), in a second right of reply, said the Israeli Representative had just referred to the issue of security. But that security should be exercised within its own territory, and should not kill civilians under the pretext of security.

JUNYA MATSUURA (Japan), in a second right of reply, said it was regrettable to hear the delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea giving unsubstantiated numbers regarding Japan’s colonial rule in the past. With regard to the Pyongyang Declaration, which stated that both sides decided to discuss all issues in the course of normalization talks, the Japanese Government’s intention was to implement and engage in the talks sincerely.



* *** *

*Joint statement on behalf of : International Movement Against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; Lutheran World Federation; Anti-Slavery International and Minority Rights Group.