COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONCLUDES DEBATE ON ELF-DETERMINATION, STARTS TO DISCUSS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
21 March 2002
Afternoon





Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism
Presents Reports



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its debate on the right of peoples to self-determination and started its consideration of the question of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination.

The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, Maurice Glele-Ahanhanzo, introduced his reports to the Commission. He said one of them examined anti-Muslim and anti-Arab reactions following the attacks of 11 September which had occurred in several countries including Australia, Canada and European Union member countries. Likewise, the report addressed manifestations of anti-Semitism in North America, Europe and Russia. The report also contained information about racist violence and activities by extreme right organizations, neo Nazis and skinheads in the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and Switzerland. Finally, the report examined the situation of the Roma.

Speakers spoke about the importance of the World Conference against Racism. Malaysia, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said it was dismayed that the events of 11 September had had a negative impact on efforts to combat racism and had provoked racist reactions against Muslims and Arabs. Saudi Arabia said Islamaphopbia and the attempts to link Islam to terrorism and extremism were unacceptable. And Chile, speaking on behalf of the GRULAC Group (Latin American and Caribbean countries), said that the Conference against Racism had been historical and constituted part of the positive contribution of the United Nations to the universalization of human dignity. The GRULAC Group renewed its commitment to the Political Declaration and Plan of Action of Durban.

At the beginning of the afternoon meeting, the Commission concluded its public debate on the right of peoples to self-determination. Country delegations highlighted the right of Palestinians to self-determination, terming Israeli aggressions a violation of human rights, and underlining that the resistance of the Palestinian people to rid themselves of the occupying force could not be considered as terrorism. Non-governmental organizations raised the issue of self-determination in a number of other countries and regions around the world.

The following national delegations took the floor on the right to self-determination: Oman, Liechtenstein, Tunisia, Qatar, Yemen, and Jordan, as did the following non-governmental organizations: the European Union of Public Relations, Liberation, the World Muslim Congress, the African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters, the Indigenous World Association, Pax Romana, the International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, the Afro Asian People's Solidarity Organization, and the World Federation of Trade Unions.

Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Cuba, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Paraguay, Panama, India, Bahrain, Iraq, Palestine, and Armenia exercised their right of reply,

The Commission concluded its afternoon meeting at 6 p.m. and immediately resumed an evening meeting which was scheduled to conclude at 9 p.m. to continue its debate on racism and racial discrimination.

Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination

Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it a note by the Secretariat (E/CN.4/2002/22) on the annual progress report of the High Commissioner on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, explaining that the contents of this report have been consolidated with and are included in the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Commission resolution 2001/5 on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (E/CN.4/2002/21).

There is the report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2002/21) on the implementation of the programme of action for the Third Decade to combat racism and racial discrimination and coordination of activities. It reports on the activities of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; and the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. It also contains aspects of the follow-up activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which includes the establishment of the Anti-Discrimination Unit, new OHCHR website activities, technical cooperation, human rights monitoring and protection activities, human rights investigations, inputs to the human rights treaty bodies system and sections on indigenous people, minorities and HIV/AIDS.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2002/133) submitted by the World Health Organization on its initiatives and activities that are of relevance to the work of the Commission on Human Rights. The report explains the relationship between health and human rights. It also focuses on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination; the right to development; economic, social and cultural rights; integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective; rights of the child; specific groups and individuals; indigenous issues; promotion and protection of human rights, and effective functioning of human rights mechanisms.

There is a report by Maurice Glele-Ahanhanzo, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, (E/CN.4/2002/24), in which he concludes that the persistence of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in both subtle and violent manifestations shows that questions of equality, social justice and respect for the diversity of the human rights are crucial to solving the problems with which mankind is confronted in the twenty-first century. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the holding of the World Conference against Racism. He attaches fundamental importance to education as a means of converting racist, xenophobic and intolerant mentalities into a psychological outlook imbued with the humanistic values of respect for others, brotherhood and solidarity. He also attached importance to the adoption of legislative measures to punish racial discrimination and prohibit racist organizations.

In his recommendations, the Special Rapporteur calls on all Governments to show restraint in solving problems relating to terrorism, so as to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms when adopting security measures.

There is also the report of Mr. Glele-Ahanhanzo (E/CN.4/2002/24 Add.1), which contains a summary of his mission to Australia. The Special Rapporteur notes that substantial efforts are being made by the Australian Government to end racism and racial discrimination. He recommends, inter alia, that the policy of multiculturalism should be widely discussed and defined by a broad consensus and that inspiration be drawn from UNESCO's declarations and programmes on cultural identity, cultural diversity and multiculturalism, thus through education; that the process of reconciliation should be given fresh impetus, taking greater account of the positions of the representatives of the indigenous peoples; that the Native Title Act should be amended in the light of already made proposals by the Aboriginals and that the Australian Government finds a humane solution to the question of the "stolen generation", whose situation is psychologically and socially blocked and desperate.


Debate on the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

MOHAMMED O.A. AIDEED (Oman) said that the right to self determination was one of the pillars of the international system as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These lofty human ideas had been enshrined in international instruments. Yet, Israel did not want to implement these instruments and used inhumane force against the Palestinians, in defiance of international law. The situation in the occupied territories was a clear example of a denial of the right to self determination. The Israeli Government defied all the values and principles of human rights. The right to fight foreign occupation was a sacred national right. Oman expressed its support for the Palestinian people in their legitimate right to obtain their self-determination and wanted to see an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. The international community should respond to the suffering of the Palestinian people before it was too late. Oman believed that Security Council resolution 1379 was a good basis for a qualitative leap in the situation and was also of the view that a dialogue was the only way to achieve security for both Israel and Palestine.

PIO SCHURTI (Liechtenstein) said a broader, more creative approach was needed to the right to self-determination to that generally discussed before the Commission, and Liechtenstein, beginning some 10 years ago, had pressed the United Nations to follow such an approach. Flexibility was the great advantage of the right to self-determination, if it was looked at this way; "traditional" definitions often led to problems, as they degenerated into debates over the right to secession. More than anything, when speaking of self-determination, people wanted a "voice" and greater control over their lives, and this often could be granted through forms of autonomy, self-governance, and self-administration within existing States. There were exemplary cases where this had succeeded.

There could not, obviously, be a single solution to be imposed rigidly on any given situation where the right to self-determination was concerned. Every situation had its own specific set of circumstances and its own historical background. But it was clear that a mechanism was needed for peaceful settlement of conflicts within States, as internal armed conflicts so often had their roots in tensions between communities and central Governments, or between different communities in the same State. A well-devised mechanism could thus be a tool that could prevent future violent conflicts from erupting.

HATEM BEN SALEM (Tunisia), said that at a time of globalization, the question before the Commission caused concern. The persistence of the denial of the fundamental right to self-determination to the Palestinian people, who were still subjected to a foreign occupation, was not acceptable. Nevertheless, many resolutions had recognized decades ago the right to self- determination of the Palestinians. It was imperative to find a settlement to the conflict in the Middle East, he said. The tragic events of the recent month in the occupied territories were getting worse, particularly because the target was an unarmed civilian population. The tragedy of the Palestinian people had come to unbearable proportions, the practice of rape in the refugee camps was an example among others of the violation of basic rights. It was a violation of international standards, he said. The Commission had to join its efforts for global peace which must be achieved rapidly. Tunisia supported all peace processes in the region but there would be no peace until Israel unconditionally stopped its aggressions on the occupied territories. The creation of a Palestinian State was necessary and the international community had to assume all its responsibility, he said.

FAHAD AL-THANI (Qatar) said that the right to self determination was of prime importance, The flouting of that right was a violation of human rights. No foreign or outside body was allowed to prevent people from practising this right. Qatar was seriously concerned about the violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel. The Israeli aggression was a flagrant violation of human rights in defiance of all international instruments and international law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention. The resistance of the Palestinian people to rid themselves of the occupying forces could not be considered as terrorism. The Israeli Government should take practical steps to show its good will by implementing UN resolutions, especially the relevant Security Council resolutions, and by accepting the principle of land for peace and return of Palestinian refugees to their home, in compliance with UN resolution 194.

AHMED HASSAM (Yemen) said that Israel had used the most violent methods against Palestinian people, including tanks. The right to self-determination of the Palestinian people had been denied for too long. Half a century without peace because of the occupation of Israel and the denial of the right to self determination of the Palestinian people was too much. The implementation of the UN resolutions had to be done with the cooperation of the international community with a view to give them more credibility. The end of the occupation by Israel meant that this country had to comply with the wishes of the international community. Israel should also be punished.

SHEBAB A. MADI (Jordan) said that the Palestinian people had been deprived of their inalienable rights to self determination as a result of the Israeli occupation, an occupation constituting a clear violation of one fundamental human right without which all others would not be realized. As on occupying power, Israel had failed to comply with international law, and by denying the right to self-determination to the Palestinian people, it had automatically triggered their internationally recognized right to resistance. The alarming continuation of the tragic events that had taken place since September and the dangerous escalation of violence were direct consequences of the military occupation. Continuing repression, political assassinations and liquidation of Palestinian personalities, indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force, collective punishments, unilateral actions and settlement building policies aimed at changing the status quo in the occupied territories, particularly Jerusalem, would only exasperate the situation further.

SARDAR SHAUKAT ALI KASHMIRI , of the European Union of Public Relations, said that the world had been aware of the denial of the right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir for years. This was an area which had been the subject of an unending and bitter dispute between India and Pakistan with sad and unfortunate consequences for the people of the State. The area had been forcibly occupied by Pakistan since October 1947 and Pakistan had failed to comply with relevant resolutions for the self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. By not evacuating the areas of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan was fully to blame for failing to secure United Nations supervision of both the Pakistan and Indian occupied parts of Kashmir and for denying the right to self-determination for the people of the state.

The Government of Pakistan was fully responsible and must be held accountable for denying the people of Kashmir their right to self-determination. Both India and Pakistan must take suitable steps to respect the human rights and inherent dignity of the people of Kashmir and to acknowledge the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a sovereign, independent, democratic, pluralistic and secular entity.

HESUK SONG , of Liberation, said that the denial of self determination in West Papua remained the underlying cause of ongoing human rights violations there. The abysmal failure of the United Nations to ensure that the people of West Papua were able to exercise their right to self-determination in 1969 had condemned them to more than three decades of repression. In Indonesia, serious human rights violations were committed against civilians by the Government. A cycle of violence in Sri Lanka resulted in many deaths. The human rights situation in Kashmir was also a matter of grave concern. The right of the people of Kashmir to self-determination was reaffirmed by the United Nations. Yet, India continued to deny the Kashmiri people this right and to commit human rights violations in Kashmir.

M. AHMAD, of the World Muslim Congress, said that there were still cases of foreign subjugation which demanded urgent attention. In fact, today's most obstinate conflicts and crisis situations existed due only to the obstruction of self-determination by the occupying powers. Situations as in Chechnya, Palestine or Kashmir fell in this category. Under the abusive structure of dominance that India had put in place in order to maintain its control over Jammu and Kashmir, there was denial of democracy, with the natural accompaniment of systematic and rampant violations of human rights of the people, bloodshed, destruction, suffering and strife for which there was no end in sight. The people of Kashmir wanted the international community to eschew selectivity and to break its silence over India's refusal to honour its international commitments and over the widespread violations of their human rights. The people of Kashmir did not want their rights to be sacrificed at the altar of geopolitics.

KASHNATH PANDITA, of the African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters said it had to be understood that the conflict revolving around the exercise of the right to self-determination of the African people had taken the shape of a struggle for the control of natural resources such as petroleum, uranium, magnesium and above all, diamonds and other precious minerals. The amassing of wealth through the illicit diamond business had become a source of illegal weaponization on a large scale to impede the exercise of the right to self-determination. In the Asian region, methods like drug trafficking, gun running and money laundering were resorted to in order to sustain mercenaries and terrorists, thus creating serious impediments to the right of self-determination. Cross-border terrorism had become the major impediment in the way of enjoyment to the right to self-determination.

RONALD BARNES, of the Indigenous World Association, said that during the Russian presence in Alaska, the United States had denied titles and dominion to Russia. The United States denied Russian authority and the right to regulate any trade and commerce between the independent tribes and the United States or any foreign government, since Russia had not acquired dominion. The United States pretended it had the right to govern the indigenous peoples under the so-called "plenary powers" doctrine. The independent tribes and indigenous peoples of Alaska denied any authority to the United States to convey land in Alaska. The Indigenous World Association and the colonized indigenous peoples were calling for an examination of the historical, legal and political relationship with the United States. The absolute title rights of the indigenous peoples of Alaska also had to be examined.

R.J. RAJKUMAR, of Pax Romana, said that the September 11 attacks and their dreadful consequences had driven the world even further away from the peaceful resolution of self-determination disputes. UN Security Council members had rushed to equate self-determination movements with terrorists. A struggle against terrorism that ignored basic human rights and fundamental freedom had the same result as terrorism itself, namely the suspension of the universal and common standards of humanity at all time and place, for all actors. In recent years the United Nations had been addressing self-determination disputes but never as part of its conflict prevention strategy. Only after massacres of genocidal proportions had the UN Security Council decided to intervene by setting up transitional administrations in East Timor and Kosovo. Biased application of self-determination meant however that many other, equally urgent, self-determination disputes on the five continents were insufficiently addressed or not at all. These cases included Palestine, the Western Sahara, Kashmir, Tibet, East Turkestan, Chechnya, Zanzibar, Caninba, West Papua, Aceh and Puerto Rico.

MOHAMED CHEIK M'HAMED, of the International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said it was very concerned about the situation occurring in the western Sahara. The United Nations had recognized the right of the people of the Western Sahara to recover their right to self-determination. Since the inclusion of the situation in the Western Sahara as a problem of decolonization in the agenda of the Commission, no progress which would permit the organization of a free referendum had been made. The recovery of the right to self-determination for the Sahraoui people was necessary so that the credibility of the United Nations did not fall. Binding mechanisms for the Organization of the referendum had to be established. The United Nations had to offer financial resources, but also human resources, in a view to organize this referendum. Without this referendum, the recover of the rights of these people could not be possible.

ORETTA BANDETTINI DI POGGIO, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said that in the past successive Sri Lankan governments had in practice favoured the majority community and had consistently denied equality to others. As a consequence, Sri Lankan society had become increasingly split and had witnessed massive human rights violations essentially directed against the Tamils as a group, which ultimately led to the rise of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the radicalization of the conflict. To label the resistance movement "terrorist" meant to confound cause and effect, all the more so since the LTTE had been proclaimed by the people in the street, as much as by their principal political parties, cooperating in the Tamil National Alliance, as the sole representative of the Tamils and their sole negotiating partner vis-a-vis the government. The road to peace would be long and difficult as the Government lacked the two-thirds majority in parliament to push through a new Constitution satisfying the aspirations of the Tamils.

K. BENNOT, of the Afro Asian People's Solidarity Organization, said that the essence of humanity was to permit people to the freedom not only to articulate their aspirations but also to take the steps essential to achieving the objectives that they set out for their individual lives. It was this desire for self-expression and, more importantly, the articulation and attainment of aspirations that had fuelled the anti-colonial movements. The practice of colonialism and empire-building was a negation of humanity because it treated the peoples right of free choice with contempt. The organization believed that, in this century, the discourse about self-determination needed to focus on ensuring that people were allowed to choose their leaders and fashion their polity through the exercise of free choice. The organization had been watching with concern the developments that had been unfolding in South Asia ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. Pakistan was in need of the basic freedoms that would enable a collective effort to end poverty, encourage modernisation and development and eliminate the regressive practices that frequent episodes of dictatorship had encouraged.

MILIND WAIDANDEY, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, said that he wished to draw the attention of the Commission to the issue of Kashmir which was occupied and divided by Pakistan and India. People of both parts were seeking to exercise their right to self determination. In this regard India had declared its held part as a constitutional unit of Indian Union. While in the other two parts, the Pakistan held Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan was apparently not ready to acknowledge its occupation. Interestingly, Pakistan did not demand the implementation of UN resolutions and the right to self determination for the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, only for Indian-held part.


Rights of Reply

A Representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his right of reply, said that the representative of Armenia, who addressed the Commission earlier today, was wrong when he said that Azerbaijan did not respect international standards. Indeed, it was Armenia that did not respect the international standards as it did not withdraw the Armenian troops in Azerbaijan. Besides, the referendum which took place in the Armenian part of the region was not recognized by the international community. Armenia was trying to annex a part of his country. Azerbaijan wished that security could be provided for both populations in the region.

A Representative of Pakistan, speaking in right of reply, said that India was engaged in a gimmick in order to divert attention from the main issue, which was the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people. India claimed to be the largest democracy but in practice it was the largest hypocrisy. India maintained that Kashmir was an integral part of India, in defiance of all UN documents which indicated that Jammu and Kashmir were a disputed territory. The Kashmiri people's right to self determination was recognized by the Security Council 50 years ago. Yet 50 years on the Kashmiri people were still under Indian occupation. If there was any terrorism in Kashmir it was Indian State terrorism.

A Representative of Cuba, speaking in right of reply in response to the representative of Panama who addressed the Commission earlier today, said that it was not right to claim that the facts brought up by Cuba (such as the attack against a Cuban aircraft) were false as they were public facts. He added that the perpetrators of acts such as the blow up of the plane should be brought to justice.

A Representative of Syria, speaking in right of reply, said that Israel was the one which attacked Arab armies in 1948, as was the case in the other wars. The Israeli delegate tried to mislead the Commission when he said that it was Arab countries which attacked Israel in all the wars since 1948. Israel attacked inhabitants of the Golan in order to force them to flee their homes so as to facilitate the occupation of that territory. Israel's policy was based on an ideology of colonialism and settlements. Israel's name was linked to aggression and whenever its name was mentioned one thought of aggression. Syria wanted to reach peace but Israel did not want peace, it even assassinated its Prime Minister who wanted peace.

A Representative of Egypt, speaking in right of reply to the representative of Israel, said he was encouraged by the will expressed in the Israeli declaration to recognize the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people. However, he wished to know how this right to self-determination could be enjoyed by both Israelis and Palestinians. Calling on Israel to implement the resolution adopted last year by the Commission on Human Rights, the representative said that time could have been saved if the international community had addressed a very clear message that justice should not be denied.

A Representative of Israel, speaking in right of reply, said in response to statements by Arab states that the reactions of Israel were in defence. In all agreements the Palestinian Authority had committed itself to preventing violence and incitement against Israel without reservation. Over 350 Israelis were killed in recent acts of terror and thousands more were injured. Only half an hour ago a suicide bomber had blown himself up in Jerusalem, killing two and wounding many others. Terrorism was supported by the mainstream Palestinian leadership.

A Representative of Paraguay, speaking in right to reply, said that the Government of Paraguay was aware of the difficulty of the transition to democracy. He added that the local authorities of Puerto Casado were supported by the population concerning all the actions they took.

A Representative of Panama, speaking in right of reply, said that when the Cuban representative ended his intervention by saying that the trial concerning the terrorists was delayed on purpose by the Panamanian authorities, that was an unacceptable denial of the judicial system in Panama. Indeed, Panama was a democratic country with an independent judicial system. Justice shall be dispensed, he assured.

A Representative of India, exercising his right of reply, said that no country should be able to abuse the right to self-determination with a view to commit terrorist activities. Pakistan deformed the notion of self-determination. A part of the Indian state of Kashmir and Jammu had been illegally occupied by Pakistan for the last 40 years, he said.

A Representative of Bahrain, speaking in right of reply, said that he was encouraged by the peace process and hoped that Israel implemented the UN resolution concerning the occupied Palestinian territories.

A Representative of Iraq, speaking in right of reply, said that Iraq helped Palestinians whose houses were destroyed by Israel. It also provided food for Palestinian refugees.

A Representative of Palestine, exercising his right of reply, said that President Yasser Arafat recognized the existence of Israel. He regretted that Yitzhak Rabin had been killed before he ended the peace process and noted that while efforts were being carried out to go forward in the peace process, Israel was doing the contrary. The history of Israel was filled with crimes, he added, and the right to resist to the Israeli occupation included the possibility for the Palestinians to use military actions.

A Representative of Armenia, speaking in right of reply, referred to a statement by Azerbaijan and said that it was strange that Azerbaijan took the floor under the agenda item of self-determination when it denied the people of Nagorno Karabakh the right to self- determination.

A Representative of Pakistan, speaking in second right of reply, said that India was the last country that should talk about the right to self-determination as this country had insisted for the last 50 years not to recognize this right for the Kashmiris. India said that Pakistan supported terrorism, which was not true as Pakistan cooperated with the international community with a view to fight against terrorism.

A Representative of Israel, exercising his second right of reply, said that seven Arab States had tried to prevent the establishment of Israel in 1948 and to suggest otherwise was a distortion of facts.

A Representative of Azerbaijan, speaking in second right of reply, asked the representative of Armenia what had become of the people living in the old Azerbaijan territory.

A Representative of India, speaking in second right of reply, said that Pakistan had no right to preach India about the right of minorities. Violent acts against members of minorities in Pakistan were committed with the support of the Government of Pakistan.

34 A representative of Armenia, in second right of reply, said that the region of Nagorno Karabakh had never been part of Azerbaijan, neither legally or historically. He added that this question had to be discussed within the framework of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe and not the Commission on Human Rights.


Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination

MAURICE GLELE AHANHANZO, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, introducing one of his reports to the Commission, said the report examined anti-Muslim and anti-Arab reactions following the attacks of 11 September which had occurred in several countries including Australia, Canada and EU member countries. Likewise, the report addressed manifestations of anti-Semitism in North America, Europe and Russia. The report also contained information about racist violence and activities by extreme right organizations, neo Nazis and skinheads in the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and Switzerland. Finally, the report examined the situation of the Roma.

The Special Rapporteur welcomed the adoption by Sweden of a national action plan to fight racial discrimination and xenophobia. The plan envisaged preventive and penal measures and actions against racist organizations. It was hoped that other countries would follow in the footsteps of Sweden. A concerted solution should be found to the problem of cyber-racism. The Council of Europe was currently drawing up a protocol on the fight against hate and racism. This initiative should be encouraged and supported by the United Nations and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Major efforts had been made by the Australian Government to put an end to racism and racial discrimination.

The Special Rapporteur said that in the Declaration and Programme of Action of Durban, the international community had a platform to tackle the root of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. Of the proposed measures the Special Rapporteur gave prime importance to education. The Special Rapporteur also accorded importance to the adoption of legislative measures to combat racism.

RAJMAH HUSSAIN (Malaysia), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that while the international community had worked hard towards the successful conclusion of the Durban Conference, it was dismayed that the events of 11 September had had a negative impact on the efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The attacks had provoked racist reactions against Muslims, Arabs and other Middle Eastern groups in an number of Western countries. The members of the OIC were alarmed and deeply concerned by this unfortunate trend. It was a grave assault on the basic human rights of people who were adherents to a religion that promoted peace and love. The OIC reiterated the call made earlier by Pakistan under Agenda Item 4 for the Office of the High Commissioner to commission a study on the implications of these racially motivated attacks against Muslim and Arab people with appropriate recommendations for the prevention of such attacks and destruction of property. In the meantime, the OIC urged those who perpetuated these cowardly attacks against peace-loving Muslims and their properties to immediately stop such senseless actions.

The OIC members countries were also deeply concerned at the vile propaganda aimed at demeaning Islam as a religion that promoted violence, revenge and intolerance. It noted that the media's lopsided representation of Islam could contribute further to acts of racism and xenophobia committed against Muslims.

ABDUL WAHAD ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said that Durban had reflected the importance of the question of racism. The fight against racism was in keeping with the Islamic values and principles which Saudi Arabia adhered to. The Shari'a helped to make people understand human rights and aided in the fight against discrimination. It was based on truths for mankind which sought to promote human rights and the dignity of humanity. Saudi Arabia had therefore acceded to all relevant conventions on discrimination. His country had applied itself to battle against racism on all levels and had participated in the World Conference in Durban and was diligently monitoring the implementation of work.

The discrimination against Islam, Islamophopbia, and the attempts to link Islam to terrorism and extremism were unacceptable. One could not denigrate the monotheistic religions.

JUAN ENRIQUE VEGA (Chile), speaking on behalf of the GRULAC Group (Latin American and Caribbean countries), said that the GRULAC group accorded prime importance to the achievements of the World Conference against Racism. Beyond the complex negotiations, this Conference was historical and constituted part of the positive contribution of the UN to the universalization of human dignity. The GRULAC Group wished to renew its commitment to the Political Declaration and Plan of Action of Durban. In fact, the GRULAC Group had actively participated in the preparations for the World Conference by holding a regional conference that tackled, among others, the questions of indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced people, women and children, victims of HIV/AIDS, victims of racism and racial discrimination, antisemitism and Islamophobia as well as other categories of people suffering multiple forms of discrimination.

LUIZ FELIPE DE SEIXAS CORREA(Brazil) said the resurgence of racism tendencies in the world made it vital that the international community used the instruments available to it to battle this scourge. One of the most useful tools was the plan of action from Durban. It had been recognized that slavery and the slave trade should always have been seen as a violation of human rights. The recognition of colonialism as a violation was also important. Only through looking at the past could there be a healing and assistance of victims of discrimination. It was essential to identify groups that were particularly vulnerable and needed protection. In this context, it was important to recognize the African problems as a result of colonialism. Battling discrimination required a thorough understanding of the victims of discrimination. Member countries now needed to take action and implement the conclusions reached.

It had just been confirmed that in commemoration of the International Day of Racism, the President of Brazil would launch annual fellowships strengthening diversity in the diplomatic corps. Ways had to be defined to support the anti-discrimination unit. The best way to tackle new threats was to keep on going on the road already mapped out.

In the context of the statement by Brazil, Barco Terena, who was presented as a representative of indigenous people in Brazil, said that he was concerned about the increase of conflicts in the world. Solidarity was expressed with all the people of the world who suffered from discrimination and had no voice. In Brazil, a significant proportion of the community were indigenous peoples. The Durban Conference had underscored the importance of indigenous initiatives. The Brazilian Government had appointed an indigenous woman to be part of the National Council of Education and had also established a National Council of Discrimination dealing with people of African descent. Wide-ranging dialogue was necessary, and further cooperation was suggested with multilateral organizations so that the voice of the indigenous peoples could be heard.




* *** *