Default title

Vienna, 17 June 2003



ANTI-SEMITISM: A CONTINUING HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERN

Address by Mr. Bertrand Ramcharan,
United Nations Deputy High Commissioner of Human Rights,




Ladies and Gentlemen:

When the United Nations embarked on the establishment of the International Bill of Human Rights, it was moved by the Holocaust and the other atrocities committed during the Second World War. It resolved to work for a world in which the human rights of every person would be respected and upheld. It is this notion of all human rights for every person that has inspired the world organization ever since, and this has become a motto of the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have made the principle of non-discrimination one of the bedrock principles of the contemporary world: that there shall be no discrimination on grounds of race, sex, language or religion.

The United Nations is not perfect; nor is the world; nor is any one of us. And problems in the enjoyment of human rights certainly persist throughout the globe. Whatever the problems, though, the world community, through the United Nations, continues to strive for the realization of the ideals of the Charter and of the Universal Declaration. The United Nations was meant to come to the aid of victims of human rights violations wherever those violations take place – in whatever region or country or place. This is a vision that has yet to be realized fully, and we must continue to strive for it.

Anti-semitism has been one human rights problem addressed by the United Nations. It continues to be a human rights concern for the international human rights movement. In 1971, Hernan Santa Cruz published his historic study of racial discrimination for the United Nations. In that study he noted:

“Although the term ‘anti-semitism’ is relatively new, prejudice against the Jews is very old. Insecure persons have, through the course of many centuries, found the Jews a convenient scapegoat. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, anti-Semitism based on a traditional economic-religious conflict and on contemporary political-economic struggle was being complicated by the addition of a theory of the racial inferiority of Jews.”

Citing the authors Simpson and Yinger, Santa Cruz described this transition as follows:

“It was not difficult to make the transition from the religious to the racial line of demarcation… the line of cleavage, originally symbolized by religion, had come to be symbolized by race”.

Throughout the history of the United Nations, human rights practitioners, Jews and non-Jews, have come to the United Nations to plead for tolerance and respect and to seek relief against phenomena such as anti-Semitism. This continues to the present day.

As the acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, I must be concerned with the plight of any group, any people, that is suffering prejudice, discrimination, or attacks. The subject that brings us together today is anti-Semitism and I shall therefore address this evening anti-Semitism as a continuing human rights concern. In the convulsive conditions of today’s world, we have to recognize that there are continuing manifestations of prejudice and hatred against Jews –as indeed of Muslims and others. We have to recognize that there continue to take place in our midst attacks against Jews and Jewish premises and sacred places, including Synagogues and cemeteries. These are even more pronounced when tensions rise in the Middle East.

You will have occasion, at this conference, to go into the details of anti-semitism as a human rights concern. Let me just say that anytime any one of us is insulted, attacked, or victimized because of who we are it is deeply painful. When a black person is discriminated against because of the colour of her skin it is painful. When a Sikh is targeted because of his headgear it hurts. When a Muslim is singled out for her religion it causes great anguish. Likewise when a person is singled out or targeted because he or she is a Jew it is terribly wrong and we must all work for a world in which these things will not happen. That is our challenge this evening.

Recognizing that anti-Semitism is a continuing human rights concern, how do we go forward to work against it and to vindicate the human rights idea? I believe that the starting point is a return to first principles. The Charter of the United Nations pleads for a world of respect, tolerance, good-neighbourliness. This must be our point of departure. The Charter pleads for a world of non-discrimination. This must be our guide. The Charter pleads for a world of international cooperation for the human welfare of all; for the promotion and protection of human rights; and for the peaceful resolution of disputes. It is in the Charter’s world that we must continue to look for security. I am not saying that the Charter’s world is imminent; but I am saying that we must strive for it.

The fundamental belief of the founders of the United Nations and of the International Bill of Human Rights was that we could protect the rights of particular groups by protecting the rights of all. We must therefore continue to strive to vindicate the blueprint of the International Bill of Human Rights: declarations of principle; legal commitments in treaties; and active measures of implementation. Let me say it openly, that we can only hope to protect the rights of the group by eventually protecting the rights of all. The way to protect against anti-Semitism is to protect human rights globally.

Having said this, we need to study the plight of each victimized group so as to understand the root causes of problems and the contours of prejudice. It is by understanding the nature and dimension of the problem that we can hope to prescribe solutions. This applies to anti-Semitism, as it does to problems encountered by other groups of people.

I therefore welcome that concerned organizations are doing contemporary studies of anti-semitism; that these studies are being shared widely; that insights are being drawn; and that solutions are being suggested. I would encourage more such work.

The role of education for human rights is absolutely crucial. I spent almost four years with the peace mediators in the former Yugoslavia. I saw the rawness of ethnic passions in different parts of this beautiful region, with beautiful people. And I asked myself: What is the key to tolerance, respect and peace in the future? The answer, I thought, must be human rights education in an environment of respect for human rights across the board. So when you reflect on anti-Semitism as a continuing concern, I would invite you to consider programmes of educational activities that can help deal with this phenomenon.

I would also ask you to consider how the faithful implementation of human rights treaties can help. At the end of the day every country must be able to show, on the foundation of international human rights norms, the existence of an effective national protection system that comes to the protection of everyone. The role of international supervision through the human rights conventions is to help strengthen national protection systems. Treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are meant to stimulate and guide protection for everyone within a country. Practical work against discrimination is practical work against anti-Semitism.


Allow me to recognize in this respect the representatives of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and not only because they are co-organizers of this event. The OSCE has been a pioneer in the institutional recognition of anti-Semitism, having turned an important corner in the drafting of its concluding document at Copenhagen in 1990. The OSCE has been brave in this regard; it has shown the necessary leadership by speaking frankly of – I quote from the Berlin Declaration of last July -- “the alarming escalation of anti-Semitic violence throughout the OSCE region.” Such open recognition of a serious problem is not, I’m sorry to say, really typical of multilateral or state institutions. Such institutions are often quite reluctant to admit the existence of racism or anti-Semitism in their areas of responsibility.

I mention this to you tonight because frank, honest self-examination is critical in motivating practical institutional efforts to combat anti-Semitism. This is the theme of your seminar: practical efforts, real results. That means recognizing the problem, gauging its extent, and combating it. The OSCE’s leadership in this regard is important not only for Europe. It is important as an example to other institutions, national and international.

The first major field of activity for combating anti-Semitism is at the national level. As many of you know, the basic legal documents of the United Nations system, in terms of human rights, are the Universal Declaration of human rights and the six core international instruments that followed it. Each of these treaties or covenants has anti-discrimination provision that might be relevant in fighting anti-Semitism, but the main document is the convention against racism.

Those states which are party to these international instruments – 168 of the 192 members of the United Nations are parties to the antiracism convention – are obliged to submit periodic reports on compliance. There are also, of course, mechanisms by which complaints may be brought against states that have acceded to the necessary protocols.

In practice, complaints about non-compliance tend to come more through non-governmental organizations rather than from individuals. The role of NGOs has become crucial to the workings of the system. The NGOs know, for example, when the reports of states are due to be considered by, for example, the Committee to End Racial Discrimination, which is charged with monitoring compliance with the anti-racism convention. If the state in question is leaving information on anti-Semitism out of its report, an NGO recognized by the committee might circulate information about complaints of anti-Semitism to committee members. This is admittedly a somewhat ad hoc approach in practice; not every state is going to have an NGO capable of such work.

A second, related front is what we call “national institutions.” This is an institutional sector that the Secretary General and our own office are particularly committed to encouraging. National institutions hold out the promise of offering much more consistent promotion and protection of human rights across the globe. The idea of national institutions is that they function at a certain distance from government but not, if you will, too great a distance. It is not necessarily an easy balance to achieve. It will vary somewhat according to the nation. But it has the possibility of creating an institutional force that is neither governmental nor non-governmental, one with regularized procedures and the stability that will make it last.

Notice that I mentioned promotion: educational efforts are critical to combating anti-Semitism. Promotion is prevention – it protects human rights by preventing the growth of ways of thinking that will lead people to violate the rights of vulnerable groups. And national institutions are particularly strong in their promotional work.

National institutions also have a more direct protection role. Some have procedures for taking complaints from citizens. Some national institutions only take complaints of violations within the public sector. Other national institutions do not take complaints but are complemented by ombudsmen systems, usually for public-sector complaints only. National institutions can also take the lead in collecting and publicizing information about rights abuses, as France’s institution demonstrated in March of this year with its report on anti-Semitism. There is great variety in the qualities of national institutions but I hope you can see also their tremendous promise in fighting anti-Semitism close to home.

Complaints of anti-Semitism can also be brought to a number of bodies related to the UN Commission on Human Rights. Many nations now have a standing invitation to the Commission’s special rapporteurs. If incidents of anti-Semitism occur in such a place, an individual or NGO could contact the special rapporteur and request an investigation. One of the tasks of our Office is to assist the special rapporteurs, and so you can find at unhchr.ch a pamphlet, “Seventeen Frequently Asked Questions About United Nations Special Rapporteurs,” which describes complaint procedures.

Several other venues come to mind. The Sub-Commission on Human Rights has an Expert Working Group on Minorities, for example, while the Commission has an Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. Both are based in Geneva and serviced by my Office. With regard to anti-Semitic acts in specific countries, there is also the 1503 procedure, which provides a means for complaints against specific governments to be handled by the Commission in a discreet fashion; again, the procedure is explained on our website. Finally, NGOs can and do make statements to the Commission and Sub-Commission concerning anti-Semitism in those parts of the agenda dedicated to fighting racism.


The emphasis at the United Nations – and the basis of international legal obligations – is the responsibility of governments to protect people within their jurisdiction, principally but not only their citizens. These various mechanisms were all set up at the initiative of governments to advance a collective interest in improving the world.

I wish to emphasize this because, as you know, the United Nations’ relationship to anti-Semitism has been at times uneasy. Bear in mind that the role of the United Nations is not to cast out, exclude, or condemn from afar. If there is a problem in the real world, that problem will also be manifest, one way or another, at the United Nations. Because the problems of the world manifest themselves at the United Nations they come out into the open, where all can see them – and where we can argue about them and try to solve them, not on behalf of one group or another but on behalf of the principles we all hold dear.


Denial is not an option. Many people, of course, would like to deny the reality of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is among the world’s serious problems, and the world’s great problems are never pretty to look at. Denial might seem a way to make the problem go away. But in the systems and institutions I have sketched for you tonight, denial cannot last long: the world’s problems insist on making themselves apparent. The enemy, willy-nilly, will come into the open and we will meet him there. Excuses will be made for violence against Jews; those excuses will be rejected.

The national and international structures I have described provide the best means we have for engaging in this battle. I urge you to use them, and to avail yourselves of the resources of our Office in the effort. Allow me to wish you all every success in your deliberations, and to thank you again for having me here tonight.


* *** *