World Conference against Racism 2001 facts for kids

The 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban I, was a big meeting held in Durban, South Africa. It took place from August 31 to September 8, 2001. The UN organized this conference to talk about ways to fight racism around the world.

This meeting discussed some very sensitive topics. These included whether countries should pay for past slavery and the issues faced by Palestinians in Israel. The words used in the final document, called the Declaration and Programme of Action, were debated a lot. This happened both before and during the conference.

Two countries, the United States and Israel, left the conference early. They were unhappy with a draft document that seemed to connect Zionism (a movement supporting a Jewish homeland) with racism. The final document did not include the words they had objected to. Delegates voted to remove those parts after the US and Israel left.

At the same time, a separate meeting for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also took place. This NGO Forum created its own document. It included strong language about Israel that the main conference had decided to remove. Mary Robinson, who was the UN Human Rights chief at the time, and many others criticized this NGO document.

The NGO Forum ended with disagreements. Mary Robinson later lost support from the United States for her job. Also, the terrible attacks on September 11, 2001 happened just three days after the conference ended. These attacks took over the news and changed international relations. This meant that many of the conference's potential impacts were forgotten. Later, there were two more conferences, Durban II in 2009 and Durban III in 2011. Many Western countries chose not to attend these follow-up meetings.

Getting Ready for the Conference

The idea for the conference came from a United Nations General Assembly Resolution (a special decision by the UN). Before the main meeting, there were several smaller meetings called "PrepComs." These meetings were meant to figure out the main topics and start writing the first drafts of the Declaration and Programme of Action. But these early meetings faced problems right away.

What Topics to Discuss?

The first big problem was deciding what the conference should focus on. Countries from Western Europe, along with the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, wanted to stick to the original goals set by the UN resolution.

However, countries from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean wanted to discuss more. They wanted to include topics like how to make up for the harm caused by colonialism and slavery. This included asking for money or other help for these past wrongs.

Before the main conference, four regional meetings were also held. These took place in cities like Strasbourg, Santiago, Dakar, and Tehran.

The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action were the official documents agreed upon by the governments at the conference. These documents outlined how countries would work together to fight racism.

Paying for Past Slavery and Colonialism

The topic of paying for past slavery and colonialism was one of the most debated issues. It was so difficult that it almost stopped the whole conference. The Declaration handled this issue very carefully. It used words that satisfied the African countries without saying that people today should be held responsible for crimes that happened long ago. It also avoided clearly stating that former colonial countries had to pay reparations.

The Declaration found a careful balance. It agreed that slavery and the slave trade were morally wrong. It also said that if these things happened today, they would be considered crimes against humanity. However, it did not apply this modern legal idea to times before such laws existed.

One tricky point was about apartheid, which was a system of racial separation in South Africa. During the preparations, South Africa did not want to connect demands for payment to apartheid. They worried this could cause problems within their own country, similar to land issues in Zimbabwe. South Africa wanted to focus on healing and unity at home.

The issue of compensation was very complex. It became even more complicated when Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal, called campaigns for compensation "childish."

The debate over compensation was mostly seen as a conflict between Western European countries (like France, the UK, and the US) and the African Group. The African Group was supported by countries in Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

Later, the African Group suggested stronger language. They asked for "immediate and unconditional cancellation of debt" and called for reparations. This was something their earlier paper had not included.

However, some African leaders disagreed with demanding reparations. President Wade said that the effects of slavery and colonialism "cannot be evaluated in monetary terms." South Africa was more interested in getting Western aid for development programs.

A general agreement on the reparations issue was reached by late August. On August 24, 2001, US President George W. Bush even said the issue seemed "resolved." However, the US still left the conference a few weeks later.

The Zionism Debate

Early Drafts Before the Conference

During the preparation meetings, some text linked Zionism to racism. This text was put in brackets, meaning it was temporary. The idea was to replace it with words about the rights of Palestinians. The US had already warned that it would not attend if the documents linked Zionism to racism. Mary Robinson also said that regional conflicts should not take over the conference's main goals. Australia, Canada, and some European countries agreed with the US.

The Arab countries explained their view through Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League. He said that Israel's actions against Palestinians should be discussed at a conference about racism. He clarified that Arab countries were not trying to restart the Arab-Israeli peace process. Instead, they wanted to highlight what they saw as racist actions by Israel against Palestinians.

The Arab delegates were not pushing for language that directly said Zionism was racism. They were trying to show that Israel's actions against Palestinians were racist. This position was partly influenced by the US threat to boycott. No Arab country, except Syria, insisted on language directly linking Israel to racist practices.

At the start of a meeting in Geneva, a draft included six paragraphs about "Zionist racist practices." It asked Israel to change laws based on race or religion. It also suggested ending Israel's "foreign occupation of Jerusalem" and its "racist practices."

By the end of the meeting, much of this text was removed or made less harsh. For example, a phrase about "holocausts" suffered by other peoples was removed. This was seen as disrespectful to the memory of Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust. South African diplomats had told Arab countries to use language that described the situation without using terms like "ethnic cleansing."

Despite these changes, the United States still objected to the remaining text. They decided to send a lower-level team, led by Ambassador Michael Southwick, instead of Secretary of State Colin Powell. German officials criticized this decision.

The US and Israel Leave

On September 3, 2001, after four days of talks that went nowhere, the United States and Israeli teams left the conference. Both Colin Powell and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said they were sad to do so.

The US team had kept a low profile. They worked quietly to change the draft document. They wanted it to be less critical of Israel and to fit US foreign policy goals.

The draft documents had expressed "deep concern" about "racist practices of Zionism." They also spoke of "movements based on racism... in particular the Zionist movement." Other ideas, supported by the US, were rejected by Israel.

Colin Powell criticized the "hateful language" that "singles out only one country in the world, Israel." Some people believed the US left not just because of the Israel issue. They thought it was also partly because the US did not want to discuss slavery.

The departure of the US and Israel was a warning to other countries. Many delegates worried that Canada and European countries might also leave if no agreement was reached. After the walkout, senior conference officials became very involved in rewriting the Declaration.

Final Text and Reactions

In the end, the conference delegates voted to remove the language that seemed to accuse Israel of racism. The final document did not contain any such words.

Several countries were still unhappy with the final text, but for different reasons. Syria and Iran were upset because their demands for strong language about Israel were rejected. Australia was unhappy with how the conference was run, saying too much time was spent on arguments. Canada was also not pleased.

The final text was written very carefully to be balanced. For example, the word "diaspora" (people living away from their homeland) was used only to talk about people of African heritage. The document tried to unite all people of African descent as victims of slavery. The words "victim" or "victims" were used many times but in very general ways. The word "Jewish" was used only once, alongside "Muslim" and "Arab." "Anti-Semitism" was used twice, once with "Islamophobia" and once with "anti-Arabism." This general language made it hard to take specific actions, as the document's calls for action were very broad.

The NGO Forum Declaration

The NGO Forum was a separate meeting that ran from August 28 to September 1. It took place at the nearby Kingsmead Stadium. About 3,000 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) attended, with 8,000 representatives. The document created by the NGO Forum was not an official conference document.

The Forum was very disorganized, and some NGO delegates even walked out. It ended with many disagreements. The NGO Forum's document called Israel a "racist, apartheid state." It also accused Israel of "racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing." This document was not meant to be an official part of the main conference. However, a copy was supposed to be given to Mary Robinson, the conference secretary-general. Robinson refused to accept it because of its strong language. She later said that there was "horrible anti-Semitism present" in some of the NGO discussions.

Critics called the comparison of Israel to apartheid the "Durban Strategy." They claimed this comparison was made to encourage people to stop investing in and boycotting Israel.

US NGOs attended the NGO Forum with financial help from several foundations. The Ford Foundation alone gave $10 million to support the WCAR and the NGO Forum. These NGOs helped with research and creating documents about compensation for slavery.

The NGO Forum's resolutions on slavery reparations focused only on the transatlantic slave trade. They did not mention the trade of African slaves to Islamic lands in the Middle East. The Forum also asked the United States to approve all major human rights treaties it had not yet fully ratified.

One such treaty was the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The US had approved it in 1994. However, the US added a condition that its approval would not go against the Constitution of the United States. The NGOs, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, demanded that the US remove this condition. The US Department of State had noted that CERD's rules on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly did not match the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Many other countries, like France, Japan, and the UK, also noted that their own constitutions' freedoms of speech and assembly limited how they could apply the treaty.

According to John Font, if the US were to follow the NGOs' interpretation of CERD, it would have to completely change its political and economic system. This would mean giving up free speech rights and ignoring the idea of majority rule.

Tom Lantos, a US delegate, blamed the radical views of many NGOs at the Forum for the US withdrawal. He also blamed the lack of strong action from US-based NGOs and European allies.

What Happened Next

The conference was largely forgotten in the news because of the September 11, 2001 attacks. These attacks happened just three days after the conference ended.

Mary Robinson's Time as UN Human Rights Chief

Because of the conference, the United States did not support Mary Robinson staying on as the UN Human Rights chief. Even though former US President Bill Clinton had once called her a "splendid choice," she left the job in September 2002.

Many reasons were given for the US's change of heart. Some said she lacked experience in solving difficult issues. News reports pointed to four main differences:

• Her views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict were different from US policy.
• The US did not like how she managed the conference.
• She had openly criticized the US on various issues. These included the treatment of prisoners and the US's stance on the International Criminal Court.
• She opposed US calls to change how the United Nations Commission on Human Rights elected its members.

Tom Lantos did not blame Robinson alone for the problems. He also blamed the NGOs and the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Many people defended Robinson's leadership of the conference.

NGOs Reject Parts of the NGO Forum's Declaration

Several NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, publicly disagreed with the parts of the NGO Forum's Declaration that talked about Israel and Jewish people.

Follow-up Actions

It seems unlikely that the United States will support another World Conference against Racism. However, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action did include plans for follow-up actions. Mary Robinson said that the conference was a beginning, not an end. Dr. Manning Marable from Columbia University noted that one goal was to improve teamwork in human rights efforts. This meant actions by regular people and non-governmental groups were also important, not just governments.

One follow-up plan was for governments to send reports to the UN Human Rights office. These reports would show what they were doing to follow the recommendations. Another plan was for the UN Secretary-General to appoint experts to check on progress. A third idea was to create a database of ways to fight racism.

A special fund was also set up to create a memorial at the UN in New York. This sculpture, called the UN Slavery Memorial, was planned to be finished in 2012. It honors the victims of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade.

In 2003, a special group was created to help carry out the Durban Declaration. This group meets every year.

In 2006, the United Nations General Assembly called for a Durban Review Conference. This meeting took place in 2009. However, many countries were still worried because of the 2001 conference. Some countries, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, and the United States, boycotted the 2009 conference. The Czech Republic left on the first day. Many other European Union countries sent only small teams. On April 18, 2009, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would boycott the 2009 conference. He said the US was against any language seen as anti-Israel or anti-Western.

The United Kingdom and other European countries were unsure about attending. In February 2009, a British minister said that if they couldn't move forward, they would withdraw. He called the first conference "a disgraceful event."

Influence of the Conference

The Institute for Global Jewish Affairs was partly started because of concerns about antisemitism at the Durban conference.

Bernard-Henri Lévy said the conference was one of the inspirations for his book, Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism.

See also

• Israel and apartheid