Secretariat

B-6/6, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi - 110029, India

Phone: + 91-11-26192717, 26192706, 26191120

Fax: + 91-11-26191120

Email: secretariat@aphrn.org

Website: http://www.aphrn.org

                                                          ACTIVITIES

Third Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress

Background Paper

What Ailed the NGO Preparation for the World Conference Against Racism?

1. Introduction

The 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) was one of the more important steps taken by the international community in recent decades. In the previous World Conferences on Racism (1978 & 1983), apartheid was appropriately the main focus. The post-apartheid era has witnessed the emergence and proliferation of NGOs and other civil society actors and, consequently, recognition of the existence of racism and racial discrimination all over the world.

Governments, who targeted the apartheid regime of South Africa and its Western allies, now find themselves the targets for their failure to address racism and discrimination in their own backyards.  In the preparatory process of the 2001 WCAR, they in turn raised issues relating to compensation for colonialism and reparations for the slave trade. All this led the WCAR into becoming one more arena of political brinkmanship. It had been the desire of responsible NGOs to use the opportunity of the WCAR to get governments to do some substantive standard setting on issues relating to racism and discrimination. Significant practical gains in this area of human rights can be made only if the conference remains on track.

It is in this context the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), the Human Rights Documentation Center (HRDC) and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) brought out a series of WCAR Think Papers[1] to introduce a critical and substantive perspective into the dialogue on the WCAR. Since racism is often viewed through narrow prisms and mostly in the “colonial context”, the initiative sought to capture the principal issues of the conference.

In 1997, when the UN General Assembly decided to convene the WCAR, it announced, “the world conference will be action-oriented and focus on practical measures to eradicate racism”.[2] The First Think Paper, “The World Conference Against Racism - A Conference on Racism Worldwide?”[3] stated, “The extent to which that promise becomes reality may depend on the level and nature of participation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).  Without concerted and informed interventions by NGO representatives of the various regions, the conference may simply become an exercise in rhetoric and political gamesmanship between various States”.

In its resolution 2000/14, the Commission on Human Rights requested all the preparatory processes before the WCAR “to identify trends, priorities and obstacles at the national and regional levels, to formulate specific recommendations for the action to be carried out in future to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to submit to the Preparatory Committee, by its 2001 session at the latest”. The regional meetings had concluded. A crucial element for such a World Conference was the participation of NGOs. The Asia Pacific Human Rights Network (APHRN) through its secretariat, SAHRDC, considered it important to engage in serious introspection on the participation of NGOs in various preparatory processes.

2. NGO Liaison of the WCAR Secretariat

An important step toward ensuring effective participation by NGOs was the decision of the Secretary-General of the World Conference, Her Excellency, Ms. Mary Robinson, then High Commissioner for Human Rights, to appoint an NGO Liaison Officer of the WCAR Secretariat. During the 55^th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre organized for Asia Pacific NGOs to have a briefing by the newly appointed NGO Liaison Officer of the WCAR Secretariat, Ms. Laurie Wiseberg.

The general understanding with regard to the appointment of the NGO Liaison Officer was that this office was meant to facilitate NGOs in making their own decisions. SAHRDC was aware of the difficulties in bringing together diverse NGOs. However, coordinating is one thing, and interfering is quite another.

As the OHCHR NGO Liaison interfered with the formation of the NGO Steering Committees across the world, the NGO Forums across the world with the exception of Latin America, failed to contribute substantively.

3.  The Asian Experience: Two regional conferences for a bad declaration

The NGO Forum of the Asian Regional Preparatory Conference was marred by avoidable incidents jeopardizing the efforts of voluntary organizations in the region. Some of the women delegates, in an attempt to make – thoughtlessly – a radical feminist statement, went to the conference without headscarves and failed to wear the headscarf, providing fodder for the Iranian fundamentalists’ campaign against the reformist policies of the Khatami government. The Asian NGO Co-ordinator for the WCAR, Ms Nimalka Fernando, in her email message of 9 February 2001 suggested discussion on “some resistance activities in Teheran” against headscarves. The delegates failed to realise that their action, instead of spurring what they imagined would be a slap in the face for the conservatives, would gravely endanger local efforts to bring about a more liberal social and political order. The act was reckless and dangerous and threatened to set back the efforts of numerous courageous and committed Iranian individuals and organizations working in the country at great personal risk.

It is ironic that the recognition of the role of civil society in “the Elements for a Draft Declaration and Programme of Action for the World Conference” of the Secretary General for the World Conference Against Racism was drawn from the Asian regional conference that excluded NGOs. In the Asian Regional Preparatory Conference, NGOs were barred from participating as observers in the drafting process and were asked not to refer to any country situations in the oral interventions. Ambassador Ali Khorram of Iran, Chairman of the Drafting Committee in Tehran, duly acknowledged this in his statement during the Concluding Session of the Tehran Regional Conference. Ambassador Khorram regretted that the contributions of the NGOs and new elements from other delegates could not be accommodated in the Tehran Declaration. The Geneva-based diplomats negotiated the Tehran Declaration and indeed many governmental representatives who came from the capitals to Tehran faced as much difficulty as the NGOs when it came to following the drafting process. In fact, the Tehran Conference was effectively concluded one day in advance, an occurrence unheard of in UN meetings.

At the Asian Regional Preparatory Conference, the NGO Liaison of the Secretariat of the WCAR informed NGOs – at the last minute, just before the conference began on 19 February 2001 – that they could make only one 10-minute joint intervention. During the NGO Forum on 17-18 February, no notice was given to NGOs to the effect that oral interventions would not be allowed.

On 19 February 2001, NGOs after the plenary debate decided to boycott the Asian Preparatory Conference unless they were given meaningful opportunity to participate including observing the drafting of the Asian Declaration.

Immediately after the meeting, the NGO Liaison Officer took the responsibility of informing the Governmental representatives about the NGOs’ decision to boycott the meeting. There was no formal dialogue between the Governmental representatives/Bureau and the NGOs. No formal announcement was made by the Chairperson of the Asian Regional Preparatory Conference on the participation of the NGOs.

After breaking the consensus of the NGOs through backdoor lobbying on the evening of 19 February 20001, the NGO Liaison Officer informed the NGO Forum on 20 February 2001 that the NGOs may be given one hour to speak if they did not refer to country situations in their oral interventions. The then Asian NGO Steering Committee led by Nimalka Fernando accepted the condition not to refer to any country in their so-called hard-bargained “oral interventions” -- without the approval of the rest of the NGOs.

During the oral interventions, NGOs only made a reference on Palestine – another example of political brinkmanship – although it was agreed that an oral statement on Indonesia would also be delivered. There was no reference to any other country situations. The hard won space created by the NGOs since the Vienna World Conference was lost as the NGO Liaison resorted to inappropriate manoeuvring and divisive interference. Many NGOs themselves did not see the final copy of the NGO Declaration of Tehran until the end of the Asian Preparatory Conference nor did they receive copies of the oral interventions. The so-called participation of the NGOs amounted to mere window-dressing.

Further, in Tehran and in Geneva the NGO Liaison Officer extended her mandate through questionable advise on the rules of procedure. It is the Chairperson of the Regional Conferences or Working Groups who decides the rules of procedure for participation of NGOs. Some chairpersons had been restrictive, for example in Tehran, while others had allowed greater participation such as in the March 2001 Open Ended
Working Group on the WCAR. However at both meetings the NGO Liaison Officer attempted to preempt the decision of the Chairperson of the NGOs. On 7 March 2001, in a "Briefing for NGOs" the NGO Liaison Office advised NGOs to make joint oral interventions without any announcement from the Chairperson to that effect.

In the plenary of the NGOs on 21 February 2001, many NGOs felt that there was a general dearth of knowledge about ECOSOC Rules of Procedures among the NGO community; a better understanding of UN processes and their utilization would have led to more effective participation.[4] As a result, NGO inputs into the Tehran process were largely ineffectual. The NGO Steering Committee made many unacceptable compromises including on the participation of the NGOs.

The self-censorship and political brinkmanship by certain NGOs, as reflected in the oral interventions in Tehran, and the manoeuvring by the NGO Liaison Officer of the Secretariat of the WCAR, effectively made NGO contributions in many regional preparatory processes meaningless.

4.  Kathmandu NGO Conference on the WCAR

On 21 February 2001, the last day of the Tehran Conference, NGOs met in plenary to discuss the future course of action. Among other things, it was decided through voting by show of hands (17 in favour and four against) that the Kathmandu meeting should be held after the Second Preparatory Committee meeting to enable the NGOs to examine the Draft Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, to provide input and to lobby effectively. Also, it was unanimously decided that the Steering Committee members should be elected at the Kathmandu Conference.[5]

Yet, contrary to the decision of the NGO Plenary in Tehran, the Secretariat of the WCAR facilitated holding the Asian NGO Conference in Kathmandu on 27-29 April 2001.

The decision of the majority of the NGOs in Tehran to hold the Kathmandu Conference after the Second Preparatory Conference in May 2001 was purposefully to enable the NGOs:  (1) to examine the Draft Declaration and Programme of Action; (2) to understand the position of the various State delegates reflected through square bracketing of the Draft Declaration and Programme of Action as most Regional Declarations had been drafted in closed door sessions; and (3) to lobby effectively with different Governments. These objectives were ignored.

The objectives of the Kathmandu NGO Networking meeting were explicitly:

-         “To strengthen and endorse the Asia-Pacific NGO Declaration first developed in the NGO Forum in Tehran, Iran from 17-18 February 2001;

-         To make specific language recommendations that can be input in both the Asia-Pacific NGO Declaration as well as used to lobby for improvements in the WCAR Declaration and Programme of Action;

-         To develop Kathmandu Programme of Action which will delineate concrete plans, strategies, and campaigns of Asia-Pacific activists towards the Second Preparatory Committee meeting in Geneva, Switzerland to be held in May 2001, the actual WCAR Conference and the parallel NGO Forum to be held in Durban, South Africa at the end of August 2001 and beyond WCAR.

-         To build a greater sense of solidarity amongst activists across different sectors and issue based groups, and raise awareness of each other’s issues and campaigns”.

The objectives of the Kathmandu Declaration clearly acknowledged that the NGOs failed to adopt a strong NGO Declaration in Tehran. Indeed as stated above, many NGOs did not receive the final Tehran NGO Declaration and the same could not be distributed to the Governmental representatives. Since the Governmental representatives in Tehran virtually denied NGO participation, the NGO Declaration in Tehran was crucial to convey the positions of the Asian civil society on the WCAR.

Consequently, the Kathmandu Conference was another drafting exercise of the Tehran NGO Declaration that had already been adopted. Since the drafting committee completely ignored the recommendations made by different workshops in the Tehran NGO Forum, NGO representatives in Kathmandu called for re-drafting of the already adopted Tehran Declaration. The Indigenous Peoples workshop in the Kathmandu Conference therefore clearly stated, “we do not wish the substance of our declarations and programmes of action to be tampered with or altered under any circumstances”. The Indigenous Peoples workshop presented their recommendations to the plenary of the Kathmandu Conference on the condition that there would not be any tampering with Indigenous Peoples Declaration and if it was not acceptable to the plenary, the Indigenous Peoples Declaration could be attached as an annexure to the Kathmandu Declaration. After the end of the Kathmandu Conference, the final Kathmandu Declaration could not once again be distributed to the NGOs.

AS participants returned to the forum of the Durban Conference early on the morning of 29 August 2001, word began circulating that High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson had refused to recommend the NGO Declaration to the governments' meeting. Millions of dollars, including Euro 3.5 million from the European Commission, had been spent to draft a document that could not be taken seriously. In a press briefing on that same day, Ms Robinson said, "It's sad for me that for the first time I can't recommend to delegates that they pay close attention to the NGO Declaration. That's [what] I normally do, [I say] look, for goodness sake, pay attention. I would say to them, there are good things in the declaration, but I cannot recommend it, because I cannot accept some of the language in it, particularly the reference to genocide."

At a separate briefing on 29 August 2001, Ms Robinson made similar remarks, this time adding "and I also understand from international NGOs that process was not followed." On Wednesday, during the regular noon press briefing, the spokesperson of the Conference said, "There will not be a handing over of the NGO Forum Document or the Youth Forum Document at that point. There will just be a statement made, and, as I said, you can find both documents on the [South African] government website.” (www.racism.gov.za)

The rejection of the documents by the High Commissioner implied that the NGO Forum document and Youth Forum document would not be circulated with UN documentation numbers. Belgian Foreign Minister and President of the Council of European Union Louis Michel, was also critical of the NGO Declaration. At a briefing, the Foreign Minister stated "Some NGOs have not given consideration to the impact of their words."

Many international NGOs distanced themselves from the NGO Declaration. Central and Eastern European NGOs and many Asian NGOs disassociated themselves from the NGO Forum document as well.

A networking meeting with a purpose is crucial for NGOs. The Kathmandu “Networking Meeting” could have been utilised to make effective contributions to the Draft Declaration and Programme of Action had it been held after the Second Preparatory Conference as decided in Tehran. As the networking meeting in Kathmandu was held on 27-29 April 2001, little substantive contribution could be made to the Draft Declaration and Programme of Action.

Given the fact that preparatory processes had almost come to an end, the Plan of Action was an attempt to preach to the converted. Moreover, a key topic of discussion in both NGO Forums was the lack of transparency in the decision-making of the NGO Steering Committee. The Steering Committee could not be selected through proper election in Kathmandu. The issue of the renewal of the mandate of the Steering Committee was posed in such a manner that left the participants with little choice, in spite of objection from participants. The Steering Committee perpetuated itself. Given the controversies that marred both the Tehran and Kathmandu NGO Forums, building “a greater sense of solidarity amongst activists across different sectors and issue based groups, and raise awareness of each other’s issues and campaigns” remained an illusion.

5. Durban NGO Forum Declaration and Programme of Action: The last

AFTER fits and starts, the NGO Forum Declaration of the Durban World Conference was finally released on 4 September 2001. The final text had significant strengths in bringing particular issues to the fore such as the rights of Dalits, the Roma and systemic racism in the administration of criminal justice systems. The text also had major weaknesses, many attributable to the problems in the drafting process and the so-called effort at producing a collection of victims' voices - - rather than the standard type of declaration reached by democratic procedures through an informed debate and consensus-building.

Despite members of the international press reporting since this weekend that the text had been finalised, it was only on 4 September 2001 that the Declaration was truly final and thus publicly released. Never fully overcoming deviant procedures and questions of competence, only 15 - that's right 15 - copies of the document were publicly distributed as of the early afternoon. The declaration was also presented with some pages missing and some pages out of order, according to the spokesperson for the International Steering Committee (ISC), who released the document at an early morning NGO briefing. Despite the now finalised document, some caucuses were reportedly still working after the declaration's release to have it revised. The ISC spokesperson explained that the preface would signal that the document reflects victims' voices, and a Drafting Committee person stated that the text, therefore, contains contradictory provisions. The beginning to the NGO Declaration states: "The Declaration and the Programme of Action is based on the understanding that it reflects the regional processes and that the voices of the victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance must be heard."

Who voted for that language, if anyone did, was unclear. Nonetheless, the text declared "the right of Roma to be recognized by the UN … by states and by the whole world, as a

non-territorial nation" (paragraph 177). At the same time, another paragraph classified the Roma with groups that are associated with self-determination connected to territorial autonomy and political control (paragraph 21). Other juridical terms were coined such as "Daliticide" (paragraph 87) and "ideological genocide" (paragraph 130). The Declaration also suffered from a conspicuous absence of references to international legal practices and precedents. While many of the declaration's provisions reflected a desire to bring attention and solutions to problems of severe human rights violations, on balance, the final document did not serve what it needed to do. It failed to provide a model, relying on and invoking specific international legal standards, for governments at the conference to emulate.

At the heart of the problem lay the lack of expertise in using international fora. Even the difficult issues such as the Israel-Palestine issue could have been addressed by formulating language based on ICERD and the concluding observations of the various Treaty Bodies such as the CERD Committee. There is stronger, compelling and substantive language in the Treaty Bodies' concluding observations on the issue of Palestine than the slogans in the NGO Forum document. It is difficult to imagine the positive effects had the NGO Forum document been circulated as a UN document in the ICC and the High Commissioner the opportunity to endorse it. Of course certain governments where one finds rampant practices of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance had reasons to rejoice. Clearly, the Durban NGO Forum was two steps backwards, after the gains that NGOs made in Vienna and Beijing.

Copyright (c) 2002 Asia Pacific Human Rights Network. All rights reserved.