Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gashc3902.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gashc3902.doc.htm

Date: November 7, 2007

7 November 2007
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/unlogo_blue_sml_en.jpg \* MERGEFORMATINET
General Assembly
GA/SHC/3902 





Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
NOTE:  FOLLOWING ARE SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS MADE TODAY TO THE THIRD COMMITTEE (SOCIAL, HUMANITARIAN AND CULTURAL).  A COMPLETE SUMMARY OF TODAY’S THIRD COMMITTEE MEETINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE AFTERNOON MEETING AS PRESS RELEASE GA/SHC/3902.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to begin its discussion on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination and the right of peoples to self-determination.

Before it was the interim report titled Combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of the follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/62/306).  It focuses on close monitoring and analysis of old as well as new manifestations of racism and xenophobia; promotion of a dual strategy -– political and legal -– to combat the problem; and furthering the link between efforts to combat the problem and the long-term building of an egalitarian, democratic and interactive multiculturalism.   In his conclusions, the Special Rapporteur invites the General Assembly to draw the attention of Member States to “alarming signs” of a retreat in the struggle against the problem, given the impact of racist and xenophobic platforms among democratic political parties and a rise in racist political violence.  He also invites the Assembly to encourage international sports organizations, in particular the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), to implement and expand programmes to combat racism in sports, and to recall the urgent need to approach immigration and asylum issues -– both major sources of the current resurgence of racism and xenophobia –- in order to promote respect for human rights of immigrants and asylum-seekers.

Also before the Committee was the report of the Human Rights Council on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference (document A/62/375), which held its organizational session in Geneva from 27 to 31 August 2007.  It notes that the Review Conference will take place in the first half of 2009, and that participation shall be “at the highest possible level”.  The Secretary-General will be asked to nominate the High Commissioner for Human Rights as Secretary-General of the Conference.  The Preparatory Committee’s first substantive meeting will be held in Geneva from 21 April to 5 May 2008.

Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General’s report on Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/62/480).  It provides an overview of activities undertaken by States, human rights mechanisms and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) from August 2006 to July 2007 on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted in 2001 by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.  In conclusion, the report notes that as combating racism requires a multifaceted approach, the adoption of legislation is an important means of pursuing this objective.  Also, increased communication will allow for a more comprehensive assessment of progress achieved.

Before the Committee, too, was the Secretary-General’s report on Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/184).  It recalls consideration given by the Human Rights Council to the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  It goes on to note that the High Commissioner for Human Rights has reported to the Council on Lebanon, highlighting the importance of integrating human rights into any post-war recovery process.  It notes that the Council, on 20 June 2007, decided, without a vote, to postpone action on a draft decision on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.  The right to self-determination has meanwhile been addressed by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, while the former has also, in the past year, addressed several issues relating to the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples in Norway and the United States.

Lastly, the Committee had before it the Secretary-General’s note on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/301).  It transmits the report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.  The Working Group is mandated to monitor mercenaries and mercenary-related activities.  The report describes their field missions to a number of countries, as well as their conclusions and recommendations drawn from those missions.

According to the report, many States have, in recent years, been taken by surprise by modern forms of mercenarism.  The trend towards outsourcing and privatizing various military functions by a number of Member States in the past 10 years has resulted in the mushrooming of private military and security companies, which often operate without regulation.  Many such companies are currently employed on the supply side in Afghanistan and Iraq.  “These private soldiers [appear] only to be accountable to the company which employs them,” the report observes with concern.  In conclusion, it recommends that the United Nations convene a high-level round table to discuss the fundamental question of the role of the State as holder of the monopoly on the use of force.

CRAIG MOKHIBER, Officer-in-Charge, New York Office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), introduced two reports.  The report of the Secretary-General on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/62/480), he said, focused on information received from Member States on various measures they had undertaken towards the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  An increased number of communications for stakeholders would allow for a more comprehensive assessment of progress achieved and remaining challenges to be addressed, he said. 

Speaking about the report of the Secretary-General on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/184), he said it outlined developments emanating from the Human Rights Council’s consideration of the question of self-determination, especially related to the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, and the report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights.  The report also contained a summary of recent concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

DOUDOU DIÈNE, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, then addressed the Committee.  He cited a number of trends, including a resurgence in racist and xenophobic violence; the political normalization and democratic legitimization of racism and xenophobia; the intellectual legitimization of racism, xenophobia and intolerance; security approaches that treat immigrants, asylum-seekers, foreigners and minorities as criminals; and growing defamation of religions, including racial as well as religious hatred, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and, particularly, Islamophobia.  Recent remarks by the Nobel Laureate James Watson on the intellectual inferiority of persons of African descent, and his implicit desire to establish a hierarchy between different races, had been a scientific legitimization of historical stereotypes and a major setback in promoting the rights of people of African descent.  A speech by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in Dakar on 26 July, had also been an example of the legitimization of racism; it recalled the essentialism of racist constructions of the 18th and 19th centuries.  It was in the context of the criminalization of immigration and asylum issues that remarks by Kevin Andrews, the Australian Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, had to be seen; he had singled out Sudanese nationals as a group that had problems integrating into Australian society, and he had also announced a reduction in his country’s intake of refugees for 2007-2008.  In France, legislation to introduce DNA testing for family reunions was an example of the stigmatization of immigrants.

He recommended a number of steps that could be taken, including:  political will to reject the normalization of racism, xenophobia and intolerance; a renewed commitment to implement the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action; promoting the link between the fight against racism and xenophobia and the building of democratic, egalitarian and interactive multiculturalism; strengthened dialogue between religions and cultures, as well as within religions; and a systematic struggle against incitation to racial and religious hatred.  The Special Rapporteur then touched upon his visits to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia on 
16-28 September, and to the Dominican Republic on 22-29 October.  The trip to the three Baltic States had been partly motivated by how those countries, which had not previously been affected by large-scale pressures of migration, were preparing themselves for the probable arrival of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, following their entry into the European Union.  Those States faced a major challenge in striking a balance between national continuity and respect for the rights of all minorities.  In the Dominican Republic, prejudice against Haitians, those of Haitian and of African descent in general, had been the result of non-recognition of the existence of racism, particularly among the elite.  Some laws, notably those dealing with immigration, civil status and nationality, had a discriminatory effect.

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said they were fully committed to the fight against racism.  It was the obligation of all States to strive for its elimination in all forms.  He expressed concern at the Special Rapporteur’s note of a resurgence of racism and murder targeting ethnic and cultural minorities, and asked for statistical data that demonstrated this negative trend.  He also asked the Special Rapporteur what urgent measures must be taken by States to combat that trend.  He also asked what the international community could do to combat the normalization of racism for political purposes.  Finally, he wanted to know what the Special Rapporteur saw as the next steps on international cooperation between his mandate and European institutions, which the Union hoped would be extremely fruitful.

The representative of Italy detailed numerous initiatives taken by the Italian Government to combat racial discrimination against its various ethnic and social minorities.  Addressing illegal immigration, he stated that the flow of foreigners entering Italy was a growing concern, and noted guidelines being elaborated by the Minister of the Interior to improve the living conditions of illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers.

The representative of the Russian Federation agreed with the Special Rapporteur that it was unacceptable to use the principle of freedom of speech to legitimize racism, as that undermined one of the fundamental democratic principles and abused the right of freedom of speech.  His country shared the Special Rapporteur’s concern over the increased legitimization of racism, especially by political parties.  Racism was penetrating State policy and was being integrated into State management.  The fight against the evil of racism was far from being complete.  Furthermore, the problem was not decreasing, and one of its forms was neo-Nazism.  The mandate of the Special Rapporteur remained one of the most important mandates in the system of special procedures, he concluded.

The representative of Israel asked if the Special Rapporteur was involved in any collective projects with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and if he would consider measures which would combat racism by using school books.

The representative of the United States said the idea of freedom of religion was a founding tenet of his country.  The concept of “defamation of religion” was flawed and problematic and used to justify torture, imprisonment and abuse.  It might also have the “chilling effect” of halting public comment or dissent against political figures, and was now being promoted at the international level to promote and justify blasphemy laws.  He asked the Special Rapporteur for his thoughts on the role of States in protecting an individual’s legitimate right to express opinions on religion, and to dissent. 

The representative of Chile asked the Special Rapporteur what could be done to ensure that complementarity existed between freedom of expression and religion.  

The representative of Libya , addressing the issue of constructive dialogue between civilizations instead of a clash, asked the Special Rapporteur whether establishing such dialogue, did not require setting aside and excluding the extremists from both sides.  Turning to generalization vis-à-vis judgments about religions, races or ethnicities, he asked the Special Rapporteur if such generalizations could be considered to be part of what was called extremism? Stereotyping led to generalization on religions, which was a “big mistake we do face in this world”, he said.  Citing an example, he said linking terrorism to Islam was a big error.  Finally, turning to freedom of speech, he asked if the Special Rapporteur did not agree that freedom of speech should not pose a threat or touch upon religious figures and related beliefs. 

The representative of China said the Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance was adopted six years ago, but had not been fully implemented.  Racism and related intolerance were still prevalent throughout the world.  Earlier in his statement, the Special Rapporteur mentioned racism in new forms, and China was worried about that.  Racism was also a source of conflict in some regions, so his delegation welcomed the efforts of the United Nations to fight racism and encourage dialogue between cultures.  He also wanted to know, what practical measures could the international community adopt to challenge these new phenomena of racial discrimination?
The representative of Mexico said that the Special Rapporteur had addressed many of her country’s critical issues, given its national cultural identity, indigenous roots, and role as a transit country for immigrants.   Mexico was concerned about the regression identified by the Special Rapporteur, and agreed with the recommendations contained in the report that issues related to migrants needed to be addressed in accordance with international standards, not just with a security-based approach.  She wanted to know how the international community could better contribute to resolving issues related to migrants.

The representative of Ecuador said that in Spain a few weeks ago, a young Ecuadorian was attacked at a subway stop in Barcelona.  That showed that racism was far from over, and she hoped the Spanish Government would take all necessary measures to make sure such acts did not go unpunished.  She asked how racism against migrants could be addressed.

The representative of Jamaica said, this year, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) had led an initiative at the United Nations to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.  That had sparked very interesting debates, including the talks on reparations.  Deep ignorance about the slave trade and its impact on people of African descent today had been seen, as had the rise of historical revisionism and attempts to dispute the characterization of the slave trade as a crime against humanity, on the pretext that this concept did not exist at the time.  How could the United Nations address that information gap? she asked.  Also, she wanted to know if the Special Rapporteur could provide a comment on the role of his office on the preparations for the Durban review.

The representative of the Dominican Republic said although the Special Rapporteur was always welcome in the Dominican Republic, the report on his country that was presented to the Third Committee was biased.  In a country where more than 80 per cent of the population was of African descent, there could be no talk of racism.  His Government had a policy of friendship and support to the brother people of Haiti, with whom they shared an island.  The Dominican Republic categorically rejected the statement that there was racism in the Dominican Republic, or that there was racial discrimination. 

The representative of Cuba said the country echoed the concerns regarding regression towards xenophobia, and asked how the Special Rapporteur felt the review process should take place. 

Responding to questions, Mr. DIÈNE said that Durban had been the third world conference on racism, and that since then there had been a campaign to discredit its outcome.  Of most concern was the reality that, statistically, there had been an increase in racist violence.  People had been attacked verbally and physically, and sometimes killed, because of their cultural, religious and ethnic background.  As recommended several years ago, an observatory should be set up within OHCHR to tabulate and classify such incidents; the European Union already had such an observatory in Vienna.  

He went on to say that a second problem was political and intellectual legitimization of racism.  Xenophobic political platforms had been successful at elections, with the political parties that held such platforms becoming part of coalition Governments.  That represented the mainstreaming of racism.  The Third Committee had to attach importance to Dr. Watson’s statement and to the very fact that he would have said what he did in public.  In France, a statement had been made on television to the effect that underdevelopment in Africa was the fault of Africans, and that African men should be sterilized; the person who had said that had kept his job as a major journalist on French television.  In addition, the President of France had said that Africans had not become part of history; that was a founding stereotype of racist constructions.  

All Governments had to show political will to fight racism, and currently that did not exist.  Racism was an iceberg; you fought it on one front and it reappeared on another.  The underlying roots and the cultural mentality of racism had to be addressed.  Islam had been characterised as violent, and anti-Semitism was not dead.  Freedom of expression was fundamental, but it had to be upheld in the context of international agreements that protected freedom of religion and put limits on expression.  The Special Rapporteur was working with UNESCO in the area of education, but education was not a mantra.  What had been happening in some European countries was not the outcome of education, but of ethics.

The representative of France said the Special Rapporteur had referred to his country twice in an unacceptable way.  Public statements by the highest authorities of France could be debated, of course, but it was unacceptable to say that they sought to legitimize racism.  President Sarkozy had reaffirmed several times that the fight against racism and xenophobia was among his priorities.  Regarding DNA testing, the measure did not seek to impose such tests on all family reunion candidates, but rather it would make those tests available for those lacking reliable documentation to enable them to attend family reunions.  Such testing would take place with legal guarantees.  Unlike many countries where the promotion of a multi-ethnic and multicultural society was just a fantasy, his country had welcomed successive waves of migrants from all over the world, and it would keep doing so.

The representative of Haiti said her country enjoyed excellent relations with the Dominican Republic, and had been working with that country to resolve the problem of discrimination, particularly with regard to immigrant workers.

The Special Rapporteur said that, with all due respect to a Head of State, it was vital that the representative of France understand that the speech made in Dakar had dealt a profound blow.  Something serious had happened; the speech had been taken up by all racist groups and would not go unnoticed.  Responding to the representative of Haiti, he said he had taken note of the fact that the two Governments had been cooperating.  He then recalled how his visit to the Dominican Republic had been seen as part of global conspiracy against that country, with the Senate adopting a resolution the day after his arrival to reject his visit.  The country was not racist, but racism existed in its society, as it did in the rest of the western hemisphere.  The underlying problem was the instinctive, nearly violent rejection by the elite in the Dominican Republic to the existence of racism.  Everyone knew that colour played an important role in its society.  Another example was a member of the United States Embassy in the Dominican Republic, who had been refused entry to a nightclub because he was black.  Denial of the problem lay at the heart of the problem.

The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

JOSÉ LUÍS GÓMEZ DEL PRADO, Chairperson of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, addressed the Third Committee.  The Working Group was currently in its second year, he said, and since it was composed of five members, it had geopolitical as well as gender balance.  One of the effects of it being a Working Group rather than a sole expert had been the decision to promote, more intensely, the ratification of the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use and Financing of Mercenaries (1989).  As the only existing mechanism in the United Nations in charge of subjects related to mercenarism, the Working Group attempted to cover the “loophole” that there was no treaty body to promote universal adherence to the Convention, he said. 

In order to fulfil its mandate, the Group had integrated a system of individual communications into its working methods, which enabled it to receive and to study allegations of human rights violations.  The Working Group had benefited from the knowledge and experiences of each of its five independent experts, who belonged to different legal and political systems.  The Group had received much attention in international and local media, he noted. 

The specificity and the dimensions of the Group’s mandate touched on many characteristics of the new “human security” concept, such as the right of human beings to live in a private and public environment that was safe and healthy, and to receive protection from illegitimate acts of violence.  In contrast with other mandates, which had a perspective focused on the victims of human rights violations, the Working Group’s mandate took into account both individuals who were victims of human rights violations and the individuals violating such rights.  Explaining the dual approach of the Working Group, he said, on the one hand, it examined possible human rights violations that mercenaries or similar actors could have committed, and on the other hand, it examined the abuses and possible violations that those private security companies might commit in their search for profit. 

The new modalities of mercenarism pointed at an emerging and very flourishing industry of military and private security companies that responded to a commercial logic in search of profit.  The Working Group had raised those issues with Government representatives, highlighting the fact that States had a duty to respect human rights, public security, and the rule of law and public order.  Whether they did so directly or through private security companies, a State’s responsibilities remained the same towards both victims and international law.  There was also a risk of individuals recruited to operate as security guards in armed conflict zones committing war crimes, he warned. 

The visits to various countries had allowed the Working Group to study the emerging manifestations and trends among mercenaries.  Those indicated bad working conditions for the mercenaries, including working excess hours, mistreatment and isolation.  Although they had been contracted as security guards, they had received military training either in the United States, Iraq or in a third country, and ended up performing functions that had not been foreseeable in the contracts.  Some of the recruited guards who had been in Iraq informed the Group that they were heavily armed and had responded every time they were attacked by the insurgency, and had even used arms prohibited by the international laws of war. 

All of that indicated that the line separating passive from active combat was extremely fine.  The contracting companies admitted to working directly for the State Department of the United States Government, which had contracted them to conduct protection activities in zones of armed conflict or post-conflict like Afghanistan and Iraq.  Once they had obtained the contract from the Government of the United States, those companies subcontracted other companies abroad that then selected and recruited ex-militaries and ex-policemen from developing countries. 

Since the Working Group’s first report, it had called the Assembly’s attention to the impunity with which the military and private security companies operated, which violated human rights.  In zones of armed or post-conflict, the outsourcing of military functions and the supplying of military and security services by transnational companies would lead to the privatization of war.  The monopoly on the use of force by the State had been at the basis of national sovereignty for centuries.  The Group was concerned at the recruitment and training of thousands of citizens from all over the world, from developed and developing countries, by private security companies to perform tasks in Afghanistan, Iraq or other conflict zones.  The Working Group considered that transnational companies that used “independent contractors” or “security guards”, in situations of low intensity armed conflict or post-conflict, were the new manifestations of mercenarism in the twenty-first century. 

A considerable part of the responsibility for what he outlined fell on States from which transnational companies exported military and security services.  The Working Group urged those States to regulate and control the military as well as private security companies, to not grant immunity to the personnel, and to investigate and bring to justice private security guards who had perpetrated crimes and human rights violations in Iraq or in other situations. 

The representative of Panama said the country was satisfied to be hosting the next regional meeting on the issue of the use of mercenaries.

The representative of Ecuador said her Government had paid great attention to the recommendations in the Working Group’s report, and was conducting an exhaustive investigation into them. 

The representative of Venezuela said a number of questions arose following the report, including the legal responsibilities of States in relation to deaths caused by private military companies in the context of armed conflicts.  Her country was particularly concerned to note the new modalities that had appeared, as such acts were not identified by States as mercenary activities.  The issue also had to be addressed from the angle of impunity, and Venezuela wanted to hear more about the definitions of “mercenary”.

The representative of the United States said that insofar as the State Department’s security contractors in Iraq were concerned, high standards and professionalism were demanded.  The Baghdad Embassy security contracts required high standards that were written into the companies’ contracts.  With regard to the incident on 16 September, the United States was conducting three different reviews.

The representative of Peru said her country was striving to find the best ways to implement the Working Group’s recommendations, especially on alignment of national legislation.  She also wanted to know why there was such a low level of ratification of the Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

The representative of the Russian Federation said it was important to discuss the role of the State in holding a monopoly on the use of force.  The trend towards privatization was a way for States to avoid responsibility for violations of human rights law.  There was a need to draw distinctions between security services and those who hired mercenaries in conflict zones, which could be difficult categories to distinguish between. 

The representative of Chile said special procedures should stick closely to their mandates.  Those did not include the actions of private companies in the national sphere.  The issue of the alleged violations of the human rights of indigenous communities by security companies, employed by forestry companies, was outside the mandate.

The representative of Libya asked what was required to evaluate whether companies had violated human rights.  Could there be a code of conduct, or perhaps add an additional protocol to the Convention?  What was the Chairman’s point of view on that?

The representative of Cuba thanked the Chairman for his report and asked the Chairman if he might expand on the progress made. 

The representative of Honduras said the Government was cooperating fully with the Working Group and investigating security companies.

Responding to the questions and remarks, Mr. PRADO noted that private security companies were subject to very little or no regulation, and that had been a loophole.  One of the first tasks to be taken up by the Working Group would be to see what national regulations had been put in place.  It was very difficult to be able to identify an individual as a mercenary.  Private security companies had been operating in a grey area, in a legal vacuum that enabled them to proceed in a legal manner; that was unlike the traditional old-fashioned mercenaries, who acted in a clandestine way.  Private security companies were legally regulated; they also had a code of conduct which they did not respect.

Referring to the remarks made by the representative of the United States, Mr. Prado said that the question of accountability for such companies had been raised in a report on Iraq in 2005.  OHCHR had also raised questions about the accountability of 20,000 private security guards in Iraq; the response had been that they were accountable to federal courts in the United States.  However, Paul Bremer, the Civilian Administrator in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004, had issued a decree that granted complete immunity to private security companies in Iraq.  There was one association in Washington that united the main private security companies, and it had a code of conduct; but that code was not being applied in practice.  There had also been many cases in which such independent contractors had acted in an indiscriminate manner.  The Washington Post had carried reports about their employees firing shots at any car that approached them.  There was a need for regulation, or perhaps an optional protocol.  The Working Group’s initiative was to appeal to Member States to explain to what extent they had privatized the use of violence.  General consensus was needed to come up with something that would supplement the 1989 Convention.  “There is a need for something complementary, to cover that grey area in which private security companies operate,” the Chairperson concluded.

GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI ( South Africa), Vice Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, then delivered a statement on behalf of Najat Al-Hajjaji, the Chairperson of that Committee.  She said in the six years since the Conference, many efforts had been made to eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  But racism and discrimination continued to be a root cause of many human rights violations.  A review conference would unite the global community in a determined struggle against that social evil.  Member States would be reminded of their commitments, and new impetus would be given to the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  It would be an opportunity for all stakeholders to reflect on the reasons why, because in spite of all efforts made, all manifestations of racism had not been overcome.

She then summarized the work undertaken so far by the Preparatory Committee, which had been able to reach consensus on a number of significant issues, namely the objectives of the Review Conference, sources of funding and preparatory activities.  Outstanding progress had been made, providing a good road map in the run-up to what would be a successful Conference.  Inspiration and motivation should be drawn from the ultimate goal -– the improvement of the situation of people that had historically been among the most disempowered in society, so that the principles of equality and non-discrimination could become a reality.

JOÃO QUEIRÓS (Portugal), for the European Union and affiliated countries, said the concept that all men and women were born free and equal, in dignity and in rights, was a fundamental founding principle of the European Union.  National and regional strategies to combat racism had been implemented by member States.  Of particular note were two major pieces of legislation that addressed racial equality and employment equality.  A Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia had also been enacted, which criminalized acts of racism and xenophobia in member States of the Union and prevented impunity for crimes motivated by racist or xenophobic attitudes.  Europe was currently celebrating the Year for Equal Opportunities for All; those celebrations were contributing to heightened awareness of the legislation on non-discrimination.

Internationally, he said, it was the obligation of all States to eliminate racial and every form of discrimination.  It was extremely counterproductive to polarize and politicize the question of racism, to use it to target particular regions of the world or to try to establish a hierarchy between victims.  The full implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was fundamental to the success of the global fight against racism.  All States should ratify the Convention, since it had demonstrated its usefulness in addressing new and contemporary forms of discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.  

He said the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action of 2001 was a cornerstone of the global fight against racial discrimination.  Its follow-up and implementation, specifically the 2009 Review Conference, should maintain a broad consensus.  Previous disappointments in that regard raised doubts as to whether some of the main players in that process were really interested in including all regions of the world in the follow-up.  By focusing solely on a review of the implementation of the Durban Programme, the Review Conference would support more effective implementation and reaffirm the unity of the international community behind the strategy.

He expressed concern over the eventual elaboration of complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, saying the process was moving in a direction that could reduce the level of promotion and protection of human rights by shifting from the protection of individual rights to the protection of ideas or concepts.  This was exactly the opposite of what the Human Rights Council, by its mandate, should do.  The victims of racism expected Member States to find ways to protect and promote their rights and find remedies for past violations.

RAZINA ALAM, Senator, (Pakistan) said that despite the convening of the three United Nations World Conferences against Racism and progress achieved on many fronts, much more remained to be done to eliminate racism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism had made some important observations, which required urgent attention.  First, he had underlined the growing trend of physical violence targeting members of ethnic, cultural and religious communities, as well as the democratic legitimization of racism by some political parties.  Second, he had pointed out the decline in political and ethical determination to combat racism.  Next, he had noted that the manifestations of racism -– identity constructs, value systems, images and perceptions -– required legal, ethical and cultural strategies to fight the root causes of xenophobia.  Finally, the Special Rapporteur had called for specific and urgent policies to fight racism in sports. 

She continued, saying the upsurge in intolerance following the events of 11 September 2001 was also a worrisome phenomenon, and it mostly targeted practitioners of Islam.  Within that political climate and under the guise of fighting terrorism, religious intolerance masqueraded as freedom of expression and an assault on human rights.  The time had come for decisive action.  The Group of 77 developing countries and China welcomed the recent decision of the Human Rights Council to commence the process of implementing its standards to fit those of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and it looked forward to the Assembly’s adoption of the requisite legal instruments to strengthen the Convention.  The time to declare war on racism was now -– all Member States needed to take resolute action, individually and collectively.

CRISPIN S. GREGOIRE (Dominican Republic), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that earlier this year, they had joined the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade in the British empire, and had also joined with the nations of the world in Durban, South Africa, to lend their political will to the formal declaration of slavery as a crime against humanity.  The slave trade had created significant economic wealth for those countries which benefited from it.  Slavery was also replaced by colonial models of governance.  Many of the post-slavery dependency arrangements persisted today, and he repeated the call made in the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) for the ending of the “new millennium colonialism”.  CARICOM firmly believed that amends and apologies, into the realm of atonement via reparations, should be extended to achieve closure on a tragic period of history.

The trade in human beings and the abhorrent conditions of slavery had ushered in notions of racism and discrimination which still endured into the 21st century.  A recent ludicrous assertion of the purported racial inferiority of Africans had nothing to do with any so-called genetic deficiency, but was rather the function of the rape and pillage of the resources of the continent and its people.  The symbolism of the noose, used for summary executions in North America, was especially troubling, as was the emerging legitimization of racist and xenophobic political parties, particularly in Europe.  CARICOM concurred with the Special Rapporteur that Member States should reject racist political platforms and the defamation of religion, and also took note of the recommendation to retain a careful balance between the defence of freedom of expression and respect for freedom of religion.

BONIFACE G. CHIDYAUSIKU (Zimbabwe), speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and aligning himself with Pakistan’s statement on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said he was troubled by the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions that States had retreated in the struggle against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia –- particularly ahead of the 2009 Durban Review Conference.  His delegation had embraced the CARICOM initiative to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade earlier this year.  Further, SADC States fully supported the Special Rapporteur’s observation on the futility of disputing the characterization of slavery as an egregious crime against humanity.

Most SADC States had signed and ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and had put in place legislation to comply with its provisions, he continued.  He urged others to do so, as he was concerned that Africans and Asians in the diaspora, as well as migrants and refugees, had been victims of racism in Western countries.  He welcomed initiatives to stamp out racism in sport and urged that they be enhanced, particularly ahead of the 2010 World Cup, which would be held in a SADC State.  He encouraged the Secretary-General to provide financial support to the Review Conference, pledging to fully implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

MICHELLE JOSEPH ( Saint Lucia) said that despite the continued reaffirmation by the General Assembly of the right to self-determination, the realization of that right as a fundamental human right continued to elude people living in the world’s remaining non-self-governing territories.  The adoption by the Assembly of the first and second International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism to foster a genuine self-determination process had not resulted in implementation of key elements of the extensive action plans of those Decades.  An implementation plan of the self-determination mandate for those territories, endorsed by General Assembly resolution 61/130, had also not elicited the requisite follow-up from the United Nations system.  For the territories, the self-determination process had reached a stalemate, and would be achieved only by implementation of an Assembly mandate by the wider United Nations system.

She said the Special Committee on Decolonization and the Fourth Committee had a historic responsibility to carry out the mandate concerning the territories.  However, the responsibility to foster the self-determination process was not exclusive, and the entire United Nations system had a role to play.  The issue was well within the purview of the Third Committee.

The Assembly’s resolution 61/128 had supported collaboration on the issue of self-determination of the small territories with the Human Rights Committee, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.  Since the reports of those bodies were official documents before the Third Committee, it would be appropriate to conduct a more in-depth examination of the issue of self-determination for those territories.

OSMAN HUSSEIN ELAMIN AHMED ( Sudan) associated his delegation with the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China.  Efforts needed to be redoubled and cooperation increased to respond to racism, which had been spreading and taking on new dimensions, threatening the social fabric and generated hatred amongst peoples.  The upcoming Durban Conference was welcome.  New manifestations of racism had been seen in sports, an area where there had always been coexistence and rapprochement.  Discrimination against immigrants was another area of concern; they had been excluded from political, economic and social participation, and turned into victims.  Discrimination against Muslim communities in Western countries after 11 September 2001 also had to be rejected; Islam, which had been linked to terrorism, was a religion based on the values of tolerance that called for fraternity and friendship among people.  Such linking had to stop before there was more tension and negative behaviour.  Muslims had contributed in a positive way to life in Western countries.  In-depth dialogue among civilizations and cultures was needed, rather than the imposition of a specific order.

The Constitution in Sudan spelled out the rights and duties of its citizens without discrimination, he said.  Equal rights had been guaranteed to all, in line with international and regional treaties.  Coexistence in a harmonious society striving for development was emphasized.  Sudan’s views on the right to self-determination were completely in line with those of the African Union; however, that right could not compromise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of individual States.  Sudan called upon the international community to give more attention to what was happening in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, where people had been living under pressure and repression.  Relevant resolutions of the United Nations had to be implemented, leading to a Palestinian State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.

IGNACIO LLANOS ( Chile) said racism was a universal scourge that should concern the entire international community, and that States had a responsibility to confront it.  His country had hosted a regional conference of the Americas to prepare for the Durban Conference, and had been given the opportunity to look at its society historically.  In the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in 2001, the international community had pledged to become diverse societies as a way to combat racism. 

His delegation always sought consensus, since racism was a world problem and could be dealt with only through consensus.  In his country, racism was being dealt with through several initiatives, he said.  In 1990, the Government laid the institutional basis to overcome racism, which required the commitment of civil society.  The subject had been expanded with an agenda on the extension of civilian rights and respect for diversity.   Chile was seeking to put the idea of diversity into effect, to create a society where all citizens were treated equally.  The contributions of diversity were therefore welcome.

BUM-HYM BEK ( Republic of Korea) said a common approach was necessary to effectively fight racism and intolerance.  The international community had a shared responsibility to meet the expectations of the Durban review through innovative approaches and a transparent process built on consensus.  His country had focused its efforts on fully implementing the agreed principles and operational recommendations vis-à-vis the Durban review, and it would continue to do so.  Despite sustained efforts by the international community, the world was witnessing an alarming resurgence of xenophobia and racial hatred in many countries.  The continuous migratory flow from the South to the North tended to cause identity tensions among people exposed to the sudden influx of other cultures.  The Internet could be a breeding group for hatred, as evidenced by the number of racial hate sites that had increased at an alarming rate in recent years.  The international community would have to intensify monitoring efforts to cope with that phenomenon.  

Combating racism required a multifaceted approach, the adoption of relevant legislation combined with amendments to existing laws, he said.  The international community should encourage cooperation between all actors.  Some people considered religious defamation to be a form of racism.  Existing international human rights laws protected the right of individuals to freely exercise their religious or spiritual beliefs.  He called on religious leaders of all faiths to exert leadership to prevent religious defamation.  The Republic of Korea was prepared to make every national, regional and international effort to stand strong against all forms of racism.

ZHANG DAN ( China) said racism was a grave violation of human rights and one of the sources that led to discrimination, poverty and armed conflicts.  It was also a challenge confronting all members of the international community.  She called upon all parties to actively participate in the preparatory process of the Durban Review in 2009.  China also appealed to the international community to pay attention to the issue of racism, and to demonstrate their determination by taking urgent and effective measures to eliminate it.  Elimination would be a complicated process that would need not only efforts by individual States, but also cooperation among all countries, especially on providing the financial and technical assistance to developing countries to resolve problems of poverty and development.

She also appealed to the international community to implement the Charter of the United Nations and relevant principles of international law to fully protect and promote the right to national self-determination, as well as to facilitate the harmonious advancement of peace, development and human rights.  China supported the Palestinian people in their relentless struggle for the right to self-determination, and hoped the international community would play a more active role in seeking a comprehensive and fair solution to the question of Palestine and achieving lasting peace and stability in the Middle East as soon as possible.


For information media • not an official record