Original Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/gashc3934.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/gashc3934.doc.htm
November  4, 2008

Third Committee continues discussion on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination


Background

The Third Committee (Social, Cultural and Humanitarian) met today to continue and conclude its consideration of the elimination of racism and racial discrimination and of the right of peoples to self-determination (for background, please see Press Release http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3933.doc.htm GA/SHC/3933 from 3 November) and to begin its consideration of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions.  The Committee was also expected to hear the introduction of seven draft resolutions on the rights of children, the rights of persons with disabilities, and human rights questions, including alternate approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Committee had before it the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(document A/63/12), which provides an account of the work carried out by UNHCR between January 2007 and mid-2008, in response to the needs of 31.7 million people of concern.  It also describes major developments and reviews partnerships with other concerned entities, both within and outside of the United Nations system.  Refugee numbers increased for the second consecutive year in 2007, as did the number of conflict-induced internally displaced people to whom UNHCR extended protection or assistance activities.  In addition, the causes of displacement are becoming increasingly complex, with more and more people forced to move because of extreme deprivation, environmental degradation and climate change, as well as conflict and persecution.

Though the report states that returning home became a reality for 2.8 million refugees and internally displaced persons in the past year, the joy of going back was often tempered by enormous challenges.  Efforts to support the reintegration of returnees were frequently cancelled out by a lack of infrastructure or sustainable development measures.  As well, the complexity of today’s displacement goes well beyond the asylum-migration nexus and the report anticipates that many more people will be forcibly displaced in the coming years, some because they are escaping from civil strife caused by climate change.  The global rise in the price of staple foods has also had an alarming impact on the lives of refugees and internally displaced persons and many of the countries most affected by the rise in food prices are hosting the largest numbers of refugees.

According to the report, notable progress was made in achieving the three durable solutions during the reporting period:  voluntary repatriation; local integration and resettlement.  Though UNHCR remains engaged in its structural and management change process -- which began in February 2006 with the aim of enhancing the organization’s responsiveness and cost-effectiveness -- the report states that the changing dimensions of challenges are stretching humanitarian resources and response capacity more than ever before.  Indeed, UNHCR’s recent moves to measure the total global needs of populations of concern reveal that the resources made available to the Office cover barely half of the most basic requirements.  The need to find new criteria, strategies and solutions in managing the burgeoning environmental and humanitarian crises is an inescapable responsibility.  For UNHCR and the United Nations, this means finding the right balance in partnerships, bilateral or multilateral collaboration like the cluster approach, the Delivering as One initiative, or other coordination mechanisms.

The Committee also had before it the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/63/321), which demonstrates that, while certain post-conflict situations had stabilized and allowed a significant number of displaced persons to return home, displacement by armed conflict and other situations of violence in Africa increased during 2007, with the total number of uprooted people growing by approximately 1 million.  It also draws attention to regional issues, such as the 15 per cent increase in the overall number of refugees in East Africa and the Horn of Africa due to conflict and natural disasters, and progress made in finding durable solutions for refugees in some camps in Central Africa and the Great Lakes Region.

The report concludes with a series of recommendations including, among others:  the adoption of new approaches to resolving forced displacement at the upcoming African Union Special Summit; greater integration of the protection and assistance needs of displaced persons in peace agreements, post-conflict transition frameworks, development plans and poverty reduction strategies; and the conclusion of the African Union draft convention for the protection and assistance of internally displaced persons in Africa.

The Committee was also expected to consider the report of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/63/12/Add.1).

The draft resolutions to be introduced to the Committee included:  a draft text on the rights of the child (A/C.3/63/L.16); on the role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.20); on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.21); on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.23); on International Year of Human Rights Learning (A/C.3/63/L.24); on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/C.3/63/L.35) and on Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto (A/C.3/63/L.37).

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

Introducing the draft resolution on the rights of the child (A/C.3/63/L.16), the representative of Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft, said that the draft text was the result of “very long, drawn out debates” on the rights of the child.  The text stresses the challenges facing children in terms of the full enjoyment of their rights, such as discrimination, family relations, and the sexual trade in children, among other things.  It also takes into account the special needs of children, including the needs of HIV/AIDS affected children, orphans, indigenous children, migrant children and others.

She said the draft resolution stresses issues surrounding child labour, its links to poverty, and the need to prevent and eradicate it.  Families might depend on the financial contributions of children and such dependence often affected a family’s ability to allow children to fully enjoy their rights, such as the right to education.  The resolution also expresses serious concern about the delay in appointing the new Special Representative on Violence against Children and calls for more measures to be undertaken to accelerate that process.  She also highlighted the fact that the revised text that would be sent to the Secretariat would include some changes to certain paragraphs of the text.

The representative of Morocco, introducing the draft resolution on the role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.20), said the draft resolution highlights the considerable work done by ombudsmen in more than 120 countries.  Ombudsmen and mediators had an essential role to play in the promotion and protection of human rights and, through their functions, helped to strengthen the rule of law.  Celebrating their work was particularly important in the current year, as commemorations of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were taking place.

Continuing, he said the objective of the draft resolution was not to send a negative message to States that had not established such institutions.  Rather, the objective was to send a “message of encouragement” to States in which such institutions already existed, and to encourage dialogue and sharing of best practices among those bodies.  Drawing attention to the language of the text, he said that the use of the terms “Ombudsman” and “mediator” was not meant to exclude similar actors in other countries who operated under different names, such as “ombudspeople”.  After four informal meetings on the draft, a compromise text had been agreed upon and that was the text that was now before the Committee.

Introducing the draft resolution on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.21), the representative of Belgium said that the draft resolution, which was submitted every two years for approval, had been shortened and slightly amended from its previous version.  The draft notes the progress achieved over the past two years and welcomes certain developments in particular, such as the ongoing exchanges between the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other regional bodies, and the work of many competent regional organisms.  The text also contains a number of references to regional measures undertaken by States in the protection and promotion of human rights, such as those undertaken by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR).

The representative of Germany, introducing the draft resolution on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.23), said that the draft text built upon the body of resolutions that the General Assembly had previously adopted on national institutions with respect to human rights.  He noted, however, that no such resolution had been tabled during the sixty-second session of the General Assembly and, as a consequence, no report on national institutions and the promotion and protection of human rights would be submitted by the Secretary-General in the sixty-fourth session of the Assembly, unless action was taken in the current year.

The draft text recalls the “Paris Principles” relating to the effective functioning of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, he continued.  It recognizes the important role those institutions played, especially within the broader human rights system, such as in the Human Rights Council.  It encourages national institutions to seek accreditation status, and notes, with satisfaction, the strengthening of the accreditation procedure.  The draft resolution also urges the Secretary-General to continue to give high priority to requests from Member States that seek assistance to establish such institutions and requests the Secretary-General to present a report to the sixty-fourth session of the General Assembly on the implementation of the resolution.  In closing, he said that the ownership of a resolution on national institutions belonged to all Member States and Germany stood ready to join forces with all countries in support of the initiative.

Introducing the draft resolution on the International Year of Human Rights Learning (A/C.3/63/L.24), the representative of Benin, speaking on behalf of the African States, explained that a resolution on the topic last year had declared 10 December as the start of the Year.  The purpose of the current resolution was to help States maintain interest in the subject and to place the idea of human rights within the context of education on human rights.  It also sought to provide legal mechanisms for States and their partners to organize programmes of action.  Because negotiations were still ongoing, he said some amendments to the text would soon be submitted to the Secretariat.  The concept of human rights learning was a relatively new concept, and it was understandable that some delegations expected that it could be used within the context of education programmes.  But he hoped that, if given the chance, States would use the concept as a way to bridge the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals with the full achievement of all human rights.

Next, the representative of Sweden introduced the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/C.3/63/L.35) on behalf of the five Nordic countries, saying she looked forward to seeing more co-sponsors joining the list.  The issue had been the subject of numerous resolutions over many years, reflecting the international community’s determination to work towards its elimination.  She noted that the Human Rights Council had extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in June, and further noted that the draft had been updated from a previous version to include questions raised by the Rapporteur, such as the need to highlight the protection of witnesses.  She acknowledged that there were issues where consensus had not been achieved in the past, but expressed hope that continued negotiations on the current draft would bear positive results.

[Before she spoke, the Secretary of the Committee announced that New Zealand had been erroneously omitted from the list of original sponsors.]

Finally, the representative of Mexico, also speaking on behalf of Sweden and New Zealand, introduced the draft resolution on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto (A/C.3/63/L.37), which she said would welcome the coming into force of the Convention and its Protocol.  Some 136 states had signed it so far, and she urged all that had not done so to do the same.  The draft would welcome the holding of the first Conference of States Parties, which ended just yesterday and at which it elected its members to the Committee that would monitor implementation of the Convention.  She said the draft would urge the United Nations to continue to take account of provisions of the Convention, especially in relation to building renovation, including provisional arrangements.  It was hoped that the draft would be adopted by consensus.

Statement by the Vice-Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference

LUVOYO L. NDIMENI ( South Africa), Vice-Chairperson, presenting two reports on the first and second substantive sessions of the Preparatory Committee on behalf of the Chairperson of the Committee, who had been unable to travel to New York, said that the Durban Review Conference would be convened in April 2009, consistent with General Assembly resolution 61/149 of 19 December 2006.  The Preparatory Committee was the main body responsible for all the modalities pertaining to the preparation of the Review Conference and the “spirit of consensus” had guided its work.  In fact, an important achievement of the Committee lay in its ability to adopt all decisions by consensus at the organizational session and at the two substantive sessions already held.

Reading out the decisions adopted at the organizational sessions, he drew attention, in particular, to the recommendations to review progress and assess the implementation of the Durban Declaration, to assess the effectiveness of the existing Durban follow-up mechanisms, to promote the universal ratification and implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and to identify and share good practices achieved in the fight against racism and related intolerance.  Those objectives would be the basis of the assessment that Member States and all stakeholders should undertake in preparation for the Review Conference.

While the main objective of the Review Conference was to provide an opportunity to assess the implementation of the commitments undertaken by the international community at the 2001 Conference, he said the role of the substantive sessions was to contribute to “fleshing out” the contents of the outcome document, while bearing in mind the suffering endured by victims of racism and to improve their lives.  The first substantive session “achieved a milestone” agreement on the structure of the outcome document and the establishment of the Inter-Sessional Open-ended Inter-governmental Working Group.  The second substantive session took that process a step further with an agreement on a compilation, in a single document, of all the relevant paragraphs to fill the various chapters of the structure of the outcome document.  That compilation would form the basis for negotiations in the future.  One of the decisions of the second substantive session had been the convening of a third substantive session in Geneva, on 15 to 17 April 2009.

The Preparatory Committee would benefit from the participation of all stakeholders in the process, he said.  However, the limited financial resources available to the preparations continued to be a major impediment.  The lack of resources had prevented the effective participation of representatives belonging to the least developed countries, as well as those from national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations.  Thus, he reiterated calls for financial contributions towards the Durban Review Conference process.  The international community was five months away from the Durban Review and it was important for all stakeholders to remember that the ultimate objective of the Conference was to guarantee a change in the day-to-day life of each individual and group of victims, in all regions and countries of the world.

“We are acutely aware that racism and discrimination are intertwined with destitution and exclusion, unequal access to resources and opportunities, and social and cultural stigmatization,” he said.  Despite efforts to promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination, racism and its attendant problems continued to affect countless human beings in all regions of the world.  As preparations for the Durban Review moved forward, it was important to remain focused on the fight against racial and other forms of discrimination, as they were essential to the enjoyment of all human rights.

Statements

GEORGE TALBOT (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that commemorations marking the first International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery, and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the resolution adopted on the Permanent Memorial to and Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, served as the most recent reminders of the longstanding global impact of slavery.  The horror of the “infamous” trans-Atlantic slave trade was one of the most blatant forms of racism in the history of humankind and the subsequent colonial period had affected many CARICOM countries until just a few decades ago.  Indeed, the “colonial condition” still existed today in many countries in the region, whose people continued to pursue their inalienable right to self-determination.

CARICOM remained deeply concerned over physical attacks on innocent persons based on racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance, he said.  As such, the Community continued to support and promote the dialogue among civilizations and remained convinced that a culture of peace and understanding could be significantly enhanced through that kind of dialogue.  The United Nations was conducting important work to combat the scourge of racism, in all its forms.  He acknowledged the work of both the incoming and outgoing Special Rapporteurs on the issue and expressed support for the newly-appointed Rapporteur’s view regarding the need to foster cooperation with Member States in the implementation of his mandate, and to engage States in order to share expertise and advocate implementation of anti-racism policies.

While welcoming the contributions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to the Working Group on the Implementation of the Durban outcome and to the preparatory process of the Durban Review Conference, he also highlighted the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and its pivotal role in the successful implementation of the Durban outcome.  The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent also contributed important inputs to the Durban review process.  He reiterated CARICOM’s support for the recommendations of that Working Group, as laid out in its substantive report, in particular the recommendation to develop a racial equality index as a tool to better assess discrimination that affected people of African descent and other vulnerable groups.  At the regional level, he welcomed the outcome of the Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean, as a contribution to preparations for the Durban review, and noted the willingness of CARICOM States to join the international community towards the universal realization of a world free of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

SALIM ABDELHAK (Algeria), aligning herself with the Group of 77 and China, said the first article in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights said that all human beings were born free and equal in dignity and rights.  But, the full exercise of that concept was being obstructed by the practice of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, including in their contemporary forms, as well as the denial of the right to self-determination of some people through the unilateral interpretation of that right.  International commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination seemed to have eroded, with new forms of discrimination for political ends having brought racism to new heights.  In some cases, discrimination could be discerned in policies to combat illegal immigration and terrorism, resulting in the incitement of religious hatred, particularly against Islam, which was being spread with impunity through the defamation of religion in the name of freedom of expression.  The international community should not allow a “hierarchic reading” of human rights.

She said the upcoming Durban Review Conference was an opportunity to strengthen commitment to the Vienna Declaration and the Durban Programme of Action, and to adapt those texts to emerging challenges.  She welcomed the holding of regional conferences, whose results would contribute much to the Review Conference’s draft outcome document.  But, she was alarmed that preparatory conferences for other regions had not taken place, since racism should be of concern to all regions of the world.  Indeed, the entire world should show a sense of responsibility and solidarity in combating discrimination, which underlay internal and international conflicts, including armed conflict.  She noted the progress made by the Working Group on the elaboration of complementary norms to the Convention, to deal with new forms of racism.  Hopefully, those norms would be adopted by consensus.

Turning to the denial of the right to self determination, which was a fundamental United Nations principle and exercised by a majority of Member States, she said it was more urgent than ever to allow people of Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the Sahrawi people, to exercise that right.  The same applied to the Palestinian people, who continued to be denied the ability to exercise that right and to establish their own State with Al-Quds as its capital.

NADYA RASHEED ( Palestine) said racism represented the darkest side of humanity and the attitude and discrimination resulting from it sowed nothing but fear and hate which pulled peoples and cultures apart while setting the stage for violence and suffering.  History showed many examples of racism that translated into deeds of suffering and violence.  Pointing to Palestinian history, she highlighted how racism against her people, starting with a promise 91 years ago, had plunged Palestinians into dispossession and humiliation.

That had been done “with utter disdain for Palestinians as a people with rights”, she said.  Only racism and discrimination could have driven such a “journey of pain”, where the Palestinian people’s basic rights were stomped on, shoved aside, and indefinitely crushed and ultimately resulted in the forcible expulsion of more than 800,000 Palestinians from their historical homeland.  The inherent human right of Palestinians to return to the homes they were forcibly expelled from had continued to be denied.

She said Palestinians made up 20 per cent of Israel’s population, yet they lived on the periphery of institutional politics and society and were forced, through a series of discriminatory laws, to live their life as third class citizens.  “This is a country where discrimination is enshrined into laws”, she said.  Yet she said the Palestinian Israelis were not alone in confronting racism and discrimination.  She noted that Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian territory, John Dugard, had indicated that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem contained elements of colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation.  That situation made the Territory of special concern to the international community.  Israel, she explained, stood in breach of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1996, as well as the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 1973.

She said Israel also continued to manifest its unwavering colonial and racist attitude towards Palestinians by continuing to construct the illegal separation Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, despite a clear ruling by the International Court of Justice in 2004 that the Wall regime and the exclusively Israeli settlements it was designed to engulf were illegal and should be dismantled.

“This mangled system of racism, colonialism and foreign occupation has subjugated the Palestinian people for too long, shackling their dream of a dignified future and systematically undermining their inalienable right to self-determination,” she said.  Lifting that darkness required courage from the international community and an unwavering commitment to eradicate it by upholding the principles and ideas enshrined in relevant international conventions and laws.

WARIF HALABI ( Syria), aligning herself with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, on item 62 and its two sub-items on racism and racial discrimination and on the follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, focused her statements on the rights of peoples to self-determination.  She expressed her delegation’s support for the full cooperation of all countries with the Human Rights Council and the Special Rapporteurs, and welcomed efforts made to build synergies among a wide group of parties to effectively combat racism and racial discrimination.  Syria also supported all efforts to find common denominators among societies and civilizations all over the world.  Despite efforts to the contrary, racism continued to increase across the world, in large part due to mass media, which had fostered misrepresentations of certain religious groups and cultures.  That was a particularly worrisome phenomenon as such distortions contributed to spreading hate and xenophobia vis-à-vis certain groups, and, in turn, threatened international peace and stability.  In that context, the “racial sufferings” of Arabs and Muslims, under the guise of fighting terrorism, was one of the main issues to be considered.

Turning to the Middle East region, she said that the situation there had worsened and racial practices and discrimination in the region had increased “very seriously”.  She noted a number of discriminatory practices of the occupying Power in the occupied Palestinian territories, including ongoing killings of Palestinian people and various efforts to alter the demographic of occupied lands.  Her delegation expected that the results of the Durban Conference would address those “very serious phenomena”, with a view to elimination and to guarantee international peace and security, and would do so with full respect of United Nations principles and all human rights.  Syria deplored the absence of effective recommendations that would push States into complying with their commitments, especially in regard to the rights of people living under occupation.  The right to self-determination was an inalienable right and it was “extremely sad” that, today, the United Nations was “impotent, sometimes voluntarily”, and unable to guarantee the implementation of that “sacred right”, especially as it concerned people living under occupation.

NADYA RASHEEED, Observer for Palestine, said that the right to self-determination and foreign occupation stood in fundamental conflict to one another.  The denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination for 41 years allowed Israel, the occupying Power, to perpetuate illegal policies against the Palestinian people under its occupation.  She urged the international community to take swift and concrete measures towards assisting the Palestinian people to realize that right.  In addition to self-determination, Palestinian rights to life, liberty and security of persons, to freedom of movement, livelihood, education, property, and many others were being violated, by Israeli occupation, which also produced illegal settlements, closures, checkpoints, home demolitions, land confiscation, destruction of crops and wanton killings by illegal settlers and occupying forces.

She singled out Israel’s “massive colonization campaign in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” in contravention of international law, United Nations resolutions and the International Court of Justice as a “glaring example” of Israel’s violation of Palestinians’ right to self-determination.  “Despite the overwhelming pain and loss that the Palestinian people have endured due to the Israeli occupation,” she stressed that “the Palestinian people will never succumb to the forces of oppression, violence and injustice.  Their desire for freedom and independence and their struggle to achieve them will continue until the Israeli occupation is brought to an end, allowing for the Palestinian people to … live a normal, free and dignified life in their independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital….”

IGNACIO LLANOS (Chile) turned the Committee’s attention to the concluding observations outlined in the Secretary-General’s report on the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/63/254), saying he did not agree with its treatment of land-related problems in relation to indigenous communities and populations.  The territorial demands referred to in that section of the report had nothing to do with the right to self-determination.  “The right to self-determination” took on a specific dimension when taken in the context of the human rights of indigenous peoples, as attested by the use of the term in International Labour Organization Convention 169, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in article 46, and by the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples’ rights.

In light of that, he expressed disagreement with comments made by the Human Rights Committee on questions regarding restitution to the Mapuche people, which were inadmissible.  He rejected those statements.  In the spirit of dialogue and transparency, Chile had delivered its response to each recommendation formulated by the Human Rights Committee to the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  The issues referred to in that report had nothing to do with the resolution on which the report was based.

MAX-OLIVIER GONNET (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the report of the Vice-Chairperson on the substantive sessions of the Preparatory Committee and noted, in particular, the outcomes of the second substantive session.  Following that session, the European Union had noted that some progress had been made regarding the outcome document to be adopted and the schedule of work.  That session had also allowed for an important exchange of ideas and debate.  Bringing the different positions of delegations together required constant efforts and, as such, he supported the work of the facilitator to that end.  However, he said that all observers to the process deserved to have more time to express themselves before the Preparatory Committee and the modalities surrounding that issue should not have been a subject of debate.  All parties understood how valuable those groups, particularly the members of civil society, were to the process.  As well, the accreditation of those groups had led to “political difficulties” and he underlined the need to respect all aspects of the accreditation process, especially with respect to freedom of expression for civil society groups.

The Review Conference should focus on the implementation of the existing framework, he said, without restricting human rights, establishing any hierarchy among victims, or excluding any groups.  In addition, it should not focus on any specific geographic region either.  The Review Conference offered a genuine opportunity to strengthen the existing agreement and should concentrate on the future and not the past.  Any attempt to limit or restrict human rights would be unacceptable to the European Union.  It would be necessary to seek consensus and unity within the international community to fight racism and racial discrimination and the European Union hoped that the international community, as a whole, would be able to work in a constructive way to put an end to the suffering of victims across the world.

REBECCA SAGAR ( United Kingdom), aligning herself with the European Union, said her Government wanted the Durban Review Conference to contribute to the global fight against racism.  Her country had worked tirelessly against racism since the 2001 conference and the review would make it possible to share experiences on the implementation of the Durban Programme of Action.  Indeed, the second substantive Preparatory Committee in Geneva had offered States the opportunity to present regional contributions.  However, the United Kingdom had already registered a number of concerns with elements of the compilation text being prepared by that Committee.

While she offered support to the Preparatory Committee in transforming the compilation to an outcome that could deliver effective results, the United Kingdom would not accept any attempt to weaken the international framework for human rights, particularly with regard to the freedom of expression, which was a right it had long supported.  The United Kingdom believed that individuals were entitled to express views that were contrary to those of others, as long as it did not incite violence, in which case laws must be in place to offer sufficient protection.  The United Kingdom believed strongly that a democratic society that promoted the freedom of expression and rule of law would be better able to fight society’s ills than one where individuals could not express their opinions freely.

To build upon the existing consensus, she said the international community must focus on instances of racism and discrimination occurring now in all parts of the world.  The process could not succeed through a skewed focus against particular regions or specific countries.  For that reason, the Conference must address anti-Semitism and the issue of holocaust remembrance.  Indeed, the United Kingdom would find unacceptable any attempt to trivialize or deny the holocaust, and any attempt to repeat instances of anti-Semitism that had surrounded the 2001 Conference.  Further, the United Kingdom would not renegotiate agreements on the fight against anti-Semitism.  Also, while the world might identify specific forms of racism and specific actions to address them, it could not ignore some victims because it was politically convenient, such as victims from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.  It was imperative that the international community recognize and agree to address the inequalities faced by that group.

She said the United Kingdom wanted the Durban Review Conference to make a strong contribution to the fight against discrimination, and to clarify what role human rights could play in that effort.  The process should mobilize the United Nations rights architecture to support effective and early national and international action to stop genocide and other conflicts borne of discrimination.  The United Kingdom had put its faith in the chair of the Preparatory Committee to ensure that negotiations were being conducted in an efficient and transparent manner at all times.  That process must be inclusive, with non-governmental organizations and civil society fully integrated within it.  The United Kingdom would continue to argue for the removal of elements in the current compilation text that were unacceptable to it, and for the inclusion of language that would further the 2001 agreement.  An outcome within those parameters would provide a solid foundation for all States to move forward on the issue and was the only option if the international community was to deliver a successful review conference.

ABDERRAHIM OULD HADRAMI (Mauritania), aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that it was important to respect all human rights and to “lay down” a development policy with those rights at the forefront.  The effective implementation of those rights, on the ground, was essential and, to that end, his country had established a national human rights policy, with a view to ensure the respect of all human rights, through partnerships between the Government and civil society.  Understanding the need to protect human rights through the endorsement of relevant international instruments, the Government of Mauritania had ratified a “great number” of them, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The principle of equity and equality, which was stipulated in the international human rights instruments, had been implemented on a national level as well, he continued.  All people were considered equal and discrimination on the basis of race, religion or social position was not accepted.  Indeed, people living in Mauritania were able to fully enjoy the freedom of religion and religious belief.  In that regard, he expressed his delegation’s concern over the pictures of the Prophet Mohammed that had been disseminated, which had “hurt Islam and the Islamic religion” and encouraged actions that would prevent such a situation in the future.

JEROEN SCHOKKENBROEK, Human Rights Development Department, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe, said his organization’s mission since its creation had been to protect and promote human rights, of which combating racism and intolerance was an integral part.  The Council of Europe dealt with each of its 47 member States on an equal footing, through actions underpinned by legal instruments and the work of different independent human rights monitoring mechanisms.  Those actions were further supported by Europe-wide education and awareness raising measures and by expert assistance to national and local actors.  The Council of Europe believed in the promotion of mutual respect and understanding in the fight against discrimination.  For that reason, the Council insisted on respect for the principle of equality as a necessary condition for intercultural dialogue, in all its actions.

He noted, however, the difficulty in ensuring dignity for all and the necessary dialogue between all groups.  “We are facing serious divisions that create and aggravate discrimination, tension and violence resulting in serious human rights violations,” he said, as documented by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.  The Roma were a particular target, as was the Jewish community, which faced anti-Semitism throughout Europe, and the Muslim community, which faced Islamophobia.  Overcoming the persistence and emergence of divisions constituted one of Europe’s main challenges, which the Council of Europe was meeting through legislative means and awareness-raising.  It was expected to hold a conference in November in The Hague on “human rights in culturally diverse societies:  challenges and perspectives”, aimed at developing human rights policies that would better manage Europe’s increasing cultural diversity.

MICHAEL SHULZ, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), said his organization had vigorously challenged racial discrimination since its inception, and the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement explicitly prohibited any form of discrimination and racism.  While it was true that Governments had adopted various texts aimed at eliminating racism and racial discrimination, countries still faced various challenges, such as those stemming from xenophobia and concerns generated by migration.  For its part, the IFRC was careful to take account of the differences among countries when disseminating humanitarian principles and values, as the Kenyan Red Cross had been in the wake of “inter-ethnic” post-election violence, and as the South African National Society had been in response to “xenophobic violence” in that country.

He said the thirtieth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent saw States Parties to the Geneva Conventions, together with counterparts from the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, adopting the declaration “Together for Humanity”, in an effort to address the main humanitarian challenges faced by the world.  In terms of violence in urban settings, Conference participants formally committed themselves to intensify efforts to mobilize respect for diversity and action against racism, based on the considerable experience of the national societies.  Meanwhile, a declaration adopted by the African Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Johannesburg under the theme “Together for Action in Africa” saw participants committing to detecting, preventing and alleviating urban violence and its impact by promoting community harmony and dialogue, including by empowering youth as “agents of behavioural change”.  At the moment, the International Federation was working to equip youth with skills such as empathy, consensus-building and non-violent communication.  Those skills would be introduced to youth that were expected to gather at Solferino, Italy, where the idea for the Red Cross/Red Crescent had developed some 150 years ago.