The Durban Review Conference – The EU Position Will Decide its Fate
In December 2006, the UN General Assembly voted to convene a Review Conference on implementation of the Durban final documents. In a recent working group meeting to prepare the Review Conference, a “non-paper” was circulated that included language from the 2001 Durban Declaration which again singles out Israel and confirms concerns that attacks against Israel will be repeated in 2009. Ambassador Aaron Jacob, Associate Director of International Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, reflects on possible policies and acceptable limits (red lines) regarding the Review Conference. According to Jacob it is the European Union’s position that will decide the fate of the Review Conference.
For those among us who participated in, or closely followed the Durban conference of 2001, the mere mention of this event brings painful memories. A world conference meant to mark the third United Nations decade to combat racism and racial discrimination became a forum to attack Israel, and deny the uniqueness of the Holocaust. Even worse than the official conference was the NGO Forum, where participants adopted an extreme declaration, that sought not only to criticize Israel but also to de-legitimize its very existence.
The final documents of the official conference were eventually cleansed of most of the contentious language, albeit only after the U.S. and Israel withdrew from the conference.
In December 2006, the UN General Assembly voted to convene a Review Conference on implementation of the Durban final documents, assigning its preparation to the Human Rights Council. In 2007, the Council established a committee to oversee preparations, with Libya elected as chair and Iran and Cuba among the 19 vice-chairs. In a recent working group meeting, a “non-paper” was circulated that included language from the 2001 Durban Declaration decrying the conditions of the Palestinians under occupation, while omitting the Declaration’s explicit affirmation of Israel’s right to live in peace and security.
What should be our policy regarding the Review Conference? What should be defined as acceptable limits (red lines)?
- The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not a racial one, and is thus outside the scope of a conference on racism. It is a political conflict between two peoples with competing national goals – and must be addressed as such, lest it become all the more difficult to resolve.
- Including the issue of “defamation of religion” among Review Conference topics, as members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have proposed, poses a risk to freedom of speech, one of the core values of democracy.
- As acknowledged by two General Assembly resolutions, the UN bears special responsibility to assure that the Holocaust and its lessons are never forgotten. It is important that this principle be reflected in the final documents of the Review Conference, and that no distortion of the meaning of the term anti-Semitism be permitted.
Canada is the only country that has announced, unequivocally, that it will not participate. Israel has announced that it “will not participate…unless it is proven that the Conference will not be used as a platform for further anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic activities.” The U.S., similarly, is monitoring the review process but remains skeptical and uninvolved. President Sarkozy of France has declared that “France will argue for Europe to pull out [of the Review Conference] if its legitimate demands are not respected.”
All three parties have expressed serious doubts that anything good would come out of the review conference, but all have left the door for their participation open if the preparatory process redeems itself. The difference between the Israeli/American position and the European position is that while the former calls for non-participation “unless,” the latter advocates participation “unless.”
In the final analysis, it is the EU position – not the Canadian, the Israeli or even the American – that will decide the fate of the Review Conference. In addition to the 27 members of the EU, there is a large number of countries that determine their positions in the UN and other international fora based on the EU’s positions. Given this numerical clout, and the moral standing that Europe has in the international arena, there can be no credible Review Conference without Europe.
The Europeans attach great importance to multilateral diplomacy, especially the UN. They will not withdraw from a UN sponsored conference at the beginning of the preparatory process. They might do so at the end of that process, if it becomes absolutely clear that it is irredeemable. We should continue to urge Europeans and other countries to set conditions (“red lines”), which, if not met, would lead to their withdrawal for the Conference.
For over a century, AJC has been working to promote equality. We are unalterably opposed to discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic group, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, whether in employment, education, housing or public accommodations. That commitment and the efforts to make them a reality must and will continue to characterize our work. But we are equally committed to averting the subversion of that just cause in a conference that would follow the aberrant course set in Durban in 2001. It is in view of this parallel commitment that our policy regarding the Review Conference is set.
Ambassador Aaron Jacob, Associate Director of International Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, served in the years 1998-2002 as Israel’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN.
« Back to Durban Review Watch.
