Durban Review: Day 4

Durban Review: Day 4

UN Watch continues its daily blog from this week’s Durban Review preparatory committee, meeting in Geneva to plan a series of UN anti-racism sessions leading up to a major conference in 2009.

Today saw much discussion but very little progress. Differences between the Islamic and African countries versus the EU and the West continued to stand out.

Reports, Studies and other documentation for the preparatory committee and the Durban Review Conference (draft decision 7)

There was universal agreement to add the text “national institutions” to the list of relevant stakeholders to assist the Preparatory committee.
There was large disagreement over paragraph (a) of draft decision 7 and the list of relevant stakeholders. Currently, paragraph (a) requests various parts of the UN to “assist the Preparatory committee by undertaking review and submitting recommendations…” Two of those asked to participate and explicitly named are the Special Rapporteur on racism and the Special rapporteur on the freedom of religion.
Belgium led the fight to remove the reference to the Special rapporteur on the freedom of religion, while Pakistan, Egypt, and Iran fought back. Pakistan stated that “we all have to compromise at some point. And this is an important issue for the OIC.” Pakistan also offered to include a reference to “other appropriate human rights mechanisms” in an attempt to placate the EU.
Norway noted that the bureau sent out invitations to all Special procedures so it was unnecessary to specifically mention one particular Special Rapporteur.
At one point, Egypt noted that the creation of the special rapporteur on the freedom of religion had been an EU initiative and, alarmingly, he “reminded” everyone that the mandate of the Special rapporteur on the freedom of religion was due to expire soon.
Belgium fought back and refused to compromise, stating that only the most relevant special procedures related to the issue of racism should be included by name.
In the end, there was no compromise. The inclusion of a specific reference to the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion will serve as an important indicator if Durban II will turn into a conference dominated by Islamic accusations of “defamation of religions” and Islamophobia.

Drafting of Questionnaire to Evaluate Implementation of Durban Declaration

Egypt on behalf of the African Group, as well as Algeria, Iran, Russia, and China all asked for the bureau to draft the questionnaire.
Norway, Portugal on behalf of the EU, and Belgium stated the questionnaire should be drafted by the High Commissioner. Switzerland echoed the call.
Egypt replied that the questionnaire was not a technical issue and should thus be left to the bureau.
Belgium suggested language that would involve both governments and the bureau, but final approval of such a questionnaire would lie with OHCHR.
Brazil noted that the OHCHR’s impartial status would be important to drafting any questionnaire. He suggested language that would allow the questionnaire to be created by the OHCHR “with the supervision of the bureau.”

Rules of Procedure

Sweden asked why the preparatory committee would move away from “established practice” and not use the rules of procedure of the GA.
Pakistan expressed its frustration and asked if there were any “legitimate” objections to the content of the rules of procedure of 2001.
Belgium said that the position of the EU remained to apply the same rules to the review conference of Durban that have been applied to all other review conferences. Belgium reiterated this point many times noting that all review conference should be treated “exactly” the same way as these conferences do not constitute new conferences. Belgium, however, appeared to contradict itself by saying that when the GA resolution establishing the follow-up conference was negotiated in New York, it was agreed that the preparatory committee could decide the rules of procedure.
Algeria picked up on Belgium’s misstatement and noted that the framework for the rules of procedure should be those that were used in 2001 at the Durban conference.
Nigeria lashed out at EU countries explaining that if there is, say, a climate change conference, one has to adapt the rules of procedure for the particulars of that conference. In the same way, the Durban 2001 rules had to be adapted to adequately deal with the subject matter.
The Libyan Chair decided that further informal consultations were necessary on this matter, as well as other agenda items.

International, Regional and National Preparatory Initiatives (draft decision 8 )

During informal consultations on draft decision 8, Egypt lashed out at two EU amendments: one limiting initiatives of international, regional, and national meetings “in the framework of the review of the implementation of the DDPA,” (a blow to those seeking to include new issues), and a second to strike the word ‘financial’ from paragraph (d) of draft decision 10 – a set back for countries seeking financial aid to participate in the conference.
Egypt and Algeria asked angrily why the EU was making these proposals as they made “no sense.”
Greece attempted to explain the EU position, stating that it was important to set proper parameters in order to avoid a vague formula for the preparatory process.
Russia (chair of informal consultation for draft decision 8 ) stated that it seemed as though most delegations wanted to stick to the original text (before the EU amendments). Greece noted that the EU would not accept the current text and solicited the chair for suggestions. None were offered.
Iceland suggested adding the phrase “in order to facilitate the attainment of the objective of the Durban review conference,” but was rebuffed by Islamic countries.

Dates of 2008 Preparatory Committee Substantive Sessions

Draft decision 4 was adopted by consensus which means that:

The first substantive session of the preparatory committee will be April 21- May 2, 2008.
The second substantive session will be October 6-17, 2008, but these dates are still not confirmed to avoid any conflict with the GA’s 3rd committee.

Other Administrative Details

The secretariat was ask the following questions about various aspects of the conference:
- Do the rules of procedures used for the special sessions of the GA for the review of the main conferences apply to the Durban review conferences? ANSWER: No.
- Are there examples from previous review conferences where the rules of procedure used were different from those of the main conference? ANSWER: Yes (the special session of the GA for Beijing +5 used different rules).
- How long will the review conference last: ANSWER: 4-5 days.
- Questions were also raised about the financial implications of the original Durban Conference. For the total cost of Durban I, see the attached budget.