More on yesterday and today in the pm.
Meanwhile, another link.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Spot-on assessments from the (tiny) European NGO caucus meeting
Miroslav Prokeš: "Durban split the European antiracist movement along racial lines."
Geert Ates: the UNITED network is a "coincidental grouping of angry NGOs"
Geert Ates: the UNITED network is a "coincidental grouping of angry NGOs"
Caucuses - Africans and Latin Americans
Writing now from a tentative founding meeting of a Latin American caucus, also attended by representatives of the Caucus of Africans and Afrodescendants, created yesterday. One of the latter has proposed to formulate four points of unity for a joint statement:
1. Slavery
2. Reparations
3. Afrodescendants should establish a permanent network, which should be financed and institutionalized
4. Governments should be held accountable on progress re 1 & 2
The 100+ scheduled 3 minute NGO speeches in the General Assembly should have started by now.
I find it amazing how narrowly focused most of the reporting on the conference seems to be in the Western press -- it is as if after Ahmadinejad's speech, nothing else going on here mattered at all. At the very least this completely neglects the information/networking value that many of the meetings have for those who can only attend such meetings every eight years if at all - but also the very real diversity of opinions and expectations, which are not limited to either the Middle East or to genocide.
Among many other factors, this narrow focus is probably due to greater access to information and other resources among those focused on Israel/Palestine etc - unlike others, they do not feel the need to treat the conference as an information-gathering event.
1. Slavery
2. Reparations
3. Afrodescendants should establish a permanent network, which should be financed and institutionalized
4. Governments should be held accountable on progress re 1 & 2
The 100+ scheduled 3 minute NGO speeches in the General Assembly should have started by now.
I find it amazing how narrowly focused most of the reporting on the conference seems to be in the Western press -- it is as if after Ahmadinejad's speech, nothing else going on here mattered at all. At the very least this completely neglects the information/networking value that many of the meetings have for those who can only attend such meetings every eight years if at all - but also the very real diversity of opinions and expectations, which are not limited to either the Middle East or to genocide.
Among many other factors, this narrow focus is probably due to greater access to information and other resources among those focused on Israel/Palestine etc - unlike others, they do not feel the need to treat the conference as an information-gathering event.
My report on the second day (in Russian)
written yesterday in the morning, published with some delay:
http://xeno.sova-center.ru/29481C8/CD7F548
http://xeno.sova-center.ru/29481C8/CD7F548
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
selection procedures
It was also interesting to learn that some proposed side events were rejected by the OHCHR because they focused on specific countries or cases: the requirement was to talk about cross-country "themes." Just like the person who asked a question about this at the meeting with the High Commissioner, my impression is that this has not worked out in all cases: in some instances, the general theme was a very obvious pretext for talking about a specific country. But the very existence of such a rule is interesting in itself.
I may also be able to interview June Ray, who is responsible for liaison with NGOs, on Friday.
I may also be able to interview June Ray, who is responsible for liaison with NGOs, on Friday.
Africana
The High Commissioner took an hour today to answer questions from NGOs.
It was interesting to me to learn that 65 African NGOs have been brought to the conference thanks to last-minute donations, in a process managed by the OHCHR. (Far fewer than attended the Durban conference.) It would be interesting to study whether there was any selection bias that might go some way toward explaining African positions expressed at the conference, although my first impulse is to doubt that.
In several statements by African or Afro-descendant activists during the conference, I have heard the idea that this group should emulate Jewish activists' success in getting the Holocaust recognized as an emblematic case with legal implications, and apply the same strategy to dealing with the slave trade. Once again this speaks to the tensions between purportedly universal principles and the focus on specific cases from which such principles are always ultimately derived, whether by analogy or by a process of generalization (see Boltanski/Thevenot's classic "Finding one's way in social space" and Boltanski's study of how letter-writers format their grievances in general language when presenting it to Le Monde).
I was also present at part of the founding seminar of a new African/Afrodescendent caucus, an initiative by NGO activists from a range of countries who are trying to create a representative group that would protest against the dominance of the Middle East theme at the conference and be able to issue press statements.
It was interesting to me to learn that 65 African NGOs have been brought to the conference thanks to last-minute donations, in a process managed by the OHCHR. (Far fewer than attended the Durban conference.) It would be interesting to study whether there was any selection bias that might go some way toward explaining African positions expressed at the conference, although my first impulse is to doubt that.
In several statements by African or Afro-descendant activists during the conference, I have heard the idea that this group should emulate Jewish activists' success in getting the Holocaust recognized as an emblematic case with legal implications, and apply the same strategy to dealing with the slave trade. Once again this speaks to the tensions between purportedly universal principles and the focus on specific cases from which such principles are always ultimately derived, whether by analogy or by a process of generalization (see Boltanski/Thevenot's classic "Finding one's way in social space" and Boltanski's study of how letter-writers format their grievances in general language when presenting it to Le Monde).
I was also present at part of the founding seminar of a new African/Afrodescendent caucus, an initiative by NGO activists from a range of countries who are trying to create a representative group that would protest against the dominance of the Middle East theme at the conference and be able to issue press statements.
Age gaps and gender
One interesting distinction to note concerns age.
Official UN representatives speaking at the conference, usually career diplomats or lawyers, tend to be well over the age of 50 by my assessment.
Representatives of specific bureaus of other international organizations are often much younger: the 30-50 is much better represented.
Among NGO delegates, there is much greater variety. Some larger groups (especially Jewish organizations, by my observations) bring large numbers of very young (usually undergraduate-age) "foot soldiers." But even smaller delegations often appear as tandems of one or more older and more experienced activists and one or two members in their twenties or early thirties. Probably a result of limited funding coupled with the desire to initiate younger members into international networking habits.
Many journalists also look like they are around 30.
Elderly figures are often presented in honorific roles (e.g. Stephane Hessel's appearance on the first day), younger people, when invited to speak, are often "voices" called upon to illustrate specific cases of oppression (e.g. Ahmed Batebi).
It would be interesting to learn more about the age dynamics: e.g. established cross-cutting networks of interaction between officials/NGOniks from the same generation, generational differences in patterns of dialog/debate.
I do not, however, notice any striking gender disparities, although my (completley unsystematic) impression is that in older/younger tandems, the younger member tends to be female, and the older one male. Leaving aside hormonal interpretations, this may be a result of the changing gender structure of NGO involvement, or perhaps of gendered hierarchies within these organizations. To be studied.
Official UN representatives speaking at the conference, usually career diplomats or lawyers, tend to be well over the age of 50 by my assessment.
Representatives of specific bureaus of other international organizations are often much younger: the 30-50 is much better represented.
Among NGO delegates, there is much greater variety. Some larger groups (especially Jewish organizations, by my observations) bring large numbers of very young (usually undergraduate-age) "foot soldiers." But even smaller delegations often appear as tandems of one or more older and more experienced activists and one or two members in their twenties or early thirties. Probably a result of limited funding coupled with the desire to initiate younger members into international networking habits.
Many journalists also look like they are around 30.
Elderly figures are often presented in honorific roles (e.g. Stephane Hessel's appearance on the first day), younger people, when invited to speak, are often "voices" called upon to illustrate specific cases of oppression (e.g. Ahmed Batebi).
It would be interesting to learn more about the age dynamics: e.g. established cross-cutting networks of interaction between officials/NGOniks from the same generation, generational differences in patterns of dialog/debate.
I do not, however, notice any striking gender disparities, although my (completley unsystematic) impression is that in older/younger tandems, the younger member tends to be female, and the older one male. Leaving aside hormonal interpretations, this may be a result of the changing gender structure of NGO involvement, or perhaps of gendered hierarchies within these organizations. To be studied.
Day three
The draft proposal was approved yesterday ("by acclamation") without changes! Thus the official outcome of the conference has been determined three days before it ends.
Today, I am focusing on presentations by official UN bodies. The CERD (Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) reported on its activities earlier today, discussing interaction with government bodies and NGOs. In particular, it was mentioned that so far, only 53 out of 174 member states have submitted declarations to the CERD acknowledging Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, allowing individuals or groups from those states to file complaints directly with the CERD.
A representative of a Dalit ("untouchable") organization commended the CERD for its efforts to address the discrimination of Dalits even though caste-based discrimination was specifically left out of the DDPA.
Now listening to a presentation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on freedom of speech and recitement to racial and religious hatred. Navanethem Pillay, the High Commissioner, mentioned this specifically as a bone of contention with the US, followed by vague words about the essential compatibility of free speech and respect for religious beliefs.
tbc
Today, I am focusing on presentations by official UN bodies. The CERD (Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) reported on its activities earlier today, discussing interaction with government bodies and NGOs. In particular, it was mentioned that so far, only 53 out of 174 member states have submitted declarations to the CERD acknowledging Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, allowing individuals or groups from those states to file complaints directly with the CERD.
A representative of a Dalit ("untouchable") organization commended the CERD for its efforts to address the discrimination of Dalits even though caste-based discrimination was specifically left out of the DDPA.
Now listening to a presentation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on freedom of speech and recitement to racial and religious hatred. Navanethem Pillay, the High Commissioner, mentioned this specifically as a bone of contention with the US, followed by vague words about the essential compatibility of free speech and respect for religious beliefs.
tbc
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Performance tactics
I am now at a panel on UNESCO's International Coalition of Cities against Racism. About 10 minutes ago, loud commotion started in the hall outside our own meeting room (and most other rooms where side events are taking place): a large number of young protesters wearing clown masks and wigs (like the ones used yesterday during Ahmadinejad's speech) were shouting "Durban-2, mascarade," and the police are still having a hard time keeping them in check (I can still hear shouting), especially since many people poured out of the meeting rooms to find out what was happening.
I'm not entirely sure who they are, but given their youth (they look like 18-year-olds) and French pronunciation, they are probably locals who got day passes for the building rather than accredited NGO representatives, although a member of a European Jewish organization I met on the plane from Berlin told me that his association was sending students there specifically to boost numbers.
I'm not entirely sure who they are, but given their youth (they look like 18-year-olds) and French pronunciation, they are probably locals who got day passes for the building rather than accredited NGO representatives, although a member of a European Jewish organization I met on the plane from Berlin told me that his association was sending students there specifically to boost numbers.
US boycott rationale
(Thanks to Judith Gordon at Yale for the quote)
USUN PRESS RELEASE #074 April 20, 2009
[Q&A session following] Remarks by Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, after Consultations on the Middle East, at the Security Council Stakeout, April 20, 2009
...
Reporter: Two things on Iran, Ambassador. One, what is the U.S. reaction to the speech given at the Durban II conference by President Ahmadinejad of Iran today and secondly, looking forward—going forward—how does the US plan to address in the Security Council context, the issue of the seized arms shipment by Cyprus allegedly bound from Iran to Syria?
Ambassador Wolff: Well as to President Ahmadinejad’s vile and hateful speech this morning, you saw a reaction in the room and you saw a very good reaction by the Secretary-General. This is—I can’t think of any other word than shameful, it’s inaccurate; it shows disregard for the organization to which he is speaking—the United Nations—and does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people. And we call on the Iranian leadership to show much more measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region and not this type of vile, hateful, (inaudible) speech that we all saw in the Ahmadinejad spectacle of this morning.
Reporter: (off mike) for the shipment?
Ambassador Wolff: That’s an issue that’s being dealt with by the relevant sanctions committee and continues to work on that issue.
Reporter: The high-level meeting
Ambassador Wolff: I can tell you what I know which is that the Russian government has proposed a ministerial meeting on the Middle East and is consulting with Council members on that as we speak.
Reporter: (crosstalk) in Geneva, do you think that maybe it was a better idea for America to join that conference in Geneva so that your voices would be heard better, seeing what happened like today? If you were there, you would have been able to speak more.
Ambassador Wolff: I’m not sure I understand the premise that whether the United States was there or not would have affected Ahmadinejad’s known views. The position the United States government has was taken articulated again by President Obama this weekend. We would have liked to have been there and we pushed hard. Our views and criteria were well know, they were announced on February 27. Some progress was made and we welcome that progress. On the other hand there were other aspects of the draft resolution coming out of that conference that we still have problems with related to the reaffirmation of the entire Durban I program of action and references to incitement of religion, of religious hatred, which the way it was drafted was tantamount to prohibitions on freedom of speech. So those concerns remain valid and I believe our position was the right one and again, have nothing to do with the spectacle you beheld this morning.
USUN PRESS RELEASE #074 April 20, 2009
[Q&A session following] Remarks by Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, after Consultations on the Middle East, at the Security Council Stakeout, April 20, 2009
...
Reporter: Two things on Iran, Ambassador. One, what is the U.S. reaction to the speech given at the Durban II conference by President Ahmadinejad of Iran today and secondly, looking forward—going forward—how does the US plan to address in the Security Council context, the issue of the seized arms shipment by Cyprus allegedly bound from Iran to Syria?
Ambassador Wolff: Well as to President Ahmadinejad’s vile and hateful speech this morning, you saw a reaction in the room and you saw a very good reaction by the Secretary-General. This is—I can’t think of any other word than shameful, it’s inaccurate; it shows disregard for the organization to which he is speaking—the United Nations—and does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people. And we call on the Iranian leadership to show much more measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region and not this type of vile, hateful, (inaudible) speech that we all saw in the Ahmadinejad spectacle of this morning.
Reporter: (off mike) for the shipment?
Ambassador Wolff: That’s an issue that’s being dealt with by the relevant sanctions committee and continues to work on that issue.
Reporter: The high-level meeting
Ambassador Wolff: I can tell you what I know which is that the Russian government has proposed a ministerial meeting on the Middle East and is consulting with Council members on that as we speak.
Reporter: (crosstalk) in Geneva, do you think that maybe it was a better idea for America to join that conference in Geneva so that your voices would be heard better, seeing what happened like today? If you were there, you would have been able to speak more.
Ambassador Wolff: I’m not sure I understand the premise that whether the United States was there or not would have affected Ahmadinejad’s known views. The position the United States government has was taken articulated again by President Obama this weekend. We would have liked to have been there and we pushed hard. Our views and criteria were well know, they were announced on February 27. Some progress was made and we welcome that progress. On the other hand there were other aspects of the draft resolution coming out of that conference that we still have problems with related to the reaffirmation of the entire Durban I program of action and references to incitement of religion, of religious hatred, which the way it was drafted was tantamount to prohibitions on freedom of speech. So those concerns remain valid and I believe our position was the right one and again, have nothing to do with the spectacle you beheld this morning.
roles, types, crowds
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this conference, and the "antiracist movement" in general, consists of several distinct and barely interconnected publics.
After a highly informative event on the work of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which was mainly attended by "practical" NGO people from Europe and North America as far I could judge, I am now at a discussion entitled "Racism: the road to genocide," devoted, to the extent I have been able to follow it, to Iran-bashing and talking about the link between Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Semitism.
The person talking now, a Canadian Jewish Israeli professor called Charles Small (director of the Yale Initiative for the Study of Antisemitism), is giving an impassioned speech that reiterates the standard talking points about the topic, quoting from the Hamas program etc. At one point in his speech, he asked everyone in the room to rise to remember the victims of the Holocaust, then said he wanted to discuss why some of those present "didn't have it in them" to do so.
As usual, I am not interested in discussing "who is right/wrong." I will simply note that this is a classic case of using academic authority to make political impact; I am curious to learn what effect Professor Small expects to achieve with this confrontational rhetoric _in this particular setting_ - perhaps it is simply about the rhetorical performance of opposition to Ahmadinejad within the setting of the conference.
My own case is not representative, but although I am generally sympathetic to some of what he said and, given my family history and own publishing activities, certainly in no need of proving my Holocaust remembrance credentials, I feel rather discouraged by such tactics. Scholars are never just scholars and will never be able to put their normative views aside, nor should they. But once again, I feel it would be useful for academics, when speaking as such, to offer analytic insights rather than issue activist statements. At least some of us should try to do so - isn't that what we should be good at?
...and a quote from someone who asked a question about Tamils:
"Sorry, Sir, that question was for the intellectuals on the panel, not for you."
After a highly informative event on the work of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which was mainly attended by "practical" NGO people from Europe and North America as far I could judge, I am now at a discussion entitled "Racism: the road to genocide," devoted, to the extent I have been able to follow it, to Iran-bashing and talking about the link between Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Semitism.
The person talking now, a Canadian Jewish Israeli professor called Charles Small (director of the Yale Initiative for the Study of Antisemitism), is giving an impassioned speech that reiterates the standard talking points about the topic, quoting from the Hamas program etc. At one point in his speech, he asked everyone in the room to rise to remember the victims of the Holocaust, then said he wanted to discuss why some of those present "didn't have it in them" to do so.
As usual, I am not interested in discussing "who is right/wrong." I will simply note that this is a classic case of using academic authority to make political impact; I am curious to learn what effect Professor Small expects to achieve with this confrontational rhetoric _in this particular setting_ - perhaps it is simply about the rhetorical performance of opposition to Ahmadinejad within the setting of the conference.
My own case is not representative, but although I am generally sympathetic to some of what he said and, given my family history and own publishing activities, certainly in no need of proving my Holocaust remembrance credentials, I feel rather discouraged by such tactics. Scholars are never just scholars and will never be able to put their normative views aside, nor should they. But once again, I feel it would be useful for academics, when speaking as such, to offer analytic insights rather than issue activist statements. At least some of us should try to do so - isn't that what we should be good at?
...and a quote from someone who asked a question about Tamils:
"Sorry, Sir, that question was for the intellectuals on the panel, not for you."
Audiences
Attendance at most side events seems to be mostly limited to sectional publics. The event on structural racism (which dealt with Bolivia, but also with larger issues) was mostly (though not exclusively) attended by Spanish speakers. The much larger debate on slavery, memory, and reparations is mostly (though not exclusively) attended by Africans, Afro-Caribbeans, and members of "African" organizations from non-African countries.
This is the first event so far where I heard any substantive discussion of the actual implementation of the DDPA (Durban Declaration and Program of Action) and mechanisms to hold countries accountable.
This is the first event so far where I heard any substantive discussion of the actual implementation of the DDPA (Durban Declaration and Program of Action) and mechanisms to hold countries accountable.
Day two
The conference and interaction with NGOs in particular suffers from technical problems. I couldn't report on the first NGO briefing yesterday because once again there were no outlets in the conference room. Monolingual participants are suffering from translation difficulties: today, for example, speeches in the high-level segment are only being translated into English for those following them from the NGO room (only one participant per organization is allowed into the main assembly hall).
In general, the organization yesterday was extremely chaotic: there was no up-to-date official program (of side events, in particular), and even those who have been in Geneva for a while were often confused about the schedule: e.g. there was supposed to be a first NGO briefing in the morning, but in the end it only took place after 6.30pm.
The first NGO briefing itself was very instructive for me in that many of the participants were complaining bitterly about what they saw as the UN's overly lenient treatment of anti-Ahmadinedjad protesters. I had not realized how many NGO representatives (as well as country delegates) have sympathy for Ahmadinedjad, viewing him as a mouthpiece of Southern grievances against the West and its double standards. Africans in particular, but also African-American, Canadian, British, German and other activists strongly supported A's right to speak and be heard, often viewing the Palestinian problem as a new version of apartheid and the West's response as a policy of double standards akin to many countries' support of the former apartheid regime in South Africa. Of course many of those opposed to A are boycotting the conference or left during/after his speech, and others were stripped of their accreditation for disruptive protests, or in any case decided to attend only to oppose Ahmadinejad and are not much interested in the other events. Still, the sympathies for A and the importance of the Palestinian issue to many of those present should not be underestimated.
Now listening to very moving accounts from indigenous Bolivians who have suffered discrimination in their country - in one instance, an Indio was picked up by an ambulance with a leg wound and delivered with bullets in his head and chest. The event is co-sponsored by the Bolivian government, and some participants present it as an "indigenous government" that tries to get rid of structural discrimination. It is interesting, in any case, that Morales' government seems to be happy to address continuing discrimination in Bolivia instead of claiming that it has solved the problem.
Although I doubt that anything of great interest is being said in the general assembly, there seems to be little interest in events such as this: at any rate, there hardly seem to be any non-Spanish speakers in the room.
I have also sent a brief report on the first day, in Russian, to SOVA: I imagine it will appear on www.sova-center.ru at some point today.
In general, the organization yesterday was extremely chaotic: there was no up-to-date official program (of side events, in particular), and even those who have been in Geneva for a while were often confused about the schedule: e.g. there was supposed to be a first NGO briefing in the morning, but in the end it only took place after 6.30pm.
The first NGO briefing itself was very instructive for me in that many of the participants were complaining bitterly about what they saw as the UN's overly lenient treatment of anti-Ahmadinedjad protesters. I had not realized how many NGO representatives (as well as country delegates) have sympathy for Ahmadinedjad, viewing him as a mouthpiece of Southern grievances against the West and its double standards. Africans in particular, but also African-American, Canadian, British, German and other activists strongly supported A's right to speak and be heard, often viewing the Palestinian problem as a new version of apartheid and the West's response as a policy of double standards akin to many countries' support of the former apartheid regime in South Africa. Of course many of those opposed to A are boycotting the conference or left during/after his speech, and others were stripped of their accreditation for disruptive protests, or in any case decided to attend only to oppose Ahmadinejad and are not much interested in the other events. Still, the sympathies for A and the importance of the Palestinian issue to many of those present should not be underestimated.
Now listening to very moving accounts from indigenous Bolivians who have suffered discrimination in their country - in one instance, an Indio was picked up by an ambulance with a leg wound and delivered with bullets in his head and chest. The event is co-sponsored by the Bolivian government, and some participants present it as an "indigenous government" that tries to get rid of structural discrimination. It is interesting, in any case, that Morales' government seems to be happy to address continuing discrimination in Bolivia instead of claiming that it has solved the problem.
Although I doubt that anything of great interest is being said in the general assembly, there seems to be little interest in events such as this: at any rate, there hardly seem to be any non-Spanish speakers in the room.
I have also sent a brief report on the first day, in Russian, to SOVA: I imagine it will appear on www.sova-center.ru at some point today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
