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.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Alternatives?
Now to the central issue, IMHO. (While the Norwegian foreign minister is giving a speech that criticizes Ahmadinejad.)
Many critics of the Durban process have argued that the problem with it is interference ("hijacking") from single-issue advocates: instead of talking about the specific problem of this or that minority, oppressed group etc, the focus should be on universal principles. (This is basically what the Norwegian minister is saying as I am writing this.) That critique is of course understandable, given the crushing weight of the Israel/Palestine issue at both conferences. However, the question, to my mind, is how a debate on universals is supposed to take place without being based on particular cases. The process of forming universal norms is always one of "formatting" individual cases in different ways, debating different ways of generalizing from the particular, and finding compromises between these ways.
Recent research on the history of the Genocide Convention and its author, Raphael Lemkin, has shown how Lemkin's work grew out of his concern with the specific instances of mass violence he was concerned with and the need to placate political interests such as US criticism of the USSR in the early years of the Cold War. (See e.g. the Lemkin issue in the Journal of Genocide Research, 2005.) The same goes, of course, for any such text or institution.
What is interesting, from my perspective, is to study why, and in what situations, some people find it advantageous to fight for a universal norm. There is a clear discrepancy between countries here, which goes some way toward explaining the West-South imbalance in the Durban process: dissenters and rights defenders in non-Western countries are especially interested in obtaining universal norms as a tool of leverage against their own governments (I'm thinking of the Helsinki principles and their impact on the Soviet bloc). In the US, for example, this is not much of an issue: Did the NAACP, for example (probably the world's largest antiracist organization in terms of membership and contributions), even send a representative to the Review Conference?
Many critics of the Durban process have argued that the problem with it is interference ("hijacking") from single-issue advocates: instead of talking about the specific problem of this or that minority, oppressed group etc, the focus should be on universal principles. (This is basically what the Norwegian minister is saying as I am writing this.) That critique is of course understandable, given the crushing weight of the Israel/Palestine issue at both conferences. However, the question, to my mind, is how a debate on universals is supposed to take place without being based on particular cases. The process of forming universal norms is always one of "formatting" individual cases in different ways, debating different ways of generalizing from the particular, and finding compromises between these ways.
Recent research on the history of the Genocide Convention and its author, Raphael Lemkin, has shown how Lemkin's work grew out of his concern with the specific instances of mass violence he was concerned with and the need to placate political interests such as US criticism of the USSR in the early years of the Cold War. (See e.g. the Lemkin issue in the Journal of Genocide Research, 2005.) The same goes, of course, for any such text or institution.
What is interesting, from my perspective, is to study why, and in what situations, some people find it advantageous to fight for a universal norm. There is a clear discrepancy between countries here, which goes some way toward explaining the West-South imbalance in the Durban process: dissenters and rights defenders in non-Western countries are especially interested in obtaining universal norms as a tool of leverage against their own governments (I'm thinking of the Helsinki principles and their impact on the Soviet bloc). In the US, for example, this is not much of an issue: Did the NAACP, for example (probably the world's largest antiracist organization in terms of membership and contributions), even send a representative to the Review Conference?
Thoughts on Ahmadinejad
(who is still talking although he was scheduled to speak 7 minutes, but not really adding anything new)
His appearance is of course structurally reminiscent of Fidel Castro's 2h speech at the first Durban conference. More importantly, it and the general fixation on the Middle East as the central "case" continues the time-honored Cold War-era tradition of turning international debates about "racism" and "fascism" into indictments of the United States, and into an international outreach tools for regimes with a radical particularist ideology, such as the USSR's and now Iran's.
The speech is now over. A. is being escorted out by a whole crowd of (evidently Iranian) security guards.
His appearance is of course structurally reminiscent of Fidel Castro's 2h speech at the first Durban conference. More importantly, it and the general fixation on the Middle East as the central "case" continues the time-honored Cold War-era tradition of turning international debates about "racism" and "fascism" into indictments of the United States, and into an international outreach tools for regimes with a radical particularist ideology, such as the USSR's and now Iran's.
The speech is now over. A. is being escorted out by a whole crowd of (evidently Iranian) security guards.
The interpreter is very good at adding emphasis and poise to Ahmadinejad's diction.
"Racism is rooted in ignorance of the truth of human existence as the selected creature of God."
...
For a sociological look at the roots of Islamic fundamentalism, with a beautiful quote by Ahmadinejad in a note on p. 51, see this paper.
"Racism is rooted in ignorance of the truth of human existence as the selected creature of God."
...
For a sociological look at the roots of Islamic fundamentalism, with a beautiful quote by Ahmadinejad in a note on p. 51, see this paper.
More commotion
"You're racist! You're racist!"
A. continues:
"Wasn't the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies?"
More shouts and countershouts: "You're racist!" "Zionists are fascists!"
A. continues:
"Wasn't the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies?"
More shouts and countershouts: "You're racist!" "Zionists are fascists!"
...asks the Almighty to forgive these ignorant people.
After religious intro, gives a survey of history of oppression:
- religious persecution in Middle Ages
- slavery
- two world wars
Criticizes Security Council's veto rights, to much applause.
- presents this as legalized discrimination
The whole thrust of the speech is to recast the problem of discrimination as one of international relations: discrimination of weaker states and especially the Palestinians by the powerful West.
Mention of Palestine attracts much applause and booing.
UN police are kicking out several people in the front row of the gallery where I am sitting. I didn't catch why: did they throw something? Display a banner?
After religious intro, gives a survey of history of oppression:
- religious persecution in Middle Ages
- slavery
- two world wars
Criticizes Security Council's veto rights, to much applause.
- presents this as legalized discrimination
The whole thrust of the speech is to recast the problem of discrimination as one of international relations: discrimination of weaker states and especially the Palestinians by the powerful West.
Mention of Palestine attracts much applause and booing.
UN police are kicking out several people in the front row of the gallery where I am sitting. I didn't catch why: did they throw something? Display a banner?
Ahmadinejad
I left the UN Watch session during a speech by Jabril Hamid (?) from Darfur, and consequently missed the final talk, by Dr Charles Small, director of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism.
It took me 15 minutes to get back past the security gate into the main conference hall.
The room is packed, of course, since Ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak now. (Ovations [!] and scattered "boo" shouts as I am writing.)
It took me 15 minutes to get back past the security gate into the main conference hall.
The room is packed, of course, since Ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak now. (Ovations [!] and scattered "boo" shouts as I am writing.)
Parvez Sharma
an Indian Muslim gay activist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parvez_Sharma)
as a Muslim, strongly disagrees with Cotler's statements about Ahmadinejad's presence
not a supporter of Ahmadinejad
talks about apartheid in Israel, genocide of Palestinians that has continued for several generations [people are getting up and leaving]
"to actually call the Iranian state a state of genocide is deeply problematic"
problems of gay Muslims pale in comparison with genocides in Rwanda and Darfur
several states and supra-national organizations have repeatedly blocked the decriminalization of homosexuality by the UN
(many anti-sodomy laws were implemented by the British and have nothing to do with shari'a law)
Hosni Mubarak had 52 gay man arrested in 2001 and launched a "state-sponsored pogrom" against gay men: thousands were arrested and put into prison
"it would be welcome at discussions like this to hear from real Muslims [...] like myself who are not just interested in bashing Iran"
...
the chairman, Hillel Neuer, who was a student of Cotler's at McGill, makes deferential comments about Cotler and says he was a champion of gay rights as Canadian justice minister
Cotler retorts, saying he is against Ahmadinejad, not the Iranian people
doesn't think that what's happening in Gaza is a genocide
Israel is being denied basic rights
Sharma replies that there is not enough criticism of Israel
[More people are leaving, probably to go listen to Ahmadinejad]
Neuer says Sharma was invited exactly to have an open discussion
as a Muslim, strongly disagrees with Cotler's statements about Ahmadinejad's presence
not a supporter of Ahmadinejad
talks about apartheid in Israel, genocide of Palestinians that has continued for several generations [people are getting up and leaving]
"to actually call the Iranian state a state of genocide is deeply problematic"
problems of gay Muslims pale in comparison with genocides in Rwanda and Darfur
several states and supra-national organizations have repeatedly blocked the decriminalization of homosexuality by the UN
(many anti-sodomy laws were implemented by the British and have nothing to do with shari'a law)
Hosni Mubarak had 52 gay man arrested in 2001 and launched a "state-sponsored pogrom" against gay men: thousands were arrested and put into prison
"it would be welcome at discussions like this to hear from real Muslims [...] like myself who are not just interested in bashing Iran"
...
the chairman, Hillel Neuer, who was a student of Cotler's at McGill, makes deferential comments about Cotler and says he was a champion of gay rights as Canadian justice minister
Cotler retorts, saying he is against Ahmadinejad, not the Iranian people
doesn't think that what's happening in Gaza is a genocide
Israel is being denied basic rights
Sharma replies that there is not enough criticism of Israel
[More people are leaving, probably to go listen to Ahmadinejad]
Neuer says Sharma was invited exactly to have an open discussion
Now: Fakhte Zamani
Batebi's interpreter and an Azerbaijani Iranian with Canadian citizenship
speaks about discrimination against Azeris, Baluchis, Arabs, Kurds, other minorities in Iran. Вот -- ссылка на статью о ней в русском переводе: http://anspress.com/nid99778.html
speaks about discrimination against Azeris, Baluchis, Arabs, Kurds, other minorities in Iran. Вот -- ссылка на статью о ней в русском переводе: http://anspress.com/nid99778.html
Next: Ahmad Batebi
Ahmed Batebi, an Iranian student who was tortured in Iran following a protest and later escaped to the US.
Will speak in Farsi.
talks about persecutions of dissenters in Iran
Iran supports terrorism, but Iranians would never act as terrorists themselves: this shows that the Iranians are peaceful people [the implications of such a statement are of course themselves discriminatory: if the propensity for terrorism is a characteristic of peoples, then some peoples are just naturally prone to terrorism. All this is very reminiscent of the ethnicist-cum-human-rights rhetoric familiar from many Soviet dissidents and ethnic activists]
Will speak in Farsi.
talks about persecutions of dissenters in Iran
Iran supports terrorism, but Iranians would never act as terrorists themselves: this shows that the Iranians are peaceful people [the implications of such a statement are of course themselves discriminatory: if the propensity for terrorism is a characteristic of peoples, then some peoples are just naturally prone to terrorism. All this is very reminiscent of the ethnicist-cum-human-rights rhetoric familiar from many Soviet dissidents and ethnic activists]
Cotler's speech
seconds Esther Mujawayo:
the UN failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide, and is now failing to do anything about the Darfur genocide, already in its sixth year
the UN is repeating its "mocking response" to actual genocide
thinks it's scandalous that the world's leading Holocaust denier should be an invited guest at the UN's antiracism conference on Yom Ha-Shoah (Ahmadinejad is speaking at 3pm)
...long and very repetitive diatribe against Ahmadinejad...
we should say "j'accuse" in the name of the great Iranian people
Holocaust denial, Rwanda: an international criminal conspiracy. Remembrance itself is a repudiation of denial.
as a Canadian, he grew up thinking that the UN was the organizing idiom of human rights [!]
the UN failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide, and is now failing to do anything about the Darfur genocide, already in its sixth year
the UN is repeating its "mocking response" to actual genocide
thinks it's scandalous that the world's leading Holocaust denier should be an invited guest at the UN's antiracism conference on Yom Ha-Shoah (Ahmadinejad is speaking at 3pm)
...long and very repetitive diatribe against Ahmadinejad...
we should say "j'accuse" in the name of the great Iranian people
Holocaust denial, Rwanda: an international criminal conspiracy. Remembrance itself is a repudiation of denial.
as a Canadian, he grew up thinking that the UN was the organizing idiom of human rights [!]
Next: Irwin Cotler
Next speaker:
Professor Irwin Cotler, member of the Canadian parliament, Liberal Party of Canada, former justice minister and attorney general, advocate for victims of conscience: lawyer to Nelson Mandela, Sa’ad ad-din Ibrahim, Andrei Sakharov, Natan Shcharansky
Professor Irwin Cotler, member of the Canadian parliament, Liberal Party of Canada, former justice minister and attorney general, advocate for victims of conscience: lawyer to Nelson Mandela, Sa’ad ad-din Ibrahim, Andrei Sakharov, Natan Shcharansky
UN Watch side event
Having found caffeine and an outlet, I am now sitting at the UN Watch side event. UN Watch is a Geneva-based NGO that monitors UN activities. See a link to their blog on Durban in my list on the right. From that blog, I learned among other things that Russia is the summit's no. 1 sponsor, having contributed $600,000 worth of funding.
Speakers at the side event:
Esther Mujawayo - is giving an impassioned speech criticizing the UN and Western countries for their inaction during the Rwandan genocide (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Mujawayo).
notes:
Feels uncomfortable every time she has to speak in a UN building.
Lost almost her entirely family in 1994.
The genocide was predictable and preventable.
Feels very angry when she realizes that the UN was meeting during the genocide, treating it as a theoretical issue rather than a matter of life and death, and discussing whether it is a massacre or genocide?
"Don't get out of Geneva without facing your responsibility and doing something concrete."
Speakers at the side event:
Esther Mujawayo - is giving an impassioned speech criticizing the UN and Western countries for their inaction during the Rwandan genocide (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Mujawayo).
notes:
Feels uncomfortable every time she has to speak in a UN building.
Lost almost her entirely family in 1994.
The genocide was predictable and preventable.
Feels very angry when she realizes that the UN was meeting during the genocide, treating it as a theoretical issue rather than a matter of life and death, and discussing whether it is a massacre or genocide?
"Don't get out of Geneva without facing your responsibility and doing something concrete."
South Africana
South Africa's presence is very strongly felt. I will not report on Nelson Mandela's statement, read out by an official representative.
Next, SA's foreign minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (ex-wife of Jacob Zuma) nominated the Kenyan Amos Wako as president in the name of the African group, seconded by Cuba and India. No alternative proposals (surprise, surprise).
Of course the whole conference is mostly a choreographed end point to a long process, as Ronald Eissens untiringly points out in his reports from Geneva (see ICARE link on the right). Still, it is interesting to see how the official representatives are reacting to the boycott by many Western states, and how exactly their performance of unanimity is staged.
Given the absence of major players such as the US, it is also interesting to compare the conference with Cold War-era meetings such as the non-aligned movement. Ironically, the heavily-felt presence of Third World countries is a sign of the conference's weakness.
* * *
I am now running out of battery power (no outlets in the pre-laptop age conference room...) and blood caffeine, so blogging will stop for a while. Back soon, I hope.
Next, SA's foreign minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (ex-wife of Jacob Zuma) nominated the Kenyan Amos Wako as president in the name of the African group, seconded by Cuba and India. No alternative proposals (surprise, surprise).
Of course the whole conference is mostly a choreographed end point to a long process, as Ronald Eissens untiringly points out in his reports from Geneva (see ICARE link on the right). Still, it is interesting to see how the official representatives are reacting to the boycott by many Western states, and how exactly their performance of unanimity is staged.
Given the absence of major players such as the US, it is also interesting to compare the conference with Cold War-era meetings such as the non-aligned movement. Ironically, the heavily-felt presence of Third World countries is a sign of the conference's weakness.
* * *
I am now running out of battery power (no outlets in the pre-laptop age conference room...) and blood caffeine, so blogging will stop for a while. Back soon, I hope.
Navanethem Pillay, high commissioner for human rights
as the earlier performance showed, "our main reason for gathering here today is to engage in a celebration of tolerance and of diversity" [!]
* * *
It is interesting to compare today's speeches, and generally the language used in the WCAR/DRC process, with the international racism debate of 60 years ago: in the immediate postwar years, the UN debate was mostly directed at debunking the "scientific" bases of racism. A series of brochures and books were written by famous scientists to contribute to this task. It seemed to many at the time that simply "refuting" racism would be enough to get rid of it.
That issue no longer seems to be of interest to most participants: Pillay briefly mentioned "scientific" racism, but most speakers talk about racist "beliefs," institutions etc, and identify economic and social factors as the causes of racism, or the economic crisis and even climate change.
Yet in some contexts, observers till try to distinguish between racism as a pseudo-scientific ideology and other forms of discrimination, which lay no claim to a scientific basis.
* * *
Back to Pillay's speech:
the goal: "attaining discrimination-free societies"
- Does she really believe this is possible? In this formulation, antiracism espouses what I call the abortionist version of obstetric politics: racism is a single phenomenon, which raises its ugly head and must be conquered once and for all.
It is fascinating hwo many people believe that racism is something that can be eliminated once and for all, rather than a structural problem in need of permanent institutionalized responses. Curiously, the same people often believe that racism is an age-old problem that has been with us at least since the Stone Age, since it corresponds to old forms of "communal strife."
* * *
It is interesting to compare today's speeches, and generally the language used in the WCAR/DRC process, with the international racism debate of 60 years ago: in the immediate postwar years, the UN debate was mostly directed at debunking the "scientific" bases of racism. A series of brochures and books were written by famous scientists to contribute to this task. It seemed to many at the time that simply "refuting" racism would be enough to get rid of it.
That issue no longer seems to be of interest to most participants: Pillay briefly mentioned "scientific" racism, but most speakers talk about racist "beliefs," institutions etc, and identify economic and social factors as the causes of racism, or the economic crisis and even climate change.
Yet in some contexts, observers till try to distinguish between racism as a pseudo-scientific ideology and other forms of discrimination, which lay no claim to a scientific basis.
* * *
Back to Pillay's speech:
the goal: "attaining discrimination-free societies"
- Does she really believe this is possible? In this formulation, antiracism espouses what I call the abortionist version of obstetric politics: racism is a single phenomenon, which raises its ugly head and must be conquered once and for all.
It is fascinating hwo many people believe that racism is something that can be eliminated once and for all, rather than a structural problem in need of permanent institutionalized responses. Curiously, the same people often believe that racism is an age-old problem that has been with us at least since the Stone Age, since it corresponds to old forms of "communal strife."
Martin Uhomoibhi, President of the Human Rights Council
allusions to US Declaration of Independence:
evident truth that all men are born equal, pursuit of happiness
"the Durban Review Conference should take us several steps further"
evident truth that all men are born equal, pursuit of happiness
"the Durban Review Conference should take us several steps further"
representative of Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, UN GA president (didn't catch the name)
"los pueblos resueltos y decididos"
"tradicionales y nuevas formas de discriminacion"
"para garantizar los derechos de las victimas del racismo"
"el derecho del pueblo palestino a la libre determinacion" [!]
"discriminaciones en los campos economicos, ..., ecologicos"
la actual crisis economica puede creer "un nuevo y gigantesco aparatheid"
importa la presencia de los estados
"tradicionales y nuevas formas de discriminacion"
"para garantizar los derechos de las victimas del racismo"
"el derecho del pueblo palestino a la libre determinacion" [!]
"discriminaciones en los campos economicos, ..., ecologicos"
la actual crisis economica puede creer "un nuevo y gigantesco aparatheid"
importa la presencia de los estados
Ban Ki Moon, cont'd
a new form of racism is on the rise [this is very general: since when? how is it new? how is it a global problem?]
[the hall has now filled up, people are sitting on the steps of the 5th floor NGO gallery]
"the document before us is carefully balanced"
"it sets the stage for concrete action"
"I deeply regret that some have chosen to stand aside. I hope they will not do so for others."
mentions Theodore Roosevelt as an exemplar of compassion [at an antiracism conference - this is interesting!]
"If tolerance and respect for diversity is our goal, are we not best served by practicing those qualities here now, as we work toward that goal? We can and we must rise to this supreme occasion." [Is this how the goal should be formulated?]
[the hall has now filled up, people are sitting on the steps of the 5th floor NGO gallery]
"the document before us is carefully balanced"
"it sets the stage for concrete action"
"I deeply regret that some have chosen to stand aside. I hope they will not do so for others."
mentions Theodore Roosevelt as an exemplar of compassion [at an antiracism conference - this is interesting!]
"If tolerance and respect for diversity is our goal, are we not best served by practicing those qualities here now, as we work toward that goal? We can and we must rise to this supreme occasion." [Is this how the goal should be formulated?]
Ban Ki Moon...
...singles out Russia as the facilitator of the prepcom meetings in his acknowledgments.
He is also "profoundly disappointed":
the fight against racism and all forms of racial discrimination is one of the "most pressing issues" [less pressing 15 years ago? 40 years ago?]
"no society is immune, large or small, rich or poor"
"the eyes of the world, especially the eyes of victims are upon us today"
"yet too many of us cling to the past"
"we point fingers and deliver some of the same accusations that we did ... years ago"
uses relatively strong language, for a UN SecGen, against the US and other boycotting countries, without of course mentioning them by name
"less confrontation and more dialogue, less ideology and more common understanding)
"if ever there was a cause in which we can all believe, this is it"
"a truly noble cause that binds us as human beings"
"racism is a denial of human rights, pure and simple"
distinguishes between institutionalized forms (Holocaust) and less inst. forms
"reject rightful grievances of minorities"
He is also "profoundly disappointed":
the fight against racism and all forms of racial discrimination is one of the "most pressing issues" [less pressing 15 years ago? 40 years ago?]
"no society is immune, large or small, rich or poor"
"the eyes of the world, especially the eyes of victims are upon us today"
"yet too many of us cling to the past"
"we point fingers and deliver some of the same accusations that we did ... years ago"
uses relatively strong language, for a UN SecGen, against the US and other boycotting countries, without of course mentioning them by name
"less confrontation and more dialogue, less ideology and more common understanding)
"if ever there was a cause in which we can all believe, this is it"
"a truly noble cause that binds us as human beings"
"racism is a denial of human rights, pure and simple"
distinguishes between institutionalized forms (Holocaust) and less inst. forms
"reject rightful grievances of minorities"
opening ceremony
The DRC is now officially starting - with an elaborate performance by dancers in "traditional" costumes who are apparently supposed to represent "Africa" and "India"/"the subcontinent" (perhaps a South African troupe?). The inclusion of such a number reminds me of the traditions of Soviet "friendship between peoples": let's celebrate diversity by stressing "traditional cultures." An approach that of course comes natural to a supra-state body such as the UN. What this has to do with combating racism is less clear. The message seems to be: let's show the world that people of different color can live together in harmony and do beautiful things?
(I was right: troupe from University of KwaZulu-Natal. ""Courtesy of the South African government." "Specializes in intercultural dance fusion.")
(I was right: troupe from University of KwaZulu-Natal. ""Courtesy of the South African government." "Specializes in intercultural dance fusion.")
identities
The Durban review process is often portrayed as involving "states" and "NGOs", as if these were fixed, unchangeable identities. In fact, of course, things are more complicated. In the registration and security lines, delegates identify themselves by saying "I'm a country" or "I'm an NGO" (actual quotes), and sometimes they are not sure. In front of me in the registration line, an elderly American man, in conversation with a friend in the next line, was wondering if he could cross over. He finally decided against it: "It's not the same line, cause this is international institutions, and this is NGOs."
People wear different hats: some, especially those "representing" a point of view, clearly identify themselves as "representing" NGOs (often NGOs in general, rather than a specific one), some are clearly representatives of "states." But many wear different hats at different times: they are academics, NGO representatives, and also voice what they say is the point of view of a specific country of ethnic group. This seems to be especially widespread among "Jewish" NGOs, where academic authority is frequently used to lend weight to strong normative assessments of the Durban process.
Interestingly, very few academics appear to be interested in taking a "neutral" stance (not that this is an easy option, but at least it is a clear ideal) on this issue. Most of the few studies of antiracist organizations that I know start with a very clear commitment to praising the protagonists of the study and extolling their heroic feats. The problem, then, becomes to decide "which strategy is right" or how to prevent certain people from "hijacking the issues," rather than to apply tools of historical/organizational/social movement analysis to what is sometimes called "the antiracist movement." Which might IMHO be the best thing we academics could do for that movement (if that's what it is).
People wear different hats: some, especially those "representing" a point of view, clearly identify themselves as "representing" NGOs (often NGOs in general, rather than a specific one), some are clearly representatives of "states." But many wear different hats at different times: they are academics, NGO representatives, and also voice what they say is the point of view of a specific country of ethnic group. This seems to be especially widespread among "Jewish" NGOs, where academic authority is frequently used to lend weight to strong normative assessments of the Durban process.
Interestingly, very few academics appear to be interested in taking a "neutral" stance (not that this is an easy option, but at least it is a clear ideal) on this issue. Most of the few studies of antiracist organizations that I know start with a very clear commitment to praising the protagonists of the study and extolling their heroic feats. The problem, then, becomes to decide "which strategy is right" or how to prevent certain people from "hijacking the issues," rather than to apply tools of historical/organizational/social movement analysis to what is sometimes called "the antiracist movement." Which might IMHO be the best thing we academics could do for that movement (if that's what it is).
opening speeches
How do the organizers establish equivalence between different "forms of racism or discrimination"? How do they suggest that the myriad "cases" discussed under this heading form part of the same problem?
The conference started 20 minutes ago with a short video called "Voices." Here is a list of the clips the compose the video:
an excerpt from a speech by Martin Luther King
an suit-wearing African-American in Maryland, who was stopped on the highway, based on a policy of searching all African-Americans for drugs
a Zimbabwean in South Africa
an aborigine in Australia
a Roma woman in Ostrava
a speech by Nelson Mandela in 1990
a dark-skinned businessman (?) in Ethiopia
Githu Muigai, special rapporteur, racism and xenophobia
Khallid Hussain, a Bengali (?) in ???
Gailer Romana (?), an Afro-descendant in provincial Colombia
Fakteh Luna Zamani, an Azerbaijani Iranian complaining about linguistic discrimination
Al-Shaymaa John Kwegyir, an albino in ??? African country
Doreen Lawrence in London, talking about the murder of "Stephen," suspected of being a gang member
Flags are often shown in the video, although the countries in which they are set are not always clearly identified. Soft background music, and a UNHCR logo at the end.
[Racism, a universal problem that is the same everywhere?]
This was followed by a speech by Stephane Hessel
from the introduction:
Stephane Hessel, member of French resistance, was in Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps
helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
close to Pierre Mendès-France
created the Association for the Training of African and Malagassi workers, 1962
member of various French human rights councils
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Hessel)
SH talks about "la famille humaine" and calls upon delegates to leave petty squabbles aside
complains about Buish presidency
[Racisme, discrimination, génocide : même problème, même combat ?]
Next speaker: a Tutsi survivor of the Rwandan genocide (didn't catch the name)
talks about genocide as the result of a process of dehumanization:
Jews = rats
Tutsi = snakes, cockroaches
the only thing that binds us together is our common humanity
[Obviously, those opposed to "racism" need to stress "humanity" as the only common identity]
Next: Gay MacDougal
Thinks Durban-1 was great, established new civil society networks
Racism includes “denial of cultural rights or ancestral lands”
“every person affected by racism has a story that should be heard”
Quotes from declaration of Durban-1 “Voices” program, which states that the authors “stand for everyone [!] suffering discrimination” [imprecise quote]
Stephane Hessel has final word, applauds Obama’s election
The conference started 20 minutes ago with a short video called "Voices." Here is a list of the clips the compose the video:
an excerpt from a speech by Martin Luther King
an suit-wearing African-American in Maryland, who was stopped on the highway, based on a policy of searching all African-Americans for drugs
a Zimbabwean in South Africa
an aborigine in Australia
a Roma woman in Ostrava
a speech by Nelson Mandela in 1990
a dark-skinned businessman (?) in Ethiopia
Githu Muigai, special rapporteur, racism and xenophobia
Khallid Hussain, a Bengali (?) in ???
Gailer Romana (?), an Afro-descendant in provincial Colombia
Fakteh Luna Zamani, an Azerbaijani Iranian complaining about linguistic discrimination
Al-Shaymaa John Kwegyir, an albino in ??? African country
Doreen Lawrence in London, talking about the murder of "Stephen," suspected of being a gang member
Flags are often shown in the video, although the countries in which they are set are not always clearly identified. Soft background music, and a UNHCR logo at the end.
[Racism, a universal problem that is the same everywhere?]
This was followed by a speech by Stephane Hessel
from the introduction:
Stephane Hessel, member of French resistance, was in Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps
helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
close to Pierre Mendès-France
created the Association for the Training of African and Malagassi workers, 1962
member of various French human rights councils
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Hessel)
SH talks about "la famille humaine" and calls upon delegates to leave petty squabbles aside
complains about Buish presidency
[Racisme, discrimination, génocide : même problème, même combat ?]
Next speaker: a Tutsi survivor of the Rwandan genocide (didn't catch the name)
talks about genocide as the result of a process of dehumanization:
Jews = rats
Tutsi = snakes, cockroaches
the only thing that binds us together is our common humanity
[Obviously, those opposed to "racism" need to stress "humanity" as the only common identity]
Next: Gay MacDougal
Thinks Durban-1 was great, established new civil society networks
Racism includes “denial of cultural rights or ancestral lands”
“every person affected by racism has a story that should be heard”
Quotes from declaration of Durban-1 “Voices” program, which states that the authors “stand for everyone [!] suffering discrimination” [imprecise quote]
Stephane Hessel has final word, applauds Obama’s election
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The DRC will officially start tomorrow. Several web sites and news services have provided detailed coverage of the long preparatory process (see e.g. the links on the right). Unlike most of these well-informed participants, I am less interested in judging the "success" or "failure" of the conference or taking sides. I am interested in studying different standards of success, different perceptions of desirable outcomes, and how government and NGO representatives try to reconcile them.
How do we get from a specific grievance to a general rule? How does a vision of antiracism formulated in a national or regional context translate into a "universal" norm, and how are these norms then channelled back into individual nation states? Should the final result of a meeting such as this (and the whole process it stands for) be a set of general principles that do not mention any individual cases of discrimination/xenophobia or propose substantive explanations for their existence, or is it necessary to include a list of specific problems? How does each of these visions affect the applicability of international norms in national contexts?
By publishing some of my notes online, I am not only following a request by the Moscow-based SOVA Center, which monitors racist and right-wing extremist activities in Russia, but also hoping to get feedback on my observations from more knowledgeable observers.
Any input will be greatly appreciated.
See you tomorrow!
How do we get from a specific grievance to a general rule? How does a vision of antiracism formulated in a national or regional context translate into a "universal" norm, and how are these norms then channelled back into individual nation states? Should the final result of a meeting such as this (and the whole process it stands for) be a set of general principles that do not mention any individual cases of discrimination/xenophobia or propose substantive explanations for their existence, or is it necessary to include a list of specific problems? How does each of these visions affect the applicability of international norms in national contexts?
By publishing some of my notes online, I am not only following a request by the Moscow-based SOVA Center, which monitors racist and right-wing extremist activities in Russia, but also hoping to get feedback on my observations from more knowledgeable observers.
Any input will be greatly appreciated.
See you tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)