MINELRES: Information Note on UN General Assembly's Resolution against Racism

[MINELRES moderator]

Original sender: Sandra Aragon <OHCHR-NGO@LIST.UNOG.CH>


Dear Colleagues,

For your information, you will find attached a United Nations press
release on the General Assembly Third Committee approval of a draft
resolution on the "Fight against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the Comprehensive implementation
of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action"
(document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1).

Best regards

Sandra Arag�n-Parriaux
NGO liaison officer
Anti-Discrimination Unit
OHCHR
Tel: 00 41 22 917 93 93
Fax: 00 41 22 917 90 50

------------
Press Release
GA/SHC/3732
25/11/2002

Fifty-seventh General Assembly
Third Committee
60th Meeting (PM)

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES FIVE-PART DRAFT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ACTION

TO COUNTER RACISM AND INTOLERANCE, AS IT CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION

Deeply concerned about persisting and growing racial discrimination,
related intolerance and acts of violence, the General Assembly would
reaffirm its commitment to a global drive for the total elimination of
those phenomena, under the terms of a resolution approved today by a
vote of 153 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel), with three
abstentions (Canada, Australia, Marshall Islands), as the Third
Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) concluded its 2002
session.  (See Annex.)

Acknowledging that no derogation from the prohibition of racial
discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid and slavery was
permitted, under relevant human rights instruments, the five-part text
would have the Assembly draw States' attention to four priority areas: 
consideration of accession or ratification of the Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, with a view to
universal ratification by 2005; comprehensive implementation of and
follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action;
implementation of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade to Combat
Racism; and consideration of action by the Special Rapporteur on
contemporary forms of racism.

Conscious of the fact that the history of humanity is replete with major
atrocities as a result of gross violations of human rights and believing
that lessons can be learned through remembering history to avert future
tragedies, the Assembly would decide to proclaim 2004 as the
International Year to Commemorate the Struggle against Slavery and its
Abolition.  The Assembly would also emphasize that poverty,
underdevelopment, marginalization, and economic disparities are closely
associated with racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance
and contribute to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices,
which in turn generate more poverty.

The text would further urge States to, among other things, adopt
effective measures to combat criminal acts motivated by racism and
xenophobia, to take measures so that such motivations are considered as
an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing, to prevent such
crimes from going unpunished and to ensure the rule of law.  The
Assembly would also condemn the misuse of print, audio-visual and
electronic media or new communication technologies to incite violence
motivated by racial hatred and to condemn political platforms based on
xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority.

Before the Committee took action on the text, several delegations
expressed serious concerns about references to the outcome of the Durban
World Conference against Racism and its outcome, the Durban
Declaration.  While they reaffirmed support for the fight against racism
and related intolerance, some felt the negotiations at Durban had been
"inexcusably marred" by negative references to the Middle East.  The
Conference had also been accompanied by demonstrations outside inciting
racial hatred.

At the same time, others believed the Durban Declaration constituted a
solid foundation for the fight against racism, and provided a new and
balanced blueprint for action.  They urged that the controversies
emerging from the Non-Governmental Forum and the demonstrations outside
the Conference, which had incited racial hatred, must not be used to
detract from the international community's focus on the fight against
racism.

The Committee took note of the relevant chapters of the report of the
Economic and Social Council (document A/57/3), and the
Secretary-General's note transmitting the report of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights on implementation and follow-up to
the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and related intolerance (document A/57/443).

Finally, the Committee approved its programme of work for the upcoming
2003-2004 substantive session (document A/57/75).

As the Committee concluded its work, Chairman Christian Wenaweser
(Liechtenstein), thanked all delegations for their confidence and said
he had done his best to live up to their expectations.  It had not been
an easy session, but he felt that delegations had showed a great spirit
of cooperation.  He also thanked the Bureau, the Vice-Chairpersons, and
the Secretariat, and noted that there had been transparency and dialogue
in the workings of the Committee.

He stressed that he believed consensus was an important tool, even
though it was sometimes impossible.  Referring to the occasionally
drawn-out negotiations, he said it had not been responsible for the
Committee to have spent more than five hours on one resolution, at a
cost of more than $23,000.  In conclusion, he again thanked delegations
and stressed that the Committee had indeed completed important work.

Also speaking towards the conclusion of the meeting, thanking the
Chairperson and the Bureau as well as reflecting on the session, were
representatives of Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Denmark
(on behalf of the European Union), Lebanon (on behalf of the Arabic
Group), San Marino (on behalf of the Western European and other States
Group), Canada (on behalf of JUSCANZ), Venezuela (on behalf of the Group
of 77), Argentina (on behalf of the Latin American Group), Indonesia (on
behalf of the Asian Group), Jamaica (on behalf of the Caribbean
Community (CARICOM)), and Albania (on behalf of the Eastern European
Group).

The representatives of Benin and Suriname also spoke.

Background

Before the Committee there will be a draft resolution on the Fight
against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related
intolerance and Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the
Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document
A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1).  It would have the Assembly call upon all States
resolutely to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes motivated by
racism and xenophobia, and call upon those that have not yet done so to
consider including in their legislation racist and xenophobic motivation
as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing.  States would
also be called upon to review and revise, where necessary, their
immigration laws and policies and practices so that they were free from
racial discrimination.

The Committee also had before it a text on the organization of work of
the Third Committee and draft biennial programme of work of the
Committee for 2003-2004 (document A/C.3/57/L.75).

Also before the Committee is the report of the Economic and Social
Council for 2002 (document A/57/3) and its supplements, which deals with
matters calling for action by or brought to the attention of the General
Assembly.  It also mentions the special high-level meeting of the
Council with the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade
Organization.  Concerning the high-level segment of the Economic and
Social Council, the report focuses on the contribution of human
resources development, including in areas of health and education, to
the process towards development, as well as the Ministerial declaration
of the high-level segment submitted by the President of the Council. 
The report covers the operational activities of the Economic and Social
Council as well as its coordination, including its strengthening through
building on recent achievements, so that it can fulfil the role ascribed
to it in the Charter of the United Nations.

Action on Draft Resolution

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the Fight against
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance and
the Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban
Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1).

A recorded vote was requested.

In a general statement, the representative of Israel said Israel fully
supported efforts aimed at eradicating racism.  Because Israel was
against racism, the outcome of Durban could not be accepted.  His
delegation would not be joining the consensus and would vote against the
draft resolution.  Had there been a paragraph-by-paragraph vote, Israel
would have voted against any reference to Durban being the basis for the
fight against racism.  The highjacking of the Conference did a great
disservice to those who would have benefited from efforts to eradicate
racism.  For these reasons, his delegation along with that of the United
States had been compelled to leave the Conference.  The conduct at the
Conference had been offensive and something United Nations resolutions
must avoid basing themselves on.

The representative of South Africa said the outcome of the World
Conference in Durban had one of its primary objectives racial equality
and racial justice everywhere in the world.  The Conference put the
victims of racism at the heart of the future work of the Committee, she
said.  It was important that the General Assembly ensured the
implementation and follow-up to the Durban Declaration at the national
and international levels.  She also appreciated the patience and
important work undertaken by the co-sponsors of the current draft
resolution.  The Durban Declaration constituted a solid foundation for
the fight against racism.  Finally, she stressed that the controversies
that had come out of the Non-Governmental Forum and the demonstrations
outside the Conference, which had incited racial hatred, must not be
used to detract the international community's focus on the fight against
racism.

Before the vote, the representative of the United States explained his
vote and said that the United States was committed to the fight against
racism, including anti-Semitism.  He had been disappointed that
anti-Semitism had not been mentioned in the resolution as a contemporary
form of racism.  The United States had withdrawn from the Durban
Conference and had not agreed with the Declaration.  The Conference had
also been accompanied by demonstrations outside inciting racial hatred. 
The United States would vote against the adoption of this resolution,
even though the United States fully supported the goals the Conference
initially had been intended to fulfil.

The representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, said the
European Union was committed to the fight against racism, at home and
abroad.  Racism was a cause and manifestation of violence around the
world.  The Durban Declaration provided a new and balanced blueprint for
action against racism.  The European Union had already begun to take
action at the national and regional commitment in this regard and
believed that the Durban Declaration needed to have consensus support in
order to have any effect.  The efforts made by all co-sponsors to reach
agreement were commended.  She regretted that it was not possible to
adopt this draft resolution by consensus.

The representative of Canada said that Canada would abstain in the vote
since the text was vitally flawed in one area.  It focused on the Durban
Conference, which had been unacceptably marred by references to the
Middle East.  Canada disassociated itself from those paragraphs.  He
noted that operative paragraph 50 to cooperate with the Special
Rapporteur in his mandate, which must be the fight against contemporary
forms of racism against Africans and their descendants, Islamophobia and
anti-Semitism.

The representative of Australia said he was deeply disappointed that
real outcomes had been prevented by politicization and division.
Australia was also concerned about the future mechanisms of this draft. 
Any follow-up mechanisms must be consensual - follow-up mechanisms going
beyond this basis could not be accepted.  Efforts must be geared to
constructively fighting against racism.

In a recorded vote, the resolution was approved by a vote of 153 in
favour to 2 against (United States, Israel), with 3 abstentions
(Australia, Canada and Marshall Islands).  (See Annex.)

After the vote, the representative of Senegal said he regretted that it
had been necessary for the international community to vote on a
resolution on racism.  He felt that the Durban consensus should have
been preserved, and that follow-up mechanisms to Durban that were
non-consensual must be avoided.  New mechanisms must be the outcome of a
consensus.  He added that the question of racism must not be seen only
from a North-South, black-white dichotomy.  All forms of discrimination
must be fought with the same vigour.  His delegation had voted in
favour, hoping that useful compromises would be found at the next human
rights session in Geneva.

The Committee then took note of the Secretary-General's transmission of
the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on
the implementation and follow-up to the World Conference against Racism
(document A/57/443) and recommended that the General Assembly do the
same.


ANNEX

Vote on Fight against Racism

The draft resolution on the fight against racism and related intolerance
(document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 153 in
favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and
Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China,
Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, C�te d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland,
India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar,
Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway,
Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Poland, Portugal,
Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian
Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San
Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia,
Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland,
Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine,
United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstaining:  Australia, Canada, Marshall Islands.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, El Salvador,
Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Federated States of
Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia,
Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.