INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT AGAINST ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION
AND RACISM (IMADR)
REPORT ON THE THIRD SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON
THE WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION,
XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE
Working Group on the Draft Program of Action
30 July-10 August 2001
Geneva, Switzerland
UNEDITED VERSION
Hind Merabet, intern, IMADR-UN Office
(Note: this is an unofficial report prepared by the monitoring team of IMADR-UN Office for the use of NGOs following the WCAR process. The main purpose of the report is to give an idea for the NGOs about such questions as who introduced which new paragraphs/language and who was interested in what issues: it is by no means meant to serve as an official record of the actual discussion, and IMADR-UN Office does not assume a responsibility for any inaccurate summary of statement wherever exist)
Documentation:
The documents used as a basis for consideration for the Draft Program of Action:
- Draft Programme of Action against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Proposals made by the Group of 21, 12 July 2001 (A/CONF.189/PC.3/8)
- Draft Declaration and Programme of Action, Explanatory note by the Chairperson on the proceedings of the Group of 21 concerning the Draft Program of Action, 26 July 2001 (A/CONF.189/PC.3/Add.1)
Monday 30 July 2001
Afternoon Session
Indigenous People’s Caucus’ Representative:
There have been many challenges to say the least to ensure full participation by Indigenous Peoples leading up to the World Conference Against Racism. We look to this 3rd Prep Comm to fulfil the initial principle commitment to make this World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) truly inclusive.
International Roma Movement’s Representative:
We are highly disappointed to see that, unlike other victims, Roma People are listed under “Other Victims” as if they were less victims than others. This is unacceptable as their civil, political, social and economic rights are currently violated all other the world and they are suffering from racial discrimination and past slavery and extermination. The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance must give due consideration to the CERD’s General Recommendation 27 on Discrimination against Roma. Putting a hierarchy among victims constitutes in itself a racist act. We recommend therefore to bring the Roma as a subtitle in the document.
Chairman:
They are no additional NGO Statements. We will begin the review of the Draft Program of Action. Paragraph 1 was adopted at the 2nd Session but two sets of bracket remain, namely “in consultation with the affected communities” and “list of generic description to replace: peoples and communities who are victims of racism, racial discrimination and exclusion/indigenous peoples, people of African descent, migrants and other ethnic, racial, cultural, religious and linguistic groups of minorities”. We need to see whether we can eliminate those brackets.
Pakistan:
We suggest that the bracket “in consultation….communities” be removed.
Chairman:
Is there any objection for the removal of that bracket ? No. Then it is removed. Now, as for the second bracket, are they any delegation’s comments as to whether to keep it the reference as a generic description or rather as a list (eg. indigenous peoples, religious and minorities groups, etc.).
India:
Where will it be probably placed ? We believe it would be better placed under “Measures under prevention”.
Chairman:
We will consider the changes of location of certain paragraphs maybe later on.
Belgium:
We support India’s proposal.
Jordan:
As to the list option, we would need further clarification as to whether the list is finished and, if so, if it is possible to see it
Pakistan:
We believe that it can be discussed at a later stage whether the paragraph really belongs in this distinct section. We have a preference for the list because generic reference can be found in every society. There is no particular area where victims are to be found.
Chairman:
We would like to hear more delegations on the proposal for the list.
Canada:
We prefer the generic description because a list is never comprehensive. Certain communities would require protection and will not be listed. We could use another terminology that would include group living together in an area.
Chairman:
Are you suggesting to combine the list with a generic reference ?
Canada:
We would add to the generic reference the words “including” or “such as” to indicate that the list is not comprehensive.
Pakistan:
We would suggest the addition of “xenophobia” which is a theme of racism. We would also support the inclusion of “people from Asian Descent” in the list.
?:
An agreed list would be more convenient. If not, there must be a general reference to groups subjected to discrimination.
Belgium:
We are flexible on the proposal of the combination of generic reference and list. If we agree on that proposal however, we would add “persons belonging to” before “…other ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic groups or minorities”.
USA:
We want to know if the paragraph is going to be moved. If not, we would make a reference to the standard list in the section of victims. We supports Canada’s proposal on the general reference and on the inclusion of the words “such as”.
Nigeria:
We have a preference for listings of victims because we have some difficulty with the generic definition. We could go along with Canada’s proposal but it is important to keep in mind that this document is based on the lists of victims proposed at the 2nd Prep Com.
Jordan:
We are flexible on the list or the generic reference. We would like to know whether the list will be in paragraph one or in another paragraph.
Chairman:
We will now focus on the list before us.
Switzerland:
We have a preference for the generic description but if there is a list, we have a problem with the reference “…religious and linguistic groups or minorities” made at the end of the list. In accordance with Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 1982 Declaration on the Rights of People belonging to minorities and international law, we need to include “ethnic” groups in that list. We also agree with the Belgian proposal.
Chairman:
The English text speaks about “other ethnic, racial, cultural, religious and linguistic groups or minorities. If it would be otherwise, the issue would be made more complex.
Belgium:
We supports Switzerland proposal on minorities. We would like to see “persons belonging to” before “people” in the 4th line to cover all victims.
China:
When the Bureau discussed the working methods, it was agreed that in order to promote a rapid proceeding of work at the 3rd Prep Comm, not to waste too much time on the text of each paragraph. If there is a consensus on the basics, then the details can be discussed at a later stage. Paragraph one was adopted at the 2nd Prep Comm. As for the list of victims, a consensus can be reached in informal consultations. We propose that that not too much time is spent on detailed language of the paragraph. All the relevant issues in the document can be resolved.
Chairman:
We make an appeal to the delegations to reach consensus. We now go to the second paragraph. As for the terminology, we need to determine which paragraph we should consider: paragraph 2a) which focuses on the actions committed or paragraph 63b) (p.15) which uses “other victims”. I have a slight preference for 63.
Pakistan:
To our knowledge, this is a misprint. We tried to merge ideas in paragraph 2 during the previous discussions, but the final version was paragraph 63. Maybe the Chair of Group 21 can elaborate further on this.
South Africa (as Chair of Group 21):
We have no records from the Secretariat but the elements are as they are here. We could always confirm that at a later stage.
Chairman:
Can we agree to delete the elements in paragraphs 2a) and 2b) be deleted and consider them when we examine paragraph 63 ?
South Africa:
Paragraph 2a) is reflected in paragraph 63b). All other elements are in paragraph 63.
Chairman:
The paragraphs 2a) and 2b) are then deleted. Let us move on to paragraph 3.
Canada:
We are not in agreement with the list as it is and we would like to make some proposals. First, we would include “certain aspects of” before “colonialism” in the first sentence and we would put a capital A for apartheid. Secondly, we would replace “have been and continue to be” by “were” in the fourth line. Finally, we would replace “to halt and reverse the consequent” by “to address the consequences such as”.
Brasil:
Canada’s proposals should be further explained. What “aspects” of colonialism are we talking about ? There might be some good aspects, for example, the system of slavery had positive aspects in terms of macro-economics for some countries, etc. As for people of Asian and Indigenous descent, the paragraph does not convey the right idea as it gives the impression that historical reasons are in the past and have no application for the present. The institutional framework for slavery has consequences that are still ongoing. We cannot accept this proposal. As for the last amendment, we could possibly accept it if it would result in some kind of action or decision.
Egypt ?:
Canada’s proposals are unacceptable. We don’t even see the reasoning behind the spelling of the word “apartheid”. If it is to emphasize on the importance of apartheid, it surely does not surpass slavery. We support Brazil’s proposal.
Belgium:
We support Canada’s proposals. We would simply add “and also certain aspects of colonialism”. We could replace “major historical sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance have contributed to contemporary forms of racism and discrimination.”
Pakistan:
We do not accept Canada’s proposals, especially the one regarding colonialism. This is a complete distortion of colonialism which gives the impression that some aspects were positive and justified. That it even worse than not having reference to colonialism. As to the proposal for “address the consequences”, we can accept it.
Nigeria:
As a nation which experienced many incidents of racism and racial discrimination, we believe that it constitutes one of the major sources of heinous crimes. We are not sure whether Canada may be in better position to describe and characterize this violation. We are not able to accept Canada’s proposals. We should avoid things that will slow up the process and keep in the mind the historical consequences of racism.
Jamaica:
We agree with Brazil, Nigeria and Pakistan. Canada’s proposals are unacceptable. We would like to see the brackets of that paragraph removed.
Namibia:
We want to underline three elements. As victims of colonialism and apartheid, we see no aspects of colonialism that were beneficial to our people and we still continue to live with the consequences of it. We would recommend the deletion of the brackets.
Argentina:
There are still difficulties, in an intergovernmental meeting, to recognize the effects of racism and racial discrimination.
USA:
The first half of the paragraph is nearly identical to the paragraph in the declaration. We should start the paragraph with “and urges…”. We should remove “remedial” and add at the end of the paragraph “victims of racism, racial discrimination, intolerance and xenophobia”.
Barbados:
The amendment on “certain aspects” is supported by no qualification. We cannot also accept the affirmation that the sources and manifestations of racism have ended. We can neither accept the third proposal of Canada. We propose the removal of the brackets and we agree with the US proposal.
Cuba:
We are having some difficulties with Canada’s proposal to substitute these phenomenal causes and just have a separate paragraph. Slavery has identical roots as stigmatisation as racism and colonialism.
India:
We like paragraph 3 as it stands. We do not agree with Canada’s proposal on line 3. We would suggest replacing “peoples of Asian descent” by “Asians and people from Asian descent”.
China:
We agree with Canada’s proposals as it makes the text clearer. We support India’s proposal to add “Asians and peoples from Asian descent”. As for the other proposals, namely to add “certain aspects of” and “were” instead of have been, it may be subject to further discussion. Colonialism should be placed before apartheid in the text because apartheid has just been abolished recently.
USA:
We agree with Jordan and China. In order to avoid repetition, the first paragraph should reflect the discussions taking place on the Working Group on the Draft Declaration.
Australia:
It is important to remind ourselves that we are dealing with the major historical sources and manifestations of racism and racial discrimination. We are not talking whether these were positive or negative aspects.
Sudan:
This paragraph only lists the effects of racism and racial discrimination and does not assess whether they were positive or negative in nature. We are concerned with the amendments proposed by Canada.
Senegal:
We do not understand the spirit behind the different Canada’s proposals. It gives a perspective of revision of history.
Guatemala:
We are not trying here to see whether the aspects of racism were positive or negative but rather what is the relationship with racism.
Mexico:
The first paragraph before “urges” could be put in brackets. We could keep the second part of the paragraph beginning with “…Urges States and the international community…”.
Canada:
We want to point out that we are an ex-colony ourselves. However, because of the arguments heard, we would like to withdraw the terms “and certain aspects of”.
Chairman:
Now on Mexico’s proposal, could we approve the second part of the paragraph and leave the first part open for discussions.
Senegal:
The two parts are very closely linked. How can we have the second part adopted without the first one ? We find this difficult to implement.
Chairman:
Let us keep the principle that the two parts are together and that the formulation of the first part would not be adopted.
Belgium:
We cannot accept to have the first part of the paragraph in bracket. On the second part, we agree with the addition “to address the consequences such as…”.
Nigeria:
There is a very strong link between the two paragraphs and they should not be separated. We strongly supports the proposal to remove the brackets in paragraph 3. While the first part appears in the declaration because of the themes evoked, as mentioned by USA, we should look at the particular location of this paragraph.
Chairman:
We see that there is an opposition to separating the two parts. Mexico’s proposal cannot be adopted.
South Africa:
This paragraph is about recognition of slavery and trade. We agree with Nigeria, it should be adopted as it is.
Namibia:
We agree with Nigeria and South Africa. We cannot totally avoid having a similar paragraph in different documents. This should not be a concern.
New Zealand:
They are injustices founded on historical reasons. In order to maintain consistency with the other Working Group, we would have supported Mexico proposal. On the 2nd part, we support US proposal to remove “remedial” as they might be other measures. We support Canada’s proposal to add “to address the consequences such as”.
USA:
The language that is declaratory in nature should be put in bracket. However, if it is action-oriented, we should discuss it in this working group. We should remove “remedial” before measures.
Chairman:
We prefer on a practical basis not to make rules for procedural purposes, such as for instance putting in brackets language that is declaratory.
Nigeria:
We thank Mexico for its compromised language but we need further clarification from the US as to which paragraph of the declaration uses the same language. We should then pass a note to the Working Group on the Declaration to let them know that we are waiting for them.
Mexico:
The task of harmonizing and avoiding drafting duplication should be looked at later. We withdraw our proposal.
Syria:
We should avoid the inclusion of brackets. We propose the deletion of this paragraph.
Guatemala:
We have a comment on the term “remedial measure”. We do not have the text in Spanish but we would translate it to “medida de reparacion” which is a generic term. “Remedial measures” might include other situations provided they serve to remedy a situation. These measures have to be remedial.
?:
The terminology “remedial measures” is very important. We thank Mexico for its withdrawal of proposal and we would add “appropriate remedial and other measures”.
Chairman:
We are going to refer this paragraph for informal consultations with delegations who suggested amendments, Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala, Nigeria, USA, Belgium, etc. We are now moving to paragraph 4.
Palestine:
Foreign occupation is a practice which creates racial discrimination by means of violation of international and humanitarian law. Those who do not have an interest in that are perhaps the occupiers or those who protect the occupants. This paragraph relates to the destiny of people under occupation and we forcefully propose the removal of the brackets.
USA:
We propose the entire removal of the paragraph. It is not appropriate to have specific issues of regional treatment included in the text. We will make no compromise on this.
Guatemala:
We are opposed to that paragraph because we have heard no argument to the effect that foreign occupation can be a source and a form of racial discrimination. We are always open to hear arguments from other delegations. We would request the withdrawal of that paragraph. We cannot find any racist causes and cannot accept foreign occupation as a general source of racism.
Syria:
Foreign occupation is systematically and directly liked with racial discrimination because it is about taking rights that are not given to occupied people. We call for the deletion of the brackets and the adoption of the principle.
Egypt:
The background of this paragraph comes from the 2nd part of the previous paragraph. It was submitted after intensive discussions on behalf of the …group and supported by other groups. It is obvious that foreign occupation is in nature and source racist. It is about taking people’s land and inalienable rights to self-determination. If the delegation of Guatemala does not agree to that, what other convincing arguments one might use ? We request the deletion of the brackets and the adoption of the paragraph.
Iran:
We support the Palestine’s proposal to adopt the paragraph.
Cuba: