Durban redux

Next week, activists and groups are planning to confront the UN’s Durban commemoration conference in New York, but some wonder how relevant it is.

By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
2001 Durban conference rally 521 (photo credit: Reuters)
2001 Durban conference rally 521
(photo credit: Reuters)
Anne Bayefsky remembers the day she moved to New York. “The first Durban conference ended on September 8, 2011, three days before 9/11 and I was in South Africa when it ended. I moved to New York on September 9, and it is impossible to be in both places and not see the relationship between hate-mongering and anti-Semitism; what happened in New York on 9/11 and what happened in Israel thereafter, and I think that it behooves Americans and Israelis and freedomloving people all over the world to remember the relationship between hate and violence. It is so important to object to Durban III as the horror of a UN built on the ashes of the Jewish people, having turned into the leading global platform for anti-Semitism today, this is an abomination and we have to make it clear to delegitimize the delegitimizers.”
Canadian-born Bayefsky is the director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and founder of Eye on the UN. She is passionate in her wrath for the UN’s Durban process and its latest manifestation, Durban III, which is being held in New York City on September 22.
Durban III is actually the fifth UN conference against racism to be held. Originally organized by UNESCO, the first two, in 1978 and 1983, were held in Geneva and received little attention.
However, the 2001 conference degenerated into what has been widely recognized as an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rally. At least one non-governmental organization (NGO) distributed copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, leading to the iconic image of Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, declaring “I am a Jew, and I will not allow this fractiousness to torpedo the conference.”
The resulting Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) did not include the original anti-Israel and, some argued, anti-Jewish statements, but kept only the statement that “we are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State.”
In 2009, a Durban review conference was held in Geneva. Thirty-one year old Naftali Balanson, managing editor at NGO Monitor, was dispatched to observe the review conference. “I went to observe NGO activity during the conference. There were many Jewish activists there from the World Union of Jewish Students.”
What struck Balanson most was the difference between what he had heard about Durban I and how Durban II turned out. “As opposed to the first Durban conference where there were mass rallies and massive NGO participation and an NGO session, the NGO events were completely on the sidelines... [many of the NGO activities] were not well attended.”
There was a major attempt to prevent anti-Semitism and anti-Israel statements from hijacking and embarrass Durban II. “NGOs [tried] to introduce an anti- Israel agenda into it, but because no NGO forum was allowed, the anti-Israel groups created an ‘Israel review conference’ in Geneva, far away from the actual UN in some basement. Within the Durban review conference, the UN was trying hard to avoid the NGO incitement. In order [for people] to get into the building they were checking bags and I saw them pull out a folder that said ‘Zionism and racism’. . . I witnessed a heated confrontation at [Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad’s press conference and I saw security officers take away a poster saying Zionism = racism,” recalls Balanson.
Because of the presence of Ahmadinejad, several European delegations left the conference. According to students involved, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had recruited some students to attend the conference, but in the end they played a limited role. Balanson argues that since Durban I and Durban II “the NGOs have turned to what we call ‘mini Durbans,’ whether it is the Human Rights Council and the Committee [on the Exercise of] the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians or the Convention Against Torture or women’s rights. They use those frameworks to attack Israel. They have learned that using these mass rallies with anti-Semitic material doesn’t look good.”
ACCORDING TO activists and those familiar with it, Durban III holds out the prospect of continuing the flawed Durban process and reinforcing the pro-Palestinian DDPA drafted in 2001. Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, notes that the ADL plays a role in combating the problems with Durban.
“The ADL has fought anti-Semitism at the United Nations for decades,” he says. When Durban III was announced, we publicly noted that commemorating the original conference simply highlighted the fact that it had ‘become the symbol for expressions of anti- Jewish and anti-Israel hate.’ The text of a resolution resulting from the commemoration may (or may not) reaffirm the 2001 Durban Declaration, and we believe it should not contain any explicit mention of Israel, Palestinians, Zionism, or the Holocaust – the key problematic issues with the prior two conferences.”
Balanson argues that the importance of Durban III is not necessarily in substance but rather the threat of becoming complacent. “If the Jewish community turns its back and ignores these events, then they will become an opportunity for Israel-bashing. The success at Durban II was the result of proactive organizing and planning by the Jewish community worldwide.”
One result of the racism and other controversies at Durban I was that several Western countries were prepared to walk out of Durban II, and many countries have shown little interest in Durban III. Ten countries (including the US, Canada, Australia, Germany, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria) have already announced their decision not to attend. Bar-Ilan University professor Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, believes that “Durban III is not in and of itself significant. It will be one day, and it is unlikely to adopt important declarations, but it is not just about Durban III. The fact that these countries are pulling out, shows that everything connected with the Durban process has been counterproductive.
These countries are distancing themselves from the anti-Israel campaigns.”
Steinberg claims that the main importance of Durban can be seen in the increased activism and impact of the NGOs that took part in Durban I. “I would say that the Durban NGO network has peaked in the last months, whether it is Israel Apartheid Week, the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) disruptions, such as those that took place at the Israel Philharmonic’s concert in London. There are still a large number of the organizations that came to Durban that are involved [in anti-Israel activity]. The Goldstone Report was a direct product of the Durban process.”
NGO Monitor, which sent observers to the second Durban conference, has decided not to send anyone to New York. Steinberg believes that NGOs view Durban “as a lose-lose issue,” and NGO Monitor’s resources can best be devoted elsewhere. Balanson compares it to a tree that gives less fruit. “Because of the microscope that was on the other two events, the NGOs have realized this,” and they have moved on.
According to a source that wishes to remain anonymous, there is a feeling in some circles that the best way to confront the Durban commemoration conference of 2011 is to do it quietly, lest too much attention actually increase its importance.
Foxman concurs. “When we judged the issues to be of minimal concern, as with Durban III, we decided not to overreact and draw unnecessary attention to it, despite the emotional charge that the Durban name carries for Jews around the world. We have privately expressed our appreciation to countries that have withdrawn.”
Bayefsky strongly disagrees with this view. “Durban III is an insult to truth-telling and to what happened in Durban I. To celebrate it is literally to put the Durban declaration [out front], to highlight and make it a centerpiece and cornerstone of the fight against racism, so that first of all Durban III it is a terrible misstatement of the truth of what happened in Durban.”
Furthermore, “it purports to build equality on the basis of discrimination against one group, Jews, so it is a perversion of the meaning of the fundamental principles of equality, of the UN charter.”
She believes that since Durban I there has been an attempt to whitewash what took place, especially by Navanethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and a native of Durban. “She has taken it upon herself to misrepresent what happened in Durban and claim it is an appropriate vehicle to combat racism.”
In order to combat Durban III, Eye on the UN is hosting a conference that will run simultaneously and will include speakers such as Elie Wiesel and former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold.
OTHERS ARE taking Durban III seriously. Gold, who is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, argues that “they are celebrating the 10th anniversary of Durban, and they will turn it into the same type of circus that happened in 2009 in Geneva.”
JCPA director Alan Baker argues that the Durban process is part of the larger delegitimization process aimed at Israel. The American Jewish Committee’s executive president David Harris has been particularly active. “We have been working hard to encourage democratic countries to withdraw from the conference; that is based on the notion that they are reaffirming the 2001 action plan from the original conference, and there is nothing to commemorate - it is a stain on the UN’s record and good countries should not be legitimizing it.” He notes that the conference will be taking place at the same time as the Palestinians are going to the UN to request recognition of their declaration of a state. The AJC has been involved in both issues.
The Israeli government is also paying attention to Durban III. According to one Ministry of Foreign Affairs source who is closely involved, Israel views Durban I as “a traumatic scar which we don’t want to repeat. The end game is to detach the politicization from this process which singled Israel out, and which would enable us to join with others. Israel wants to be in the forefront of fighting racism.”
According to an internal memo that UN staff have circulated, the UN organizers are aware of issues associated with the conference. “The purpose of the high-level meeting is to mobilize political will for real action to prevent and combat racism... Similar to the Durban Review Conference in 2009, the one-day meeting has already been the target of negative criticism.
“Several serious misperceptions about the DDPA continue to appear in media in many parts of the world, most commonly claiming that it is anti-Semitic and ‘targets Israel.’ In fact, the document is the most comprehensive, substantive international agreement dealing with racial discrimination and related forms of intolerance.”
One thing that everyone interviewed agrees on is that Canada has become a standout player in not only standing up to the Durban process but also in supporting Israel in general. Bayefsky notes that “I think the government of Canada has become the world leader in standing up to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel behavior. It is a shame the US administration is not cut from the same cloth.”
US President Barack Obama did decide in June that the US would not take part in the conference. It remains to be seen whether Ahmadinejad will show up to make another speech as he did at Geneva’s Durban II conference.