Racism, Racial Discrimination
& the UN Anti-Racism Conference
The Permanent Mission of
Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva
23rd April 2008
Remarks by H.E. Ambassador Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, Ambassador and Permanent
Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nation at Geneva, in his capacity
as the Chairperson of the Inter-Governmental Working Group on the Effective
Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA),
during the panel discussion at the first substantive session (21 April-2
May 2008) of the Preparatory Committee of the Durban Review Conference
2009.
The first substantive session is chaired by H.E. Madam Najat Al-Hajjaji
Ambassador of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and is also attended by the
High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms. Louise Arbour.
The other panelists were the Chairperson of the Working Group of Experts
on People of African Descent, Mr. Peter Kassanda, the Chairperson of
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Ms. Fatimata
Dah, the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Prof. Doudou Diene,
the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary
International Standards Ambassador H.E. Idriss Jazairy of Algeria, and
Ms. Myriam Poussi of the Committee on Migration and Protection.
After the formal presentation of the written report Ambassador Jayatilleka
made the following observations:
"Madam Chair, as Chairperson-Rapporteur of the IGWG, I am committed
to ensuring that the goals established under the mandate of the Working
Group are realized effectively, as racism and its associated problems
constitute a major concern to all peoples and countries as no country
can claim to be free of racism.
The preparations towards the Durban Conference offer a vital opportunity
to take stock and to assess where we are now and where we are going.
I am pleased to participate in the exercise and believe that the document
submitted by the Working Group will contribute to put the process on
the right course and add sharper focus to the objectives of the Durban
Review Conference, as it offers an important opportunity for constructive
discussion with the aim to further concretize action to be undertaken
to combat all forms of racism and intolerance.
Now in the minutes remaining to me, Excellencies, distinguished delegates,
I hope to share with you, somewhat more intimately, our experience and
what I think might be the path ahead. Those of who participated would
doubtless recall that, after the excellent work done by Chile's Ambassador
Martabit, there was something of a hiatus and then, at the moment that
I assumed the Chairpersonship, there was a situation that can quite
honestly be described as somewhat fraught because there was a polarization
of opinions between those who felt that perhaps the IGWG should not
venture further and that its work should await the outcome of this meeting
and perhaps even the outcome of the 2009 conference.
There was some apprehension on the part of a group of states that some
issues and themes would be taken up which strayed from the Durban Declaration
which they would be uncomfortable with. So there was extreme caution
and reluctance which, I am quite sure was justified from their point
of view. And then there were others who were very keen to make up for
lost time as they saw and to resume and push on with redoubled speed.
We were caught in the middle and I thought it best to be guided by
a third group of states which wanted to move forward but which were
aware of the difficulties that we were faced with and this group urged
a conservative, if I am to call it that, a cautious approach, inching
forward as it were, but hugging the contours of the consensus, and I
thought that was the only way to go.
So what we did and what I presented to you here is more in the nature
of an audit. It is a summation of work achieved. We managed to avoid
the prospect which loomed at one point of a deadlock, if not worse,
a rupture. And this is now we have managed to present to you this rather
modest achievement. But I must say in all frankness that this particular
mode has exhausted itself. We can't really move on unless we are clear
about a few things and I would like to take the last minute available
to me to proffer a suggestion. This is the way I see the situation as
it exists.
I see three positions that I call DDPA plus, DDPA classic DDPA lite.
DDPA plus is the view that we have to tackle the more contemporary forms
of the problems that the DDPA deals with. In other words, move up a
generation if you will in terms of issues and deal with them head on,
and this is the way to effectively implement the DDPA. This is one point
of view and I am not going to judge the rights and wrongs of it. At
the other end is what I call DDPA lite or DDPA minus which says, let
us stick to the DDPA but expresses a cautionary note about certain events
in 2001, and therefore urges that certain issues, country-specific or
geographically-specific, be set aside. Now I see both approaches as
problematic and I am willing to share the reasons in the discussion.
My own suggestion is that the viable way to go is what I call DDPA classic
which is to stick to the text, no plus no minus, and with those words,
I will now thank the Chair.''
Responding to questions posed to the panel during the interactive dialogue,
Ambassador Jayatilleka said: "Three quick responses to pointed
questions that were posed and then I propose to use the rest of the
time allocated to me to raise two problematic issues, or to elaborate
on them.
The three quick responses are to do with best practices, the DDPA and
anti-Semitism. Have we encountered anything that might be described
as "best practices" in the work of our Group? Well, as you
know, the issue of the past has been especially emotive and sensitive
in the Working Group: the issue of history, of slavery, of reparations.
And in dealing with the past, I for one clearly see as a best practice,
the recent experience of Australia, and the initiative of Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd.
This is not a collective view of the Working Group, but my own view
as Chairperson. I think that is an example of how we can boldly address
the issue of a burdensome past.
The question as to whether or not a discussion of the DDPA can or should
legitimately include contemporary manifestations of racism and racial
discrimination: well, I think it certainly can, but when it comes to
our specific Inter-Governmental Working Group, I think it is more than
the traffic will bear. I really don't think that there is a consensus
that one can construct to go beyond the discussion of what I have called
DDPA Classic, and that's why I appreciate the point, or rather the recognition,
by the distinguished delegate of Egypt that in terms of our specific
Working Group, that is the way to go. Exegesis is probably something
that cannot be tackled within our Working Group.
The question of anti-Semitism: has this continuing scourge been adequately
addressed by the international community? I would say absolutely not.
The name Daniel Pearl is enough to make that point. But at the same
time and to the same degree, the issues of Islamophobia and Christianophobia
have not been adequately tackled either. So he or she who says A must
also say B & C.
That having been said, these remain the other two points that I wish
to just touch upon. Professor Doudou Diene made an allusion, I believe,
to Bertolt Brecht, who cautioned that the womb that gave birth to fascism
was in heat again. I want to pick up a point made by one of Brecht's
countryman, a century before that, a German Jewish Professor, Herr.
Doktor Marx, who made the point about capitalism, that it goes clothed
in its own societies but naked in the colonies. I think the same is
true of racism.
Many societies tend to be smug about the fact that within their territories
they are very enlightened or they observe many taboos against racism.
But what about the relationship between these societies or states and
other societies? What about the export of racism, or the externalisation
of racism and racial discrimination - whether it is in the form of coverage
of incidents and countries, or whether it is in the lethal form of invasion,
occupation, imprisonment, torture and maintenance of prison camps? So
this external aspect of racism is something that I think we must find
some way of discussing.
The second and final point is to do with free expression. Now, Che
Guevara once said about the free market, he described it as "a
free fox among free chickens." And the discussion of the structure
of international communications will show that it is hardly a level
playing field. I come from a society which has unfortunately witnessed
several outbreaks of racial violence. And in every one of those outbreaks,
a segment of so-called civil society and sectors of the indigenous language
media did fan racial prejudice and hatred. Now this is something that
we have to deal with very squarely. It is true from bottom up; it is
also true from top down. And some of us who watch the coverage of China
today wonder whether there or not elements of cultural, racial prejudice
in the coverage by the dominant sectors of the media.
So I would like to leave you with the thought that the relationship
between free expression and racial discrimination, racism, is a complex,
dialectical one. It is not simply that more free expression is an antidote
to racism. It can work the other way round as well, though not always
necessarily so. It's far more complex than a linear reading would lead
us to believe. On that note, I will conclude my remarks, thank you Madam
Chairperson."
www.lankamission.org ©
|
