Republican News · Thursday 11 October 2001

Disappointed in Durban

BY SOLEDAD GALIANA

The UN World Conference Against Racism was supposed to be the forum for everyone to learn how to win the fight against racism. But even before it started, it was clear this would be a very difficult journey for everyone. Before the conference opened (30 August), the United States threatened not to attend if a formal apology was expected from them on the issue of the slave trade. Later, the US and Israeli delegations pulled out when, in the draft declaration, Israel was singled out as a racist state due to its treatment of Palestinians.

By the end, it was very difficult for the participants to reach agreement on the wording for the final declaration, and when they agreed, it was on a compromise text.

So, was there any space to really talk about how to fight racism or was it all about power and politics? From Colin Hasking's point of view, the Voice Forum sessions - where groups and individuals who have experienced racism could describe their experiences - were worth the trip to South Africa and the hours of queuing to register for sessions. Hasking is a South African working with Irish NGO Comhl·mh around anti-racism and equality training.

He believes that the core of the conference was the need for the rest of the privileged world to acknowledge and recognise that racism is prevalent. He sees a common thread since the time of slavery, which is social and economic control. He saw the conference as an opportunity for different peoples of the world to address how they have suffered personally, institutionally, politically and economically, but he felt racism was not acknowledged at the conference and he came away with the understanding that racism cannot create the mechanism to eradicate racism.

Phoblacht - The issue of slavery was one of conflict. Western countries did not want to issue any kind of formal apology, as they did not want to be drawn into paying any kind of compensation.

CH - For me that was one of the most painful things. When we talk about reparation, we do not talk about money. What we are talking about is humanity. We want the rest of the West to recognise that we are human beings. We are not going to be fooled by the West with this concept that everything is money.

AP - You feel that the conference failed in its main objective: to recognise racism. So did it serve anyone?

CH - As a person who experiences racism daily, I feel the West is not ready to recognise us as equal human beings. But having said that, I should add that the conference was very successful for people who experience racism in that we formed very strong links and networks with a variety of organisations around the world. I have learned a lot and see that our own struggle for equality and humanity has been strengthened.

I do not know what can we do to make the West understand how cruel and inhuman and barbaric they are in their treatment of other human beings. How can we get them to understand how evil they are? If we look at globalisation and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, what are they doing? They are killing millions and millions of people per annum, and these people do not even know why they are dying.

AP - So what happened at the conference is that those who have the power to change things are not listening?

CH - Yes, and they want to tell us what to say and how to say it. There was a lot of discussion about offensive and aggressive language at the Conference. [Mary Robinson, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, announced she would not recommend the NGOs' final document to the governments as the wording of the document could be unacceptable for some of them.] How else can we tell the West that they are racist?

These strong words do not even convey all the pain that we have experienced over the centuries through racism. They are not strong enough. And if we do not want to accept strong words, how can we accept that racism is alive and kicking? We cannot. It has been there for centuries and is continuing unabated.