Disappointed in Durban
by Ethan Flad

On the morning of September 7, 2001, with only 36 hours remaining in a two-week conference that had been over a year in development, Mary Robinson announced, "I have said before, and now believe more than ever, that Durban is the beginning of a long, serious road. This is not the end, but a beginning." I sat among a crowd of several hundred non-governmental organizational representatives (NGOs) who listened in disbelief, as the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights – the convener of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance (WCAR) – seemed to suggest that she had never expected this massive event to emerge with significant agreements. With millions of dollars and countless working hours of activists around the globe having been invested in the process, this normally inoffensive quote was received as a slap in the face.

Some believe that progress was made in Durban. Robinson referred to the conference’s attempts to reinforce international commitments: supporting migrants, opposing caste-based discrimination, recognizing ethnic and cultural groups like the Dalits in India (once known as "Untouchables") and the Roma (informally called Gypsies), guaranteeing religious freedom, and supporting judicial systems. But there was a sense of betrayal. Many people had come to the WCAR expecting landmark decisions on a wide range of issues, and felt that little was ultimately accomplished.

The level of dismay was obvious. With less than two days remaining, underrepresented groups mounted a series of protests: Dalits commenced a hunger strike; indigenous activists demanded that all references to indigenous peoples be removed from the documents, as they felt that the language being used would actually set back their work; and advocates for reparations held a candlelight vigil. [At a religious press conference on the top priorities for the WCAR’s final days, Archbishop Desmond Tutu declared, "Reparations, reparations, reparations!"] On the final day, governments agreed that slavery and the slave trade were "appalling tragedies in the history of humanity" – and we were forced to wonder, why did it take a year of work to say this?

Three key problems were evident. The first was disorganization. Any churchperson who has ever attended a national denominational conference (like the Episcopal Church’s General Convention) knows what a massive, chaotic event those political events can be. Multiply the logistics a hundred-fold, throw in several other languages, and you have the WCAR. I lost a full day (over eight hours) standing in line to get the accreditation pass to enter the government event – and then learned I would need an extra "special" pass to actually enter the main building! At the NGO Forum that preceded the governmental conference, workshops were never where the paperwork indicated, signs were absent, knowledgeable volunteers were nowhere to be found. The morning NGO briefings were dominated by people complaining about logistics, rather than discussing programmatic themes. Isaac Miller, rector of the Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia, Penn., offered an opinion being expressed by many: Behind the scenes, some people were intentionally supplying mis-information. Clearly, creating anger and confusion worked to the advantage of those who did not support the aims of this conference.

The second obstacle was the Middle East topic dominating the public debate. The withdrawal of the Israeli and U.S. governments from Durban was the focus of international media coverage, but surprised few NGOs. (One young U.S. activist stated, "This is not new; this does not surprise me at all. The U.S. has NEVER been here!") Even for people who support the Palestinian cause for justice, the focus on it to the exclusion of many others was depressing.

The third and perhaps most important concern was the overall theme of the conference. Since it was not simply a conference on racism, but rather one on "Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance," the agenda was all over the place. People who hoped to concentrate on matters of colonialism, white supremacy, and institutional racism saw their concerns de-emphasized in this process. Tissa Balasuriya, a Roman Catholic cleric from Sri Lanka, advised, "We are discussing small issues here, not the overall racist and colonialist context. Indeed, the UN itself is based on a racist world structure, and reflects it."

However, there were those who seemed unconcerned that the document language would not be perfect. Basil Fernando, a Sri Lankan staff member of the Asian Human Rights Center in Hong Kong, said, "If the whole focus of this process is to get treaties signed, this will not matter. Countries in our region DO sign these documents, but then do nothing." Madonna Thunder Hawk, an American Indian, agreed that the conference needed to be assessed differently: "Let us not forget this is all about networking – meeting with people in similar situations. That is the real way things can change."

In that sense, the WCAR was an unqualified success. Thousands of activists and government reps from around the world engaged one another in critical dialogue, and built lasting relationships with one another. This appears to be the greatest mistake of the U.S. government’s departure from Durban. By not simply saying, "We disagree with you, and are going to debate these points," but rather, "We have no wish to discuss this with you," the U.S. effectively removed itself from building relationships and trust with other international participants – even (or perhaps especially) those with whom it significantly differs. The Durban experience – and the devastating terrorist attacks on the U.S. three days later – must be viewed within a continuum of isolationist U.S. policy decisions (the Kyoto climate change treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the land mines treaty, etc.) it has made in 2001.

What will be the way forward? For people of faith, there are a number of specific tasks that lay ahead. The World Council of Churches has begun an anti-racism survey of all its member denominations. Local and national church groups are commissioning their own studies of specific issues – many U.S. groups have been energized on reparations to support Congressman John Conyers’ bill HR40, for instance. Some are even reviewing church land holdings within this context. Mostly, the community of faith must contextualize these contentious issues by offering spiritual education, community dialogue, and theological discourse, leading to action. As Fernando says, "One firm conviction I have is that it is the private citizens that can really make a change. If they speak out their minds and if they intervene to assert what they think is right and wrong, there is hope for a transition to peaceful times." With a lack of major victories from Durban, and the current spirit of mistrust and uncertainty, we must hope that Fernando’s optimistic perspective will prove to be correct.

Ethan Flad, who lives in Oakland, Calif., is editor/producer of "a Globe of Witnesses" (new name pending) at <www.thewitness.org/agw>