August 2000

WCAR Think Papers

A joint project of Human Rights Documentation Centre (HRDC), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) and South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC)

WCAR Think Paper I:

The World Conference Against Racism -- A Conference on Racism Worldwide?

1. The Backdrop

From 31 August to 7 September 2001, the international community will gather in South Africa for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR). Before then, expert meetings and preparatory committees will be held in the various regions to begin some of the important discussions in advance of the conference. Like the first and second World Conferences Against Racism (1978 and 1983), the final objective of all these efforts is the adoption of a Declaration and Programme of Action -- a highly important development for international standard-setting procedures. At first blush, the topic of racial discrimination may appear limited. The WCAR, however, is meant to cover a wide range of issues including ethnic conflict, immigration and refugees, indigenous peoples, “double discrimination” against women, trafficking and prostitution and regulation of the Internet.

When the General Assembly decided to convene the WCAR, it announced that “the world conference will be action-oriented and focus on practical measures to eradicate racism.”[1] The extent to which that promise becomes reality may depend on the level and nature of participation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Without concerted and informed interventions by NGO representatives of the various regions, the conference may simply become an exercise in rhetoric and political gamesmanship between various States.

In line with that perspective, this first Think Paper highlights the importance of having the WCAR focus sufficient attention on racism in all parts of the world, the political difficulties in making that happen, and the need for meaningful and diverse representation of NGOs to help ensure that it does. There is a serious concern that, as things stand, the World Conference Against Racism will not focus on racism worldwide.

The scourge of racial discrimination is certainly not confined or concentrated in any one part of the world. Aided by the processes of globalisation, the contemporary international system is now characterized by economic centres of power within nations. In countries around the world, these industrialised centres attract trafficking of women, cheap labour and illegal workers. Individuals within these groups suffer not only exploitation, but also become the victims of racist and xenophobic resentment by nationals, long-term residents and those benefited from past privileges n the economy. Those conditions exist in Bangkok, Bombay, Johannesburg, Riyadh and Brasilia, as well as Berlin, Paris and New York. In addition to these economic realities, complex cultural and political histories give rise to the worst forms of racial discrimination such as the racist coup in Fiji this year, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, increasing violence against Jews in Russia, mass rapes of Chinese women in Indonesia during the 1998 riots, systematic and severe discrimination against the Roma in Europe and police abuses against African American males in the United States on a continuing basis. Efforts to address these problems, and others like them, can only be helped by having a productive and well balanced WCAR.

2. Attention to the local first

States should be encouraged to inform the conference of their internal problems involving racial discrimination and the efforts still required to address the issue. Oral and written statements by governmental delegations should begin at the local level: assessing the existence and manifestations of racial discrimination within their own country. By creating an atmosphere in which all States acknowledge shared difficulties in combating racism, the conference would be able to attend to the problems that exist in both Western and Non-western countries. For example, if Western or developing countries are compelled to follow a practice of first acknowledging problems in their own backyard, they will likely adopt a more realistic and constructive manner in discussing their concerns of racism in other parts of the world. The same is true for Non-western or developing countries. Of course, Government delegates can be expected to be less than forthcoming when discussing their own failings. However, where they provide misinformation, they make themselves vulnerable to criticism. Also, at least beginning the discussion with some aspects of the local situation can lend itself to a more productive conference. If States recognize that by being more candid about their own problems they will induce others to do the same, the fight against racism might begin with a common understanding that racism affects all of us, and cooperative efforts to eliminate it are to the benefit of everyone.

In this regard, perhaps a distinction should be made between rhetorical and political polarisation. To some extent, the latter is inevitable and not easily eradicated. Long-standing histories of exploitation and antagonism exist, such that sentimental and strategic associations of people and countries will exist along geopolitical lines. However, efforts can be made to reform the rhetoric used in these forums. Generalities and political bashing are counterproductive to the end of goal of developing a program of action that responsibly tackles concrete issues of racial discrimination. Criticisms of abuses against migrant workers, for example, should not only focus on conditions in Western Europe but should also candidly assess similar forms of treatment of Southeast Asian migrants working in the Gulf States. The regional PrepComs and expert meetings offer an opportunity to begin some of that difficult but important dialogue.

3. Excessive focus on Western industrialised countries

In short, the issue which may most significantly affect the nature and outcome of the WCAR is whether the conference focuses excessively on racial discrimination in Western economically developed countries (e.g., Western Europe and the Unites States of America). Of course, the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in both the domestic sphere and the foreign policy of Western States deserves significant attention. The notion of white supremacy has manifested itself not only in the emergence of neo-Nazi organisations in these countries, but also more subtly in the official treatment of immigrants and refugees of colour, the scaling back of affirmative action, police violence against racial minorities and the continued denial of the enduring effects of African colonialism and slavery. The problem, however, is whether the WCAR will concentrate excessively on those issues to the detriment of addressing other pressing issues of racism in other parts of the world.

If the conference becomes politically polarized against the West or developing countries rather than industrialised centres, it may result in a significant setback for the fight against racism. The international effort to combat racial discrimination, if it is going to succeed, will require a significant amount of genuine self-reflection by all governments. Turning the WCAR into a geopolitical dispute will undermine any effort in that direction.

At present, two factors make the prospects of such an unfavourable outcome likely. First, the conference is seen by many as an opportunity for Non-western States to take up a human rights issue that has historically been targeted against the West (in part, for good reason). Many expect Non-western States to use their numerical superiority – as they do in forums such as the Commission on Human Rights -- to push through a political agenda that is concerned more with combating Western States than it is with genuinely addressing all forms of racial discrimination in all areas of the world.

The second factor that may lead the conference to have a lopsided focus on Western industrialised States relates to the representation of NGOs from the regions. National-level NGOs which focus exclusively on issues in their own country will comprise a significant percentage of the participants at the conference, and, within this group of NGOs, those from Western Europe and the United States are likely to maintain a disproportionately large presence. These organizations generally have greater resources at their disposal than do their counterparts in other regions and often more experience with and connections to the international press. Their ability to direct the focus of the conference may be to the detriment of NGOs from, and the cause of racial justice in, Non-western and developing countries. Indeed, governments of Non-western and developing countries will be all too happy to support the efforts of these NGOs in order to escape scrutiny of their own practices.

One of the ways to help resolve these problems is to ensure that NGO participation is representative of the regions and that racial issues within all countries are subject to fair and equal consideration. The “run-up” to the WCAR will be a crucial period in which some of these priorities will be set. National-level NGOs, especially those in the South, should be encouraged to participate actively in the regional meetings preceding the conference. These NGOs should encourage governments from the region not to focus the agenda only on “others’ problems” or excessively on racism in the West, but, instead, to confront racial discrimination issues at home and in all parts of the world.

One unifying principle that NGOs and sympathetic States may wish to reference in their oral and written interventions is the statement that “racial discrimination exists in all societies.” Acceptance of this principle means that no State should escape scrutiny in the effort to combat racial discrimination and that governments and NGOs should not be geographically selective in their criticisms of State practices. The official U.N. background document for the conference refers to this principle as one of the common understandings resulting from the Second World Conference Against Racism. Several reports and statements by UN officials relating to the Third World Conference Against Racism include similar reminders. NGOs should insist that the WCAR not retrench on such a critical principle in the international effort to combat racial discrimination in a genuine and constructive manner.

4. Forgotten issues

In a separate publication, The World Conference on Racism: A case of the pot calling the kettle black, SAHRDC and HRDC briefly surveyed some of the problems of racial discrimination that exist in other regions of the world with a focus on the Asia Pacific (www.hri.ca/partners/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF20.htm). These problems -- such as de jure discrimination against Koreans in Japan and against Chinese in Indonesia; widespread sentiments of racial supremacy among the Chinese Han majority with regard to minorities such as Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongolians and others; the disaster of Indonesia and Bangladesh’s transmigration policies for indigenous populations; the deaths of migrant workers in Malaysian detention centres -- are generally disregarded by the offending State when it tries to point the political finger at other countries. These are, therefore, the types of issues which may be lost in a WCAR that gives unbalanced attention to one geographic or geopolitical area of the world to the neglect of others.

One indicator of some of the world’s problems of racial discrimination is the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s (CERD) concluding observations on States Parties’ periodic reports. CERD’s conclusions are only a piece of the puzzle. However, they do indicate aspects of racial discrimination that can show how close or how far the international community is from achieving a substantial reduction in racism worldwide.

For example, CERD has emphasized the fact that some States are yet to enact laws explicitly prohibiting racial discrimination. In evaluating Costa Rica, with a hint of exasperation, CERD noted: “the Committee is preoccupied that the legislation of Costa Rica does not contain explicit norms forbidding discrimination on the grounds of national or ethnic origin.”[2] In Libya as well, despite the Government’s being party to ICERD, “[t]here is no specific legislation to prohibit racial discrimination.”[3] And, in reviewing the Czech Republic, CERD stated that, especially in light of “discrimination against Roma in areas such as housing, transport and employment, it is noted with concern that the State party does not have civil or administrative law provisions expressly outlawing discrimination in employment, education, housing and health care and that there exists no administrative regulation explicitly prohibiting racial discrimination by public institutions and agencies.”[4] Though arguably not to the same degree, Switzerland, too, has been criticised by CERD for its “lack of comprehensive legislation to combat discrimination based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”[5] And, in reviewing the United Kingdom’s report, CERD was highly critical of the fact that “specific legislation against racial discrimination is not yet available in all the Dependent Territories and Crown Dependencies, and that in some cases such legislation should be deemed unnecessary by the relevant authorities on the ground of the alleged non-existence of racial discrimination in the territories.”[6]

Notably, CERD has been frustrated by a number of Governments which refuse to acknowledge racial discrimination even exists in their country, in some cases by denying the existence of racial minorities. CERD was dismayed that Libya, for example, “maintain[ed] categorically that there is no racial discrimination” in the country. The Committee also noted: “The declaration by the State party that there are no ethnic minorities in its territory does not take into account the existence, in particular, of Berbers, Tuaregs, black Africans and the like, who are reported to experience acts of discrimination because of their ethnic origin.”[7] India recently tried to assert that caste does not constitute a racial category under the Convention, but it was firmly rebuked by the Committee.[8] Similarly, CERD noted in reviewing Mexico’s periodic report: “Particular concern is expressed that the State party does not seem to perceive that pervasive discrimination being suffered by the 56 indigenous groups living in Mexico falls under the definition given to racial discrimination in article 1 of the Convention.”[9]

The denial of official recognition of racial minorities also results in the lack of protective legislation for these groups. So, for example, CERD criticized Hungary for the fact that “according to [Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities of 1993], for an ethnic group to be recognized as a minority, it must have lived on Hungarian soil for at least a century; this seems to be very restrictive.”[10] In evaluating Pakistan’s report, CERD expressed its concern that “the policy of the State party to recognize only religious minorities excludes ethnic, linguistic or racial groups living in the country from any specific protection under the Convention that would derive from their official recognition as minorities.”[11]

In a number of States, very few cases of racial discrimination – and sometimes none -- are ever filed before courts or administrative bodies, which CERD has identified as a problem of access to the legal system. For example, in reviewing Panama’s periodic report, CERD “noted with concern that no complaints have been filed with the appropriate governmental bodies by individuals or groups during the last 10 years, despite reports that rights covered by the Convention were not fully respected.”[12] Similarly, in the case of Costa Rica, CERD stated that “few cases of racial discrimination have reached the courts or administrative bodies, the Committee is concerned about the effective access to protection and remedies against any acts of racial discrimination of, in particular, the indigenous population, the black minority, refugees and immigrants.”[13] CERD has recommended that the Government of South Korea commit resources to provide genuine access to the legal system, given that “no cases of racial discrimination have reached the courts or the administrative bodies.”[14]

Although police brutality and other forms of harassment against racial minorities is probably not a “forgotten issue,” perhaps the scope of the problem is. The list of States which have received strong criticism by CERD due to police abuses against racial minorities includes: Armenia (“[C]oncern is expressed at the reported cases of torture and other cruel or degrading treatment on the part of police and investigating officers.”);[15] Austria (“Concern is expressed about reports of serious incidents of police brutality in dealing with persons of foreign origin and ethnic minorities, including the Roma.”);[16] Czech Republic (“Taking into account reports of cases of harassment and of excessive use of force by the police against minorities, especially against members of the Roma community, concern is raised that there may be insufficient training provided to law enforcement officials regarding the provisions of the Convention.”);[17] Denmark (“Danish police have treated persons with a non-Danish background in an unacceptable manner.”);[18] Germany (“Concern is expressed at instances of police brutality against foreigners, particularly Africans and Turks, which have been reported in the press. Better training and stricter disciplinary action against the perpetrators appear to be necessary.”);[19] Hungary (“Alarm is also expressed at apparent harassment and use of excessive force by the police against Gypsies and foreigners.”);[20] Italy (“In connection with reports of acts of violence and ill-treatment by police and prison guards against foreigners and members of minorities in detention, concern was also expressed about the apparent lack of appropriate training for law enforcement officials and other public officials regarding the provisions of the Convention.”);[21] Spain (“It is noted with serious concern that evidence of racist attitudes on the part of members of the police and the Civil Guard seems to be increasing, and that the number of convictions resulting from such incidents does not seem to increase proportionately.”);[22] Switzerland (“Concern is also expressed about serious incidents of police brutality in dealings with persons of foreign ethnic or national origin.”);[23] Ukraine (“[C]oncern is expressed about reports of mistreatment by the police of members of the Roma population, especially those living in the Transcarpathian region.”);[24] and the United Kingdom (“[A]mong the victims of death in custody are a disproportionate number of members of minority groups, that police brutality appears to affect members of minority groups disproportionately, that allegations of police brutality and harassment are reportedly not vigorously investigated and perpetrators, once guilt is established, not appropriately punished.”).[25]

The gross mistreatment of Native Americans in North America is well-known, but South America has similar problems. In reviewing Peru’s periodic report, CERD noted, as a principal subject of concern, “allegations of forced sterilization of women belonging to indigenous communities.”[26] As for Guatemala, CERD noted with concern that “a climate of violence and intimidation still exists in the State party and that the detrimental effects of that climate are mostly borne by the indigenous population.”[27]

Racial discrimination in the official policies of immigrant-receiving States has also been highlighted by CERD. For example, CERD challenged Austria’s “Aliens Act of 1997, [which] classified foreigners on the basis of their national origin” in a potentially “stigmatizing and discriminatory” manner. In slightly stronger language, CERD also censured Switzerland for its “so-called three-circle-model immigration policy, which classifies foreigners on the basis of their national origin. The Committee considers the conception and effect of this policy to be stigmatizing and discriminatory, and therefore contrary to the principles and provisions of the Convention.”[28]

The problem of citizenship by sanguinity has also been a subject of concern in CERD’s evaluations of a number of hold-out States on this issue. Critical of Cambodia, CERD noted that under the government’s 1996 Law of Nationality, “Khmer nationals are those one of whose parents is a Khmer national, makes it difficult for persons belonging to minority groups, in particular ethnic Vietnamese and indigenous people, to establish their citizenship.”[29] Similarly, CERD criticized the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic for maintaining laws in which Syrian-born Kurds are considered either as foreigners or as “maktoumeen” (unregistered) and thus deprived of any nationality.[30]

All of these statements by CERD show only a tip of the racism problem. CERD is hampered by the unwillingness of States to report damaging information about themselves, assuming they report anything at all. The lack of representatives of national-level NGOs in the process also significantly diminishes CERD’s ability to critically evaluate State conditions. Furthermore, the absence of institutional support for CERD to have a more proactive role means the Committee will always lack reliable information necessary for it to render stronger observations and conclusions. Still, CERD’s experience demonstrates that the problem of racism is not only in the United States and West Europe, but worldwide. The question is whether the WCAR will be used to address the full scope of the problem or to deny it.