Editorial
Finally the tropical temperatures are beyond us. Thursday night already there was a thunderstorm and most of today it rained. A cool breeze blows through the city. Within the Palais des Nations we are trying to analyse the first week of this difficult PrepCom. The same divisions with which we started on Monday are still there. On Slavery & reparations most NGOs and Caucuses agree but not on the Zionism/Israel/Palestine issue. Some NGOs and caucuses decided to turn their full attention to the Governmental drafting since we lost a lot of time this week with all the hassle surrounding the NGO drafting process. That last issue has still not been resolved, maybe next week. Or maybe even in Durban. The weekend is coming. Some will recuperate but most will be working during the weekend to make up for lost time. Today was a mixed bag of interesting meetings. In 'Today's happenings' we will try to give you a comprehensive overview.
Ronald Eissens
Videobite of the day:
Dr. Pauline Muchina
about what
is important right now.
click here to play the RealVideo file.
If you don´t have RealPlayer: 
Today´s happenings
let's start with the governmental side of the PrepCom as what happened there impacted part of the NGO 'internal' activities today.
On the governmental side…
In the group working on the Program of Action(PoA) the day started with a victory for the sexual orientation caucus, as the paragraphs on sexual orientation were adopted and the language used is totally satisfactory. A full report on it will be given by the caucus on Monday, so look for it in the I CARE reports.
Today also the PoA group did their second day on Roma paragraphs. Delia Grigore from the Rroma Center for Public Policies "Aven Amentza" and ISC member, told us it wasn't going too well. She's not so happy with the language used. More details on that also on Monday.
On the whole the PoA group is making progress (about 40 paragraphs are done now) but everything is going real slow.
The group working on the Declaration, who so far have been spending the main portion of their time arguing, got completely stuck today on, what else, slavery and reparations. The working method all week has been that if the group came to paragraphs on which they can not agree, a smaller group goes to another room to negotiate a compromise, while the main group continues working on other paragraphs. Also in this case that is what happened.
The original text in the draft reads as follows:
SOURCES, CAUSES, FORMS AND CONTEMPORARY MANIFESTATIONS OF RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE
11. We recognize and admit that slavery and the slave trade, other forms of servitude, conquest and colonialism were the primary sources and manifestation/a source of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance and condemn the injustices that were committed, especially against Africans, people of African descent and indigenous peoples and stress the need for all States which were engaged in such practices to acknowledge the grave human suffering they caused and the heinous racist acts committed;
12. We also recognize that the political, socioeconomic and cultural structures imposed in the context of slavery and slave trade, other forms of servitude, conquest and colonialism permitted and encouraged racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. The consequences of this situation persist in many of our societies and constitute a source of systemic discrimination that still affects large sectors of the population;
13. We recognize that slavery and the slave trade, colonialism, apartheid, racism and racial discrimination that people in various parts of the world, notably the Africans and people of African descent, have historically suffered is at the root of the situation of marginalization, poverty and exclusion that affects many people in several countries and that despite the many efforts made, the situation persists in varying degrees;
14. All States must draw lessons from manifestations of racism in all regions of the world, suffering caused by slavery or which arose from colonialism must be remembered and that this should not happen again;.
15. We recall the historical fact that among the most hideous manifestations of racial discrimination the African continent and Diaspora have suffered, namely the slave trade, all forms of exploitation, colonialism and apartheid, were essentially motivated by economic objectives and competition between colonial powers for strategic territorial gains, appropriation, and control over and pillage of natural and cultural resources;
16. We affirm that slavery, particularly of Africans and their descendants, and especially the transatlantic slave trade, was a unique and appalling tragedy in the history of humanity and a crime against humanity, not only because of its abhorrent barbarism, but also in terms of its enormous magnitude, its institutionalised nature, its transnational dimension and especially its negation of the very essence of the human nature of its victims;
17. We affirm that the slavery, [colonialism], and the slave trade, and other forms of servitude, particularly of Africans and their descendants and of indigenous peoples, was a unique and/an appalling tragedy in the history of humanity, and a crime against humanity, not only because of its abhorrent barbarism but also in terms of its enormous magnitude, its institutionalised nature, its transnational dimension, and especially its negation of the essence/dignity of the victims, [and further note that the practice of slavery is now universally recognised as a crime against humanity.] / [under international law/and further note that the practice of slavery/enslavement constitutes today a crime against humanity].
The European Union countries (15) proposed a text in which any reference to specific groups, Africans and African descendants is deleted as well as referring to slavery, colonialism and reparations in the most broad, non specific terms. Below the original text from the EU paper from which they used the language but of course replaced the European Union with more general terms:
1.With regard to the historical aspects, the European Union profoundly deplores the human suffering, both individual and collective, caused by slavery and the slave trade. They are amongst the most dishonourable and abhorrent chapters in the history of humanity. The European Union condemns these practices, in the past and present, and regrets the suffering they have caused.
2. Some effects of colonialism which still persist today have caused immense suffering. Any act causing such suffering must be condemned, wherever and whenever it occurred.
3. Through these acts of acknowledgement, regret and condemnation, the European Union, aware of the moral obligation incumbent on the entire international community vis-à-vis the victims of these tragedies, shows its firm determination to honour this obligation and to play its part. It considers that it is the obligation of each individual to remember the suffering caused by events occurring at different points in history, so that they will never be forgotten. The obligation to remember will make it possible to build the future on solid foundations and to prevent the recurrence of the grave errors of the past.
Of course the difference in intention as well as language and prominence of the texts are not a world apart but several planets. So you can imagine what happened during the negotiations. Basically the opponents to the EU proposal found the text completely unacceptable and an inappropriate basis for negotiating. Who could blame them. They walked. Now the Declaration group is stuck……
As soon as ready, we will get detailed minutes through IMADR on both Declaration and PoA working groups.
|
There is no leadership
ICARE Interview with Dr. Pauline Muchina and Marilia Schuller about
The way the drafting process of the NGO Draft declaration is going.
Dr. Pauline Muchina is consultant for the World Council of Churches and member of the Women's Caucus and Africans and African descendants Caucus.
Marilia Schuller is programme Executive of the Programme to Combat Racism. She is also a member of the Women's Caucus and the Africans and African Descendant Caucus.
What do you think of the way the drafting process of the NGO draft declaration is going?
I actually believe that the process was wrong from the beginning, the way it was set up. There was a volunteer drafting committee during PrepCom 2. After this Sangoco was asked to compile a new one but none was formed. Nobody helped them to set up a new one. Then Sangoco went to South Africa, communicated with ISC (International Steering Committee), but the ISC only said 'continue'. So Sangoco came back with a draft here, and most people said, it does not represent our opinion. We think it does try to incorporate all views , but it does not incorporate everybody's language, the language people proposed.
We think the document needs a lot of editing, some of us want to propose structural and real content chances. Some said that the whole draft would have to be thrown out, we don't agree with this since a lot of work went into it. It is not only Sangoco's problem, but also the problem of the ISC. They did not monitor the process. What we proposed is having a drafting committee which represents caucuses but also one with professional drafters. If we don't do that the same thing will happen. What will prevent Sangoco otherwise to sit down and make their own language?
The question is, are we asking to incorporate everything, all input? The suggestion of having a professional drafter is an important one, the document should be consistent, that is where the professional drafter comes in, and it should also be somewhat neutral. We need professional, but committed people to do this, we do want professional drafters but from within, from within the NGO community. The drafters will get the mandate from us, the caucuses. We will tell them what to incorporate. We asked for this, but the ISC itself doesn't even know what to do.
The question also is, what are we asking the drafters to do with all these different ideas? Given the way the draft is now, it is way to long. If you start editing, which issues are you gonna leave out? Sometimes people choose a particular language because they want to present a certain issue in a certain way. For example when we look at the Gender/women issue we all say it is not strong enough and there is not enough of it incorporated in the draft. Well, there are 6 paragraphs, that is not a little, but we are not satisfied with the way those are crafted. We have time until Monday to submit our changes, make it into our own language.
What do you think of the strong language which is sometimes used? For example the sentence in the draft about 'heavy retaliation'?
This draft is an activist document, people who have suffered use strong language, now it is for us to find acceptable language.
What I hear is that the different caucuses do not identify with the draft at all, so is it really activist?
That is about ownership, they were not involved enough in the creation of the draft so they do not see it as their own. Also naming countries by name, you should not do that. You should name the victims, that will make it clear enough what it is about. As for the 'heavy retaliation' remark, we will have to see what that means. It can mean something else then violence, it can mean economic retaliation. What we have not done is talk about the content of the draft…
Why is that?
The same divisions which exist with the countries exist with us. The ISC does not talk about this, they don't do their work, there is no leadership. We do not talk about for example the issue of the Palestinians. Are we gonna bring the Palestine cause as a matter of racial discrimination? This is not discussed, while it should be. Things are ignored which need to be addressed. Like the man who was hostile during the joint NGO/ISC/Sangoco/Caucuses meeting on Wednesday evening, the ISC does not even address that.
There are so many groupings taking the responsibility in talking for others. We should all talk for ourselves and find common ground.
Thoughts to the ISC on Caucuses
by Makani Themba-Nixon
Given the tension surrounding the program decisions here in Geneva, I made the following suggestions for guidelines to caucuses, as one way of ensuring that the process is standardized and transparent. The crux of the proposal:
Caucuses be given written guidelines on how to proceed which
would include:
1. The need to identify a contact person for each commission
they are coordinating and make that person's information public
(posted online and elsewhere)
2. The need to convene a working group (not large) but a venue
where those who do not belong to a caucus or to the caucus assigned
but have an interest in participating in pulling the commission
together can participate. For example, the European caucus is
currently assigned the hate crimes commission. There is great
interest from other caucuses so a formal working group would
be convened to facilitate their involvement.
3. Notes of meetings and decisions made public/posted re: commissions
4. Guidelines developed re: commission goals re: diversity, representation
and format where appropriate. For example, the Roma commission
will not have the same diversity requirements as the immigrant
commission. The idea is to be sensible and fair.
5. Materials be prepared to help commission experts, facilitators,
rapporteurs do their job well and ensure that they provide what's
needed so that participants are effectively engaged and that
they contribute to the drafting process. This might be a template
for the agenda, background on the drafting process and WCAR issues,
etc. I think this is critical as many of the people identified
will not be familiar with the WCAR process.
I also urged the ISC to consider the SANGOCO proposal to provide
some training for facilitators and rapporteurs on site at Durban
just before the Conference. In my experience, this will help
keep reporting high quality and consistent.
|
