This report groups our activities. Some paragraphs are written by one or the other, some by both together.
THE NGO FORUM
The NGO Forum was held in the Kingsmead Cricket Stadium where tents housed the various caucuses, thematic commissions, workshops, as well as the media and the temporary registration services. We chose to miss the Opening Ceremony and went to the Durban Exhibition Centre, some blocks further away, to queue for badges for the Governmental Conference the following week. Although it took several hours, the queue was even longer later on. We also familiarized ourselves with the site. There were many other administrative hurdles, such as the card required to park our rented car, etc. The queues were interminable and the red tape unending, but the people were pleasant and helpful.
Having searched all the tents in vain for a ³womenıs² or ³gender² caucus, we went to a workshop organized by the Institute for Global Education on neo-Nazi type hate radio broadcasts, preaching hatred and racism. These are primarily anti-Black, anti-Jewish, anti-women, homophobic. Many are broadcast from the the United States, taking advantage on the one hand of the Federal system that allows each State to control its own broadcasts, and on the other, of the absence of legislation against inciting racial hatred. These broadcasts are heard by 600million listeners throughout the world and increased 100% between 1980 and 1993. With hindsight, we realized that this first workshop symbolized the hate language that polluted the whole of the Forum and the Conference.
From the first hour of the first day, the Cricket Stadium was awash with posters pleading the causes of the worldıs minorities, but the Palestinians overshadowed all the rest and had the most violent and hate-filled slogans and caricatures.
Totally absent from this event, on the contrary, were Afghan women andAlgerian women: not one workshop, not one poster, not one slogan, - nothing! It was clear to the most naïve that the Islamist States had so willed it.
As in Beijing, Iranians in chadors were omnipresent. Less aggressive than in China, they distributed their propaganda and were intent on preventing any criticism of Islam. All other religions could, of course, be reviled.
That evening a group of us met with a Swedish friend from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Gunilla Ekberg to plan our presence in the different events and to determine the language to be lobbied for in the NGO Declaration and Program for Action.
The next day at 9:00, we participated in a closed Panel organized by IMADR (International Movement Against All forms of Discrimination and Racism) on Trafficking, where Malka gave an excellent presentation on the situation in Sweden since the adoption of the law penalizing buyers of sex services. This was all the more important as, among the panelists, were pro-prostitution people from the Netherlands and others linked to pro-prostitution NGOs such as the Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women or, again, a researcher from Cyprus, Ana Agathangelou who, in a Marxist analysis of class relations, also spoke of ³sex work².
Fatoumata Diakate Sire, Directress of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women for Africa, and Helen Sackstein from Geneva, of the Focal point on Sexual Exploitation of Children both intervened several times, as did Malka, to center the debate on the essential issues, i.e. the question of ³demand². A Philippine survivor of prostitution, by her testimony, prevented the terminology quoted above from being used again that day.
One of the panelists, a Japanese Professor and Director of IMADR, Dr. Moshakoji, wanted to get in touch with the European Womenıs Lobby. We exchanged cards and gave him the Lobbyıs contact data.
That same day IMADR organized a workshop on Exploitative Migration, where the Special Rapporteure on Migrants, Gabriela Rodriguez Pizzaro was one of the speakers. She used a new and fallacious expression for trafficking: ³migrant sex workers².
Bernice left at the lunch break to again search (still in vain) for the phantom Womenıs Caucus. She then decided to join another queue to obtain for the NGO Forum badge, program, bag, etc. That took another few hours.
Unable to find the Womenıs Caucus, we did find the Thematic Commission on Women in the program. Unfortunately, we had just learned that our Conference badges only entitled us to enter the Durban Exhibition Centre and not the International Conference Centre where the Government Delegates would meet. For that a special ³Pass² given by the UN NGO Liaison Office was required. All NGOs would not receive one, we were told, and at best, there would only be one per NGO. We had to run from the Stadium to the Exhibition Centre where that office was situated. That queue lasted 4 1/2 hours! The C.L.E.F. was indeed entitled to a pass, but we had missed the Womenıs Thematic Commission!
It is surely unnecessary to say that most NGOs were in a state of completely understandable frustration and nervousness, due mainly to these administrative hassles that prevented us from doing the work we had come to do. This, of course, was not the case for the GONGOs (GOVERNMENTAL NGOs) who were numerous, clearly not lacking in means and a number of which had been expressly created for Durban.
That afternoon the Social Platform held an excellent meeting with Ambassador Louis Michel, Head of the Belgian Delegation and therefore representing the European Union, Claude Moraes of the European Parliament and Fay Devonic, for the European Commission. After they had spoken, they answered a number of questions. To one such, concerning what Europe would do for Africa, Louis Michel replied with complete lack of demagogy but with great frankness and decided courage that, as a sincere friend of Africa he believed it was time for African countries to assume responsibility and abandon the rhetoric that continued to blame the former colonial powers for all of their present ills, rhetoric which led to no constructive end.
Claude Moraes replied to a question from Bernice (that of the C.L.E.F.) on the vigilance that would be exercised by the European Union regarding womenıs rights legislation in candidate countries. She said that the E.U. would be very firm indeed in seeing that womenıs rights were effectively respected in candidate countries before they became members of the Union.
For her part, Malka took part in a workshop on Trafficking and Prostitution, organized by the CATW, the EWL, the MAPP and the Gabriella Sanlaap association.
The next morning, Bernice participated in an excellent workshop advocating an attentive listening-to-others approach and organized by a group called ³United to End Racism².
We took part in another meeting of the European Caucus but will report on this further on under the heading of that Caucus.
On Saturday 1st September the Forum ended, and NGOs met in Plenary to vote on the paragraphs of their Declaration and Program of Action. The draft documents were not ready and after some discussion, it was decided to postpone the Plenary until that evening after the Closing Ceremony.
This included a speech by Fidel Castro, lasting nearly three hours and punctuated with delirious ovations by the thousands of people in the Stadium waving Cuban flags, chanting and shouting so that it was plain to see what the atmosphere would be like during the discussion of the NGO texts.
The Plenary then began very late indeed and in total disorder. The documents were ready, but they were in four parts that had to be obtained at the back of the huge tent: more disorder! We were then informed that the International Steering Committee was not present and that a volunteer had accepted to chair. Poor man!
It was explained that one representative per caucus would vote and that no other bodies had voting rights. There were some 40 caucuses. Immediately the Sikhs asked for their own caucus. After some hesitation, the Chair accepted, against all the rules specifying that a caucus had to have functioned for at least two days and consist of at least ten people. Other groups then asked for the same thing. All these demands were made in aggressive tones of voice and were accompanied by loud shouts of approval from the crowd. We are describing a generalatmosphere of demagogy and pressure. At last the Chair thought to ask those in the Plenary to raise their hands for or against the new caucuses. Surprise! The Plenary voted massively against, to the displeasure of those who had shouted the loudest. Then, of course, it took a good half-hour to recover the voting cards already distributed. All this scarcely contributed to calm and democratic procedure.
Finally the Chair called the roll of caucuses so that their representatives could take their places in the first row. Bernice was particularly curious to see who would represent the Gender Caucus, so systematically invisible. When a woman answered ³present², Bernice followed her to ask where and when they had met. ³In different places and at different times² was the reply. Had that been posted somewhere? They had not had the time to do that! In any case, she was not the person responsible. That woman would arrive shortly.
When Bernice returned to her seat, Malka and Gunilla seemed strangely disturbed. They had recognized the woman. She was an activist in the pro-²sex workers² lobby. Indeed when the woman ³responsible² for the caucus arrived and took the floor to present the caucus proposals, she asked for only three things in the name of the Womenıs Caucus. 1° The word ³gender² to be inserted in all paragraphs!
2° The words ³forced prostitution² to be added to the proper paragraph and
3° Unconditional support for the Palestinian cause. What progressive thinking for the advancement of women!!
Bernice then asked for the floor on a point of order. A brand new South African friend we had made that same evening) was managing the nearest microphone and signalled the Chair. She was thus able to say:
1° That caucus had been impossible to find for the entire week;
2° We were both surprised and disappointed by the absence of any serious or specific request in favor of women, doubly discriminated against as members of a minority and often victims of violence from men in their own minority; we had seen nothing of this in the documents and heard even less in the proposals of the so-called representative of the womenıs caucus;
3° We were therefore NOT represented by what she had said. (Bernice allowed herself to say this in the name of the Lobby, since that had been its particular mandate since Geneva.) Her position was warmly applauded; the woman was furious.
Other caucuses were more and more demagogic and addressed themselves less and less to their supposed issues. When the Jewish caucus presented its three paragraphs on antisemitism, the vote eliminated one of the three. This had not been done to any other group. The Arabs shouted: ³Free, Free Palestine², and the Jewish group then rose to leave saying: ³Shame, shame, shame².
Other NGOs, such as the LICRA, also left.
It should be explained that the voting procedure was most unusual. When a caucus representative had spoken, the Chair asked quickly for a vote ³for², ³against² or ³abstention² on the entire text, then asked if ³anybody had a problem with this text²! After a long while, when Erika Harriford, the young woman voting for the European Caucus had already had the courage to vote ³against² several times, she left her seat in tears and wanted to leave the Plenary saying she could no longer stand the atmosphere of hatred and pressure felt there. Clarisse told Bernice who naturally understood, but said that if she could stay, it was important that the caucus be visible. Erika agreed to stay.
It must also be said that many had already left, frustrated or disgusted, and that of the 40 odd caucuses, only 14 voted for the greater part of the Plenary. This was no majority and certainly not democratic procedure. Indeed, like many things seen and lived through at this Forum, it consisted of intolerable pressure and verbal terrorism.
We want to highlight the courage of the Roma who, unlike many who left without making a statement, took the microphone to say clearly that, faced with such a lack of democracy and of respect for others, they would not support the process by remaining.*
We left at 11:30 p.m. but learned later that it went on for another hour.
The confusion and irregularities continued, since a courageous member of the International Steering Committee, Mirek, during an NGO briefing the second week declared that he could not guarantee that the NGO documents that would finally be distributed would conform to the version adopted during the Plenary of September 1st. He explained that, after some discussion, the Drafting Committee had decided to add a paragraph indicating that, because the debate had been so ³lively², some paragraphs might contradict others. They had finished their work at 11 p.m. when unknown persons entered their office and took possession of the papers and of the disquette. He could not therefore certify that the text had not been tampered with.
The President of the Drafting Committee attempted to mitigate the affair by saying that they had worked until 3 a.m. and that the problem was a minor one!
Malka went to congratulate Mirek for his courage. He told her that if other members of the Committee said they had worked until 3 a.m., that meant that there had indeed been changes made, because everything had been completed by 11 p.m. before the arrival of the intruders. He added that there had even been a fight, that he had been able to take some photographs before escaping from the room.
What was clear was that the document distributed did not contain, among others, the above-mentioned introductory paragraph.
* The Roma Caucus Déclaration - Annex A RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
One afternoon, Bernice was able to fulflll one of her mandates by participating in the Thematic Commission on Religious Intolerance. She intervened on the iniquitous effects of religious extremisms on women and this was greeted with enthusiastic applause. A few minutes later, an Iranian woman rose to say that she could not approve the term ³religious extremism² because it might wrongly be applied to Islam which, in reality, ³favored women²! Bernice decided not to engage in public argument but went to sit next to the woman among a group of Iranians. She said that surely the woman would agree that no religion on earth ³favored² women. An older neighbor began to explain that the Koran said that ³the most valued person, man or woman² - Bernice completed the sentence for her - ³was the one who best studied the Koran². The woman was pleasantly surprised and said that this was therefore proof. Bernice replied that it was proof of ³equal² consideration but not of ³favoring² women. They all laughed and said that was correct.
That evening, Bernice was part of the Drafting Committee of that Commission. Several Iranians remained to ensure the language was not unfavorable to Islam. They approved each time Bernice spoke (a little Koranic knowledge helps). That Commission worked well, and the paragraphs drafted (with the help of Malka and Gunilla whose Thematic Commission on Trafficking had ended) were immediately typed by the Rapporteure and brought to the Committee responsible for inserting the language approved by the Commissions into the NGO documents. It was pleasant to find that the paragraph concerning women had indeed been included in the ³draft² version of the documents distributed Saturday night at the start of the Plenary.
It was less pleasant to find that it had disappeared from the final document distributed!
During the second week, one of the representatives of this Commission, Charles Graves of Interfaith, presented its Declaration to an NGO briefing. He managed to ³forget² the paragraph on women. Bernice asked for the floor to add at least the one sentence insisting that ³religions never more be used to deny or even to limit to any degree womenıs human rights². She mentioned that this sentence had already been ³forgotten² by him on two previous occasions and asked him to remember it in the future! The facilitator of the Commission then took the floor to add the reminder that religions had too often been used for purposes of racism and discrimination and that this too should be carefully guarded against in the future. She then came to ask Bernice to participate in a Round Table on the subject, and to specifically represent the voice of women. That was very productive, and it was decided that the group would remain in touch and would try to initiate follow-up actions.
The day before we left, on Thursday, 6 September, there was a session facilitated by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, A Tunisian Professor of Law whom Bernice had already heard speak in Geneva. When he arrived, she introduced herself and asked him for news of the International Consultative Conference on School Education in relation with freedom of religion and belief, tolerance and non-discrimination, scheduled to take place from the 23-25 November in Madrid. The C.L.E.F. received an invitation and had replied immediately but had heard nothing further. She left him her card and he promised to contact here as soon as he returned to Geneva.
During this session, he spoke of the importance of education for preventing racism and, in particular, of school education. Bernice asked if his mandate enabled him to examine text books on the attitudes towards women dictated by religions. He replied very firmly that such was indeed the case and that he was in the process of writing a report on that issue that would be distributed during the next Human Rights Session in Geneva in 2002.
THE EUROPEAN CAUCUS
A European Caucus had functioned very well during the Geneva PrepComs and during the first week in Durban. Directives had been drafted and presented to the International Steering Committee. Clarisse Delorme of the European Womenıs Lobby had worked hard on this from the very start of the process in Geneva.
This caucus, often facilitated by Erika Harriford had, like the others, prepared a Declaration on the NGO Draft Declaration and Program of Action. This European Caucus Declaration had been drawn up in agreement with the Caucus of Africans and African Descendents during the Third PrepCom in Geneva. It adopted a position in favor of recognition and reparations.
It also declared support for the right of victims to define themselves but refused to support language inciting to hatred and discrimination. The caucus was waiting for the definitive version of the documents adopted at the Plenary before finalizing this declaration. The day after the odious Plenary, the caucus met as usual. The Declaration was read and approved, but since the Plenary had ended at 1 a.m., a number of caucus members were not present that morning. It was decided to wait until the evening meeting. The future would show us the very grave error of this decision.
That evening, some new people were present, among them the President of ENAR, Ms. Sukhvinder Stubbs. She showed great reserve with regard to our declaration and, although it was read out loud twice and passed around as well, it was demanded that Erika type and xerox it on her own paper so as to distribute copies the following day. On Monday, 3 September we met therefore in the NGO lounge above a large hall where an important Panel was taking place.
Shortly after our meeting began, we were invaded by 40 to 50 new people, shouting as loudly as they could. Some screamed that we were speaking English, and French became a pretext for disrupting the meeting. Malka immediately offered to translate, but they were shouting so loudly they did not at first hear her. Afterwards, when she translated various peopleıs remarks, they attacked her for what she said although she was only translating. Quite clearly, they were there for the purpose of preventing the caucus from finalizing its declaration. It was a putsch! They shouted so loudly that the facilitators of the UN Panel below came up to insist we leave. These were nearly physically molested. Finally we left, deciding to meet the following day in another room.
Tuesday saw the same scenario: shrieks, shouts, demands for French and Spanish translation (it turned out that not one of them understood Spanish when it was spoken to them!), attacks, photographs taken despite protests and even a formal decision against this, insults flung wildly, Their intention was to prevent us from making our declaration at all costs. They pretended it rejected the NGO documents.
Curiously, many of them said they were descendants of slaves, but the paragraph written together with the African and African descendant Caucus did not interest them in the slightest! In fact, what they rejected was our refusal to support hate language.
They also put an end to the daily meetings between representatives of the caucus and the European Commission by forbidding us to transmit anything to the Commission not approved by them. Since they approved nothing, there were no more meetings.
On Wednesday several of us returned to see if something of this caucus could be salvaged. We had just begun to talk when Bernice noticed one of the putsch gang in the back of the room, the designated spy. She called him, saying he might at least have the guts to come to the front with us. When he began to trot out the same arguments as before, we told him that, quite clearly, once the caucus had been assassinated , he had been sent to make sure the corpse was really dead. Mamadou Ngaye of SOS Racism, whom Malka and Bernice had met several times before and with whom they had had a good understanding, tried to talk with this man. He was in turn insulted. The putschist called us totalitarian and we called him a fascist. We were even, but the European Caucus was the only one prevented from presenting its position to the Conference nor to the NGOs.
The NGOs of Central and Eastern Europe, who had created their own caucus, presented a very firm and strong declaration, completely rejecting the NGO documents.* The Roma Caucus did the same. All we could do was to sign, in the name of our European NGOs, the Declaration prepared by the European Caucus.
It is regrettable that the Lobby did not do the same.
THE GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
We were able to attend several Conference sessions and especially those of the Drafting Committee in which closely argued discussions on the text took place. We met Hervé Magro of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, whom we knew from Geneva where we had spoken to him several times on our different concerns. He sat down with us and listened attentively to our account of the NGO Forum. He obviously had not realized all that had gone on there. We asked if the European Union thought of leaving and he said, ³I will not hide the fact that we may not be far from deciding to do so, because the positions seem so blocked.² He urged us to write to Mary Robinson to inform her of our experiences and promised to see about a meeting with the French Delegation. Malka also left a note on Brigitte Colletıs desk to that effect with her cell phone number. That same evening, she called us to set up a meeting for the next day.
* Central and Eastern European Caucus Declaration in annex B
On Thursday then we had our meeting with members, and with the head, of the French Delegation. We were really listened to and heard. During that meeting, one person took the floor with the aggressive and violent tone of voice that we had become accustomed to for the past ten days. Bernice asked him to give the name of his NGO, something that all the ³shouters² systematically ³forgot² to do. He represented PTT Sud.
The International Federation of Human Rights condemned the process and the racist remarks contained in the NGO text. Malka recounted the assassination of the European Caucus. The LICRA recalled the way in which young Jews had been forced out of a meeting. A woman from the Caribbean declared that during the Plenary for adopting the texts, the Jews had shouted ³Shame, shame, shame² at the Palestinians and had then left. She voiced this interesting shortcut: ³The Jews, the Whites, cried shameı ². Bernice described the omnipresence of rumors, usually spread intentionally and the climate of unease this created, the habitually violent, accusing, aggressive tone of many (like that of the representative of PTT Sud who had just spoken), the hatred, the violence, the vicious caricatures worthy of the ³Stürmer² of Nazi days that pervaded the Forum. She expressed our fear for the future credibility of civil society and for the role of real NGOs.
The French Delegation perfectly understood what had been at work in the NGO Forum.
We were well satisfied with this meeting because we felt that at last a framework had been placed, one within which a dialogue continued to exist and which still gave meaning to the principles of democracy.
We went to the Drafting Committee on the Governmental Program of Action as often as possible. One positive point, - we carried on a good deal of lobbying with the French, German, Netherlands and Swedish delegations in particular, for the elimination of the words ³commercial sex² proposed by Iran in the paragraph on trafficking. We referred to the definition in the Protocol on Trafficking of the recent Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. Iranıs proposal was rejected as were the words ³forced prostitution².
It should be noted that Iran had also requested the removal of the word ³woman² wherever it was placed in the documents. This too was rejected.
Another word was the object of much discussion and is indicative of what took place in Durban. The European Union refused the use of the word ³race², since that would legitimize the effective existence of different races and could, by extension, be used to legitimize racism.
We want to highlight the total integrity and firmness of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Mary Robinson who refused to condone the hate language in the NGO documents, yet worked steadfastly for some positive aspects to result from this Conference.
In the end, the countries of the European Union, together with Australia, Canada and others, stood fast, remained very firm, totally united and were able to ensure that the hate language, that so pollutes the NGO documents and denies them any validity, did not remain in the government documents. We want to say here to what extent nearly all the French and European NGOs appreciated their attitude, their positions and their firmness.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A week after Durban and a few days after the ignoble terrorist attacks in the United States, we can say that Durban revealed the blind and malicious hatred that blocks all progress and all understanding and whose primary objective is the death and destruction of all who do not give way to their aims.