Add Which Documents Need to Be Used to Go Through the Report

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT AGAINST ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AND RACISM (IMADR)

REPORT ON THE SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON THE WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE Working Group on the Draft Declaration 28 May – 1 June (AM) 2001 Geneva, Switzerland

Carolina de Fey, intern, IMADR-UN Office

(Note: this is an unofficial report prepared by the monitoring team of IMADR-UN Office for the use of NGOs following the WCAR process. The main purpose of the report is to give an idea for the NGOs about such questions as who introduced which new paragraphs/language and who was interested in what issues; it is by no means meant to serve as an official record of the actual discussion, and IMADR-UN Office does not assume a responsibility for any inaccurate summary of a statement wherever exist)

Documentation:

• The documents used as a basis for consideration of the Draft Declaration:  A/CONF.189/PC.2/27, 18 May 2001 (Draft Declaration and Programme of Action)  Proposal for the Preamble of Draft Declaration from the Group of 21, 25 May 2001 (hard copy only; not yet available on the OHCHR website)  Draft Declaration, General issues, 24 May 2001

• The texts that had been cleared for 'adoption' by the PrepCom and those that were still under discussion as at 31 May:  A/CONF.189/PC.2/L.1/Add.1 (distributed on the last day of the PrepCom; not yet available on the OHCHR website).

Monday 28 May 2001 Morning Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

Chair P. Petit (France): The draft Declaration is exceptionally long. Whenever we can shorten the declaration it would be a good thing. The text needs to be soberer, which will give it clarity and make the Declaration stronger. Also, I would like to point out that as long as the Conference has not adopted the text, nothing is final. So if necessary we can always return to the text. I do not want lengthy explanations, since we already know each other’s position. So I urge the delegations to speak on drafting points only and not on ideas.

Let us now look at the report of the 25 May 2001 as prepared by the Group of 21, which we will use to negotiate on the Preamble of the Declaration.

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Preamble will be inserted as adopted by the Plenary of the Preparatory Committee. If there no objections to this than it is so decided.

Paragraph 5bis and paragraph 5 bis2 of the Preamble as clustered by the Group of 21: The Group of 21 suggests to delete paragraph 5bis 2 because it duplicates paragraph 5bis.

Are there any objections to this proposal? No, than we remove the brackets and keep paragraph 5bis and delete paragraph 5bis 2.

1 PP5bis Recalling that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993 calls for the speedy and comprehensive elimination of all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

On paragraph 6 of the Preamble the Group of 21 suggested retaining the paragraph at its present location and in its present format. If there are no objections to this proposal, it is adopted.

PP6 Recalling Commission on Human Rights resolution 1997/74, General Assembly resolution 52/111 and subsequent resolutions of those bodies concerning the convening of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and recalling also the two World Conferences to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, held in Geneva in 1978 and 1983;

On paragraph 7 of the Preamble the Group of 21 wants to retain the paragraph where it is and in its present format. It is also suggested by this Group that OP 10bis should replace paragraph 7 because of the similarity between the two paragraphs. Are there any objections to paragraph 7 as it stands? No objections. Let us than now look at OP 10bis of the Declaration to see to what extend there is an overlap between the two paragraphs. We will take a decision on OP 10bis later on.

Canada: We feel that paragraph 7 can be replaced by OP 10bis, but we do have an amendment. We suggest that the word `in particular` in line 5 is replaced with `including`.

China: Op 10bis is an important OP and should remain unchanged. We have also noticed that paragraph 7 and OP 10bis are different in wording. Paragraph 7 mentions decades on Racism. This is missing in OP 10bis. So, we suggest including in OP 10bis the third decade against Racism.

Cuba: We cannot agree with replacing paragraph 7 by OP 10bis, because they each address different issues. OP 10bis is more comprehensive. Therefore we want to retain paragraph 7 as it is. In OP 10bis we suggest the deletion of the references that are being made to the decades and let OP 10bis only refer to contemporary forms of Racism.

Kenya: We need to separate paragraph 7 from OP 10bis.

United States of America: With regard to paragraph 7 and OP10bis we agree with Cuba and Kenya. Also OP 10bis addresses primarily discrimination against people from other countries and not the groups such as the indigenous peoples within a country. So we prefer to keep paragraph 7 as it stands.

Brazil: We ask for the deletion of the reference to the decades and ask for OP 10bis to be retained in the Declaration.

Chair: Many delegations want to retain paragraph 7 as well as OP 10bis. I suggest we keep it pending for now and discuss op 10bis as we get to it later on. Are there any objections to paragraph 7 as it reads now?

2 Please, take a look at the words that have been struck out of the text by the Group of 21.

China: We are of the opinion that paragraph 7 and OP 10bis are overlapping. Paragraph 7 gives full mention of the three decades so we agree to keep paragraph 7 as it is. As to OP 10bis, this OP only mentions two of the three decades. We agree with Cuba to delete the decades and focus on the contemporary forms of Racism.

Chair: We should focus our attention on paragraph 7 and not OP 10bis at this moment.

Iran: We suggest that in paragraph 7 in line 4 we have Xenophobia and Related Intolerance deleted, since it was not the official title of the first two decades.

Secretariat: The official title of the decades is: `decades to combat Racism and Racial Discrimination`.

Chair: We than delete Xenophobia and Related Intolerance as suggested by Iran.

India: We agree with the proposal of Iran. We would also like to suggest deleting `Decades for Action` in line three and four and put the third decade together with the other two decades, so that it becomes `the three previous decades`.

Chair: This is a good effort to shorten the text and make it clearer. Are there any objections to this new reading of paragraph 7?

China: We agree with Iran and India on their proposals on the wording of paragraph 7. Since the new wording mentions the three decades together we find it important to state the three periods specifically. Otherwise it seems that they were held at the same time. So we ask for the periods (1973-1983) (1983- 1993) (1993-2003) to be added.

Chair: It is not essential to the paragraph, but we might add the dates (1973-2003) in brackets after the words `three decades`.

Iraq: We have not yet reached the year 2002 and 2003. We are prejudging two years. Would it not be better to put 2001 instead?

Chair: Maybe we should not mention the particular periods at all.

China; We withdraw the proposal since the text and discussion is becoming more confusing.

Algeria: We would like the decades to be situated in time and by putting `beginning in 1973`.

Chair: Does Algeria insist on their proposal? No, than we adopt paragraph 7 as it is now.

3 PP 7 Noting with grave concern that despite the efforts of the international community, the principal objectives of the three decades to combat Racism and Racial Discrimination have not been attained and that countless human beings continue to the present day to be the victims of varied forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

Paragraph 12 bis1 of the Preamble The Group of 21 agreed to retain the paragraph where it is and in its present format. Are there any comments? No comments, than the following text is adopted:

PP 12bis1 Recalling the year 2001 as the International Year of Mobilization against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, aimed at drawing the world’s attention to the objectives of the World Conference and giving new momentum to the political commitment to the elimination of all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

Paragraph 12bis of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the text in its present format and to move it after PP12bis1. The word `welcoming` is in square brackets. Is there any objection to the deletion of the square brackets? No, than they will be removed.

United States of America: We are hesitant to include this paragraph. We should remain as focused as possible. We propose to delete paragraph 12bis.

Cuba: We think that the paragraph should be kept, because it is an addition to the Preamble.

Iran: We ask for the paragraph to be retained.

India: As coordinator of the Asian Group we support the retention of this paragraph.

Pakistan: We want the paragraph to be retained as it stands.

Kenya: The paragraph should remain in the text.

China: We support the statement of India. The Dialogue between civilization is important in combating racism. We support the retention of this paragraph.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We have certain reservations on the holding of the Asian Conference. It should not be mentioned in a universal document. So we suggest the deletion of `as well as the holding of the Asian Conference on Dialogue among Civilizations on 17 February 2001 in Tehran`

Also paragraph 12bis should be merged with paragraph 12bis2 and than added after paragraph 12bis1. We propose new text after line 2.

4 `and to proclaim the decade for a culture of peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010) as well as the adoption by the General Assembly of the Declaration and a Plan Of Action on a Culture of Peace`

Chile: We should keep the fundamental idea of the Conference and keep this paragraph.

Algeria: This is no longer an Asian text because it comes from the Group of 21. There is already consensus. We are only discussing the word `welcoming`. The paragraph should be retained as it is.

United States of America: The fact that the Group of 21 left brackets around the word `welcoming` does not mean that the rest has consensus. We propose to bracket paragraph 12bis, since there is no consensus on it.

Mexico: on behalf of Grulac We believe that paragraph 12bis is lifted from the Tehran Declaration and we support it as it is.

Canada: We think that what the United States of America said is important. There is no consensus. We have no problem with the paragraph as it is, but the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union should be taken into consideration.

Iran: This paragraph has no further brackets than around the word `welcoming` and we should keep the paragraph as it stands. We will not settle for arguments to put the whole paragraph in brackets. We suggest that the brackets around the word `welcoming` are deleted. There should be no political hinder at this stage.

Chair: Until there is consensus by the whole, nothing is decided. We are reviewing what the Group of 21 proposed. It was just a proposal. Even what we are doing here today is not final. In Durban the text can still be questioned.

Syria: We agree that nothing has been finally approved. However, the Group of 21 is an official group. They have presented proposals and a report. The Group of 21 has agreed on the inclusion of this particular paragraph 12bis. The document is of great importance. We should acknowledge it as such. If we are going to be sensitive on such things we cannot agree on anything.

United States of America: We can accept paragraph 12bis as amended by Sweden on behalf of the European Union, with one minor amendment to replace the word `welcoming` with `noting`.

Cuba: Our reading of the current situation is that many delegations agree on the retention of paragraph 12bis as it is. We can keep the paragraph pending and return to it later on. We firmly oppose to the Swedish proposal on behalf of the European Union. We object to any fusion between paragraph 12bis and paragraph 12bis2. Reference to other regional conferences is made in several other texts of the document. Whether or not to include it should depend on what we are talking about and the meeting itself.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union Group of 21 did not negotiate on the text. We can negotiate on the text now. We should look for further ways to rationalize the text. Paragraph 12bis2 also refers to an action of the General

5 Assembly. There could be a merge between the two paragraphs since they refer to the same body, the General Assembly.

China: I thank the Ambassador of Syria to remind us that the Group of 21 clearly pointed out that they wish to keep paragraph 12bis. The United States of America are a member of the Group of 21. The word `welcoming `is in brackets, if the United States of America wanted they could have bracketed the whole paragraph.

We ask delegates for flexibility in order to make progress. We do not want a merger of paragraph 12bis and paragraph 12bis2. We should not mechanically merge activities of the General Assembly.

The Russian Federation: The Russian Federation is a member of the Group of 21. We support what the United States of America and Sweden on behalf of the European Union said about the work of the Group of 21. A merger between paragraph 12bis and paragraph 12bis2 would be logical.

Pakistan: We have heard the various explanations on the work of the Group of 21. Ideas were clustered together. If we start merging, where do we stop? We should keep paragraphs separate and retain paragraph 12bis. The brackets should be removed around the word `welcoming`.

Chair: We need consensus. Since we do not have it, we will keep paragraph 12bis as it is for now and come back to it later on. So for now we shall have square brackets around the word `welcoming` and `as well as Tehran`.

Iran: Chair, we oppose the suggestion made by you. We want the proposal of Sweden regarded separately. It could badly harm the notion of the paragraph. We suggest a compromise solution. Keep the word `welcoming` and refer to the proposal of Sweden after `as well as` by adding the word `noting`.

India: At this stage there is a certain form of agreement. Sweden on behalf of the European Union did not have problems with the word `welcoming`. The proposal of Iran could be a solution.

Pakistan: We believe that a merging of the paragraph 12bis and paragraph 12bis2 would seriously undermine the significance of the paragraph. We should keep the two paragraphs separate. We oppose the merger of the two paragraphs.

Iraq: We should accept paragraph 12bis as it is and lift the brackets around the word `welcoming`. Otherwise we agree with the Asian Group and with Iran.

Syria: We should respect the proposal made by the Chair. It does however, not satisfy all the concerns. We respect the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union. However, we support Iran in its latest proposal that the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union should be kept separate so we can discuss it later on.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union Just to be very clear; we have no problem with using the word `welcoming`. However, the importance of the events is shown by the fact that it is in the Declaration. We can accept two separate paragraphs.

6 However, in that case we would like to insert in paragraph 12bis the word `noting` after `as well as` as proposed by Iran. After paragraph 12bis we propose a new paragraph, which includes:

`to proclaim the decade for a culture of peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World (2001- 2010) as well as the adoption by the General Assembly of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace`

China: We agree with this proposal.

Cuba: The paragraph should be separated because of its importance. Sweden’s latest proposal might be a way out.

Chair: We have reached no consensus on paragraph 12bis. The original text will remain until a further discussion on the paragraph.

PP 12bis Welcoming the decision of the General Assembly to proclaim the year 2001 as the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations [as well as [noting] the holding of the Asian Conference on Dialogue among Civilizations on 17 February 2001 in Tehran];

We shall add as a paragraph 12bis alternative the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union:

PP 12bis alternative Welcoming the decision of the General Assembly to proclaim the year 2001 as the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations and to proclaim the decade for a culture of peace and Non- violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010) as well as the adoption by the General Assembly of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace;

Brazil: I propose that paragraph 12bis2 and paragraph 11bis2 are placed immediately after paragraph 12bis because they all refer to International setting.

Iran: We should keep paragraph 12bis in the original way without the word `noting`, since we now have alternative wording in a separate paragraph.

United States of America: There are several different combinations of these paragraphs. We should put brackets after the word `noting`.

Chair: We can delete the brackets around the word `welcoming` and put square brackets around the word `noting`. There is a proposal to take paragraph 12bis 2 and paragraph 11bis2. On paragraph 11bis2 the Group of 21 proposed moving this paragraph up and link it to the paragraphs on decades, paragraphs 12bis1 and 12bis2. Are there any comments on paragraph 11bis2 of the Preamble?

New Zealand: In paragraph 11bis 2 we have a proposal based on the suggestion of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus to switch the word `cultural` with the word `political`.

7 Chair: Are there any objections to this proposal?

Venezuela: We do not see why the order of the paragraph should be changed.

Brazil: We have no objections to the proposed order of words. However, at the end of the paragraph after the word `racism` we should add `racial discrimination`.

Cuba: We understand the opposition of Venezuela, however, if the Indigenous Peoples Caucus suggested this than we support New Zealand in their proposal.

Chair: Does Venezuela maintain its opposition?

Venezuela: We can agree with changing the order.

Chair: Than we add the proposal of New Zealand to the text.

Brazil: We propose to add after the word `the challenges` the words `faced by them`.

Chair: Are there any comments on this proposal? No, than the following text is adopted:

PP 11bis2 Recognising that the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination. Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, in conjunction with the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, presents a unique opportunity to consider the invaluable contributions of indigenous peoples to political, economic, social, cultural and spiritual development throughout the world to our societies as well as the challenges faced by them, including racism and racial discrimination;

Let us now move on to paragraph 7bis of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the paragraph where it is and in its present format. Are there any comments on this paragraph?

Kenya: We think that the brackets should be removed.

Cuba: We are surprised to see the paragraph in square brackets. We want to know who asked for it. The brackets are not necessary. We want them removed. The brackets are unacceptable.

Egypt: We support the proposal of Kenya.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We would like to see this paragraph deleted, since we are discussing contemporary forms of racism.

Algeria:

8 The World Conference does not only refer to contemporary forms of racism. We must not forget colonialism.

Iraq: This paragraph goes to the heart of peoples concerns.

Iran: If we are seriously preparing the stage for the World Conference, it would be a big mistake not to include this paragraph. The suffering of those people is one of the reasons that the International community came together and decided on having a World Conference. We should retain this paragraph.

Egypt: We support Algeria and Kenya. Colonialism is one of the major historical wrongs that need to be addressed.

Barbados: We cannot discuss the World Conference without seeing the immediate connection between paragraph 7bis and the World Conference.

Nigeria: We also want the retention of this paragraph. The paragraph is of great importance. Slavery came from colonialism.

China: Colonialism is an important cause of racism. The brackets should be removed and the paragraph retained.

Norway: We should retain the paragraph as it is.

Haiti: We are astonished by the suggestion of Sweden on behalf of the European Union to have this paragraph deleted. We support the retention of this paragraph.

Sudan: We should keep this paragraph as one of the principal paragraphs of the Preamble.

South Korea: We agree on the retention of this paragraph. Colonialism and slavery are the main causes of racism and racial discrimination.

Kathmandu: We agree with the retention of this paragraph.

Mauritius: We should retain the paragraph without the square brackets.

Chair: Many delegates support the retention of this paragraph. There is, however. No consensus. We should therefore keep the text in square brackets. We need to negotiate on this text at the highest political level since the countries of the European Union do not agree on the retention of this text.

9 We are prepared to call for a vote on this paragraph. It is a matter of either yes or no.

Algeria: Quit a few statements were made which refer to the Strasbourg document. Does Sweden still insist on the deletion of the paragraph? Otherwise, like Cuba, we ask for a vote.

Iraq: This Conference must be based on consensus on all of the paragraphs. We should not have votes on separate paragraphs.

Chair: There is a strong support for the retention of the paragraph, but at this moment we will keep the paragraph in brackets and discuss it further later on.

PP 7bis [Recalling the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960,]

Let us now move on to the proposal of the Group of 21, which contains a merger of PP4, PP5, PP15bis and PP8 of the Preamble. Three paragraphs are suggested, which read as follows:

Recalling that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of dignity, equality and non-discrimination inherent to all human beings [and due respect for the sovereignty of States] and one of its purposes is to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems [of economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character] and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and convinced that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance constitute a total negation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations; (P4,PP5,PP15bis)

Reaffirming the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, [sex], language, nationality, [or religion], [such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status; (PP5, PP4)

Convinced of the fundamental importance of universal ratification or accession / adherence to and [faithful] implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as the principal international instrument to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; (PP5, PP8)

Cuba: We have problems with the paragraphs, which were suggested by the Group of 21. These paragraphs should be revised.

Chair: Cuba, would you accept to work on the basis of the proposal of the Group of 21 or would you like to address the paragraphs separately?

Cuba. Working on the basis of the proposal of the Group of 21 is fine. We just have to make changes to the wording, because the wording is not acceptable.

Monday 28 May 2001 Afternoon Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

10 Chair: Are there any comments on merging paragraphs 4, 5, 15bis and 8 of the Preamble? There are no comments, so let us proceed with the contents of the first suggested paragraph, which is a merger of PP4, PP5 and PP15bis. Can the brackets in the paragraph be deleted?

Cuba: We have difficulties with the paragraph that goes beyond the brackets. It regards the principles. We should replace the paragraph with a paragraph from the Vienna Declaration, which deals with the sovereignty of States.

Iraq: We must not forget that the Charter of the United Nations is a document and instrument, which has the respect of all States in the world.

United States of America: We can accept the paragraph as drafted, but we need the proposal of Cuba on the Vienna Declaration in writing before we can pass judgement on it.

Denmark: We should recall the wording of the Conference held in 1987 and 1993. The paragraphs on this issue adopted at these two Conferences, could be a good replacement for the paragraph proposed by the Group of 21.

Chair: I would like to ask Cuba to clarify its proposal and submit it in writing. I can accept the proposal of the United States of America to return to this paragraph when we have the proposal of Cuba in writing. The proposal of Denmark is interesting, but I prefer avoiding raising issues, which have not been laid down as principles in the United Nations Charter.

Kenya: My delegation wishes to move on and come back to this paragraph later on.

Syria: We do not agree with the United States of America. We are speaking of the Charter and its principles. We should keep the text as it is and remove the brackets around the words `and due respect for the sovereignty of States`.

Russian Federation: We find it difficult to accept the text as proposed by the Group of 21. The text is unclear. The principles may stem from the Charter, but the Charter has a different wording. We agree with the proposal of Cuba and use the paragraphs of the Vienna Declaration on the sovereignty of States.

Mexico: There is a preference to quote the Charter. The United Nations Charter says what is says. Apparently, article 1 paragraph 3 of the Charter is the relevant article for the purpose of the World Conference. Also, the proposal of Denmark and Cuba to use paragraphs of previous Declarations is interesting. We do not want a debate on the United Nations Charter and what to highlight.

United States of America: Delete the last phrase after the word `fundamental freedoms` in the first suggested paragraph of the Group of 21, so that the text only refers to the language in the Charter.

I would also like to remind the other delegations that with regard to the United Nations, the manner in which a country treats its citizens, is not solely within its sovereignty.

11 China: My delegation is not against the proposal of the United States of America, but only a part of the principles laid down in the Charter are mentioned. To respect sovereignty of States is not reflected here. We support the proposal made by Cuba to use paragraphs of the Vienna Declaration on the sovereignty of States. Also, in the first paragraph suggested by the Group of 21, in line 7, the word `convinced` is not strong enough. We should adopt something more positive such as the word `affirm`. In the second paragraph as proposed by the Group of 21, the name of the Universal Declaration should be `Universal Declaration of Human Rights` and not ` Universal Declaration on Human Rights`.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union This debate shows the selectivity of the citations quoted from the United Nations Charter in the paragraphs suggested by the Group of 21. It is important to quote Charter language as it stands in the Charter. We should go back to the language as accepted at the World Conference of 1993, which is fairly similar.

Cuba: The principles of the Charter are laid down in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. We cannot just make up new principles. The principles should be quoted as laid down in the United Nations Charter itself.

Chile: There might be in danger here of opening the discussion on the World Conference. We should avoid a debate. There are great dangers to selective application as is the case in the paragraphs suggested by the Group of 21. We could use the paragraphs of the Vienna Declaration.

Kenya: We should have a general reference to the Charter and than keep the first paragraph as suggested by the Group of 21, as it is from line 5 onwards. My delegation proposes to have a small group working on these paragraphs.

Chair: Is there any support for the use of Article 3 of the Preamble of the Vienna Declaration?

Cuba: We would like to suggest a similar solution. Article 3 of the Preamble of the Vienna Declaration can be used as the last part of the paragraph, as suggested by Kenya and Cuba.

India: Perhaps it is a solution to have a reference to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter instead of referring to other Declarations or Sections.

United States of America: We support using language of the Preamble of the Vienna Declaration. Also we have no objections to separating the paragraph into two separate paragraphs. We suggest that in the last sentence of the first paragraph as suggested by the Group of 21, the words `constitute a total negation of`` are replaced with the word `threaten`.

Iran: We should strengthen the link with the topic of the coming World Conference in Durban, which is Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union

12 We would like to express our support for the statement made by Chile. Also we would like to have the last three sentences of the first paragraph as suggested by the Group of 21, in a separate paragraph. The last three sentences read `Convinced that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance constitute a total negation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations`;

Venezuela: My delegation supports the proposal to use the Article of the Vienna Declaration.

Cuba: We agree with using the Article of the Preamble of the Vienna Declaration to replace the paragraph suggested by the Group of 21 on sovereignty of States and request that the word `threaten` as suggested by the United States of America be put in brackets.

Kenya: I disagree with Sweden / European Union and the United States of America. Racism cannot just threaten the United Nations and its Charter. We rather have the wording that is already in the text.

Brazil: We suggest the following wording: `are in total negation of ` instead of `constitute a total negation of `.

Chair: The Vienna Declaration Article on this subject reads:

Reaffirming our commitment to the purposes and principles, contained in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

This is the text that we adopt under PP4, PP5, PP15bis, and PP8.

Furthermore, I suggest that we put the last three sentences of the first paragraph suggested by the Group of 21, in a separate paragraph, so that it reads as follows:

`Affirming that Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance constitute a total negation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations`;

This paragraph will follow the paragraph we have just adopted, which comes from the Vienna Declaration.

Kenya: We can agree with this suggestion.

Chair: Let us now discuss the second paragraph as suggested by the Group of 21, which is a merger of PP4 and PP 5 of the Preamble.

Reaffirming the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, [sex], language, nationality, [or religion], [such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status; (PP5, PP4)

Cuba: I suggest the replacing of the word `principles` with the word `values` in the first line.

Mexico:

13 We have no objection to the proposal made by Cuba. In the last three lines of the text there appears to be an enumeration of grounds of discrimination as in the Declaration. The enumeration also corresponds with Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In line three I would like to suggest the deletion of the following `as to race, [sex], language, nationality, [or religion]`. The basis of the list should be Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

India: We support the suggestion made by Cuba to have the word `values` in the first line instead of the word `principles`.

We also support the proposal of Mexico of using the list of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Russian Federation: We should also think of CERD, which is an important convention, and should be the basis of the list. We should have a longer list of grounds of discrimination.

Cuba: We support the proposal made by Mexico to keep as close to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as possible with this list.

Canada: We agree with Cuba to stay as closely as possible to the list of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also, we would like to bring to the attention Paragraph 8bis of the Preamble of the Draft as before us, which discusses the same list as in the second paragraph as suggested by the Group of 21.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We should retain the reference to equality and non-discrimination. We are talking about relationships between individuals and States. These principles of non- discrimination are also laid down in CERD as well as other International Declarations and Treaties. Concerning the grounds of discrimination, we suggest to keep the list as close to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as possible.

Chair: A small informal group will address the lists that appear as well as in the Declaration as in the Programme of Action. This is a suggestion put forward by the Chair of the session on the Programme of Action. I suggest we keep the list as it is and come back to it when we have had a further discussion on the lists.

Kenya: We should just refer to the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We should also retain the word principal, since it has a strong connotation.

India: We should indeed refer to the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We can also discuss CERD and add it to the list.

Pakistan: I would like to see the list as laid down in CERD, added to the text. However, I do not insist on this and will go along with the proposal made by the Chair.

China:

14 When making a list it is advisable to refer to the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as much as possible. In the previous adopted first subparagraph, we have used Article 3 of the Preamble of the Vienna Declaration, which reaffirms the commitment made by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The current paragraph that we are discussing is an elaboration on equality and non- discrimination. That is why we believe that there is some redundancy in the paragraph. Is it necessary to refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Switzerland: We should keep the word `principles`, since it is recognized in international documents and in international law. On the list of grounds of discrimination, we should refer to the list of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Algeria: In this paragraph we have a list drawn up by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We think that we should have a additional list in paragraph 8bis, since that paragraph is a sort of basket paragraph. Any further listing than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should therefore be put in paragraph 8bis.

Cuba: We cab accept the use of the word `principles`. If we are to keep the list in the paragraph, than we should strictly use the list of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Chair: Can all delegations agree with using the list of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? No objections, than it is so decided.

Syria: The concerns of Sweden on behalf of the European Union can be covered by the next paragraph, which covers CERD.

India: We can accept the paragraph referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it now stands.

Chair: The adopted text will read as follows:

PP5, PP4 Reaffirming the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status;

Chair: Let us now consider the third paragraph as suggested by the Group of 21, which reads as follows:

Convinced of the fundamental importance of universal ratification or accession / adherence to and [faithful] implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as the principal international instrument to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; (PP5, PP8)

Canada: We have an addition to suggest at the end of the paragraph after related intolerance. The following should be added: `based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin`. These words come from Article 1 of CERD.

15 Switzerland: There is an intrinsic link between paragraph 8 and paragraph 9, 9bis and 9bis1. We propose to include paragraph 8 in these paragraphs.

Cuba: The proposal just made by the Swiss delegation is not acceptable to us. The paragraph is a separate paragraph for a reason. Also in line 2 of the paragraph, when we talk of legally binding documents, we should use the words `full compliance` instead of `full implementation`.

United States of America: In line two the word àccession` would be the right word the use, since we are referring to an international document. Also in line two the word `faithful` is not necessary as a word to have in this text. Concerning the word implementation, my delegation thinks it is the appropriate legal word. We suggest adding after the word ìmplementation` the words òf our obligations under`. We support the proposal of Canada to add the suggested words at the end of the text.

Iraq: We suggest the deletion of the word `adherence to`. Also the word `faithful` is harmless and therefore can be used in this text. We agree with using `full implementation`. We think that the proposal made by Canada is redundant, since CERD by itself has the title racial discrimination, so do we need to repeat it and add the suggested words of Canada? We think it is redundant to do so.

Kenya: This paragraph highlights the importance of CERD. We suggest inserting the word `full` instead of the word `faithful` in the text. We should also delete the word `adherence`.

Venezuela: So far the made statements seem to have a consensus. However, on the proposal of Canada, we believe that we should not prejudge paragraph 8bis. That paragraph goes further than the proposal of Canada, since it also comes from other Conventions than CERD. We do support the list of Canada, but this list should not be the same as the list of paragraph 8bis.

Cuba: We cannot agree with the proposal made by the United States of America. We can agree with using the word `full`, but not with adding the words `our obligation under`. This would undermine reservations made by States to International Conventions.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We support the deletion of the word `adherence`. We should delete both `faithful` and `full`, but change `our obligation under` into `the obligation under`. On the proposal made by Canada, grounds should preferably be inserted from CERD and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Pakistan: We would like to see the language somewhat simplified.

Brazil: We support the deletion of the word àdherence`, but insist on adding the word `full` before the word ìmplementation`. We can accept the list of Canada, since it is the CERD language taken into account. India: We support the deletion of the word àdherence` and can accept the use of `full` before the word ìmplementation`.

16 We do not have to make special reference to the grounds, since they are well known from CERD.

United States of America: We should replace the word `faithful` with the word `full`. We should keep in mind that CERD is directly binding and we would like to mention that the United States of America has made reservations to CERD, but still there are obligations to fulfil.

China: We agree with this paragraph as it stands as an independent paragraph. We should remove the word adherence`. Before the word `implementation` we should add `faithful` or `full`. This is important because without one of these words, it would give member States room for manoeuvres to not implement the Convention. Also, there is no need for a list in the paragraph.

Russian Federation: We support the previous speakers. We prefer the word `full` to be added before the word `implementation`. Concerning the proposal of Canada to have a list at the end of the paragraph, we would like to mention that the list does not contain all grounds of discrimination as laid down in Article 1 of CERD.

Kenya: In line 4 of the text we would like to see a reflection of the World Conference and therefore want to include the name of the World Conference to the text.

Chair: I suggest that we keep the paragraph pending and return to it later on. The text as we will leave it for the moment, reads as follows:

PP5, PP8 Convinced of the fundamental importance of universal accession or ratification to and full implementation of [the / our] obligations arising under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as the principal international instrument to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance [based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin];

Tuesday 29 May 2001 Morning Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

Chair: The Group of 21 has made a suggestion regarding paragraph 9bis, 9bis1 and 8bis1 of the Preamble. The Group agreed to a single paragraph bringing together all relevant international human rights instruments and their optional protocols. To this end, the Group of 21 submitted the following text for consideration:

Recognizing the fundamental importance of States signing, ratifying or acceding to international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [and its optional protocol,] the Convention on the Rights of the Child [and its two protocols] and the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance with a view to universal adherence;

Are there any comments on this paragraph?

Australia:

17 The objective of this paragraph of the Group of 21 was to get three paragraphs in to one paragraph. The listing in the paragraphs, however, is rather selective. The reference to quit a lot of other important international human rights instruments are missing, like for instance the Genocide Convention. My delegation proposes to simplify the paragraph and have a reference to human rights instruments as such, which prevents us from debate on which instruments to list in this paragraph.

Chair: Are there any objections to this proposal?

Cuba: As worded this paragraph refers to instruments. Maybe we should put the word àll` before international human rights instruments and than add after that the words ìn particular`, so that it reads àll international human rights instruments, in particular …`.

Brazil: We agree with using the generic form with regard to international human rights instruments.

Iraq: The suggestion made Cuba makes sense. We should highlight those instruments that particularly focus on the World Conference. The suggestion made by Cuba becomes even more reasonable, when we take into account that the degree of compliance of countries that are party to the instruments varies.

Chair: I suggest that we add the words `all relevant` before international human rights instruments in the text and put in brackets: `such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [and its optional protocol,] the Convention on the Rights of the Child [and its two protocols] and the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families`

So the text that we leave pending reads:

PP9bis, PP9bis1, PP8bis1 Recognizing the fundamental importance of States signing, ratifying or acceding to all relevant international human rights instruments [such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [and its optional protocol,] the Convention on the Rights of the Child [and its two protocols] and the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families] in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance with a view to universal adherence;

Let us now consider paragraph 10 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the paragraph where it is and in its present format. Are there any comments?

Cuba: We prefer using the language `Having taken note of` at the beginning of the paragraph.

India: We agree that `Having taken note of` is a better formulation.

Chair: If there are no objections to this wording than we will put it in the text. The text as we adopt it reads:

18 Having taken note of the reports of the regional conferences organized at Strasbourg, Santiago, Dakar and Tehran and other inputs from States, as well as the reports of expert seminars, NGO regional meetings and other meetings organized in preparation for the World Conference;

Let us now move on to paragraph 12 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the paragraph where it is and in its present format. I must say that `applauding` is a rather unusual wording for opening a text.

Syria: In meetings held earlier my delegation gave its view on this paragraph. We would have liked to positively welcome this statement by the president of South Africa. Unfortunately, this statement has not had consent of the members of the United Nations. That is why we have a problem with using the term `applauding`. Instead we propose to use the word `welcoming` or `Taking note of `, since not all governments have signed the text.

Cuba: We did not sign this statement, because it does not go far enough. We have no problem with the text as such. Also we have no problem with using the word `applauding`. However, we prefer using `Noting with appreciation`.

Syria: We cannot accept the proposal made by Cuba, because it does not move us further ahead. Kenya has told us that they would come up with a new text and we suggest that we wait for this new text.

Kenya: We indeed were supposed to come up with a new text, however, we decided later on to keep the text as it is. We agree with Cuba on their proposal.

Chair: I suggest that we add to the text of the paragraph `Noting with appreciation` and delete `Applauding`.

Syria: My delegation is sorry to hear that Kenya has not come up with a new text. We don not accept the wording `Noting with appreciation` , since so many States did not sign the statement. We ask for the wording to be put in square brackets.

United Arab Emirates: Maybe we should use a neutral reference.

Chair: I suggest that we put `Noting` and put square brackets around `with appreciation`.

Algeria: The proposal made by Cuba does not give a legal obligation, so we do not understand what the problem of Syria is with the proposal made by Cuba.

Chair: It is true that the proposal of Cuba does not entail a legal obligation. Can Syria with this knowledge accept the proposal of Cuba to put `Noting with appreciation`?

Syria: We cannot accept the text. More than a hundred States have not signed the statement. Therefore, we cannot say that we welcome this vision.

19 Chair: We will leave the square brackets as requested by Syria. The text as we will leave it pending for now, reads:

PP12 Noting [with appreciation] the Vision Statement launched by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa under the patronage of the Honourable Nelson Mandela, first President of the new South Africa, and at the initiative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary-General of the World Conference, and signed by 74 Heads of State, Heads of Government and Dignitaries;

Let us move on to paragraph 5bis1 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the text where it is and in its present format.

Australia: This paragraph is important to us and we want a strong endorsement of it. We would like to suggest a new order in the paragraph to improve the syntax of the text. We suggest using the word `Reaffirming` at the beginning of the paragraph. Also we should add the word `embraced`, so the text will read: `Reaffirming that cultural diversity is a cherished asset for the advancement and welfare of humanity at large to be embraced as a permanent feature of our societies`;

Chair: Are there any objections to this suggestion?

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union: We have no objections to rewording this paragraph as suggested by Australia, but we would like to enrich the text and thus we would like to insert the words `valued and enjoyed` after the word `embraced`. Also we would like to add after the word societies `which enriches our lives, our ideas, our creativity and our politics`.

Indonesia: My delegation goes along with the proposal of Australia. The proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union, however, is too wide and long.

India: I have two comments. The first one is that the object of `embrace` is not clear in the language as it stands. Therefore, I propose to put `and should be embraced`. I also wonder whether it is appropriate to refer to politics as suggested by Sweden on behalf of the European Union when we are talking about cultural diversity. Should it be in the text referred to as a permanent feature in our societies that is enjoyed?

Cuba: Diversity does not only entail cultural diversity, but also other forms. We can go along with the text as suggested by Sweden on behalf of the European Union.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union The World Conference should embrace cultural diversity and it should influence our politics to abolish discrimination.

Iran: We want to retain the text as it stands. The suggestion made by Australia would be putting aside the confusion that was felt. We should include the words `and should be embraced` as suggested by India. This paragraph was designed to primarily focus on cultural diversity. The addition of other spheres

20 does not help the idea behind this paragraph. Changes should be along the line of the setting as introduced by India.

China: We believe that the suggestion of India to put `and should be embraced` is more appropriate. Cultural diversity itself is an asset cherished for as the text reads. However, if we add other things such as the proposal made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union, than the concept of cultural diversity would be deluded. Therefore we support the suggestion made by India with regard to the proposal of Australia to have the word `embraced` in the text.

Chair: I suggest that we take up the suggestion of India and add to the text the words `and should be embraced` followed by `as a permanent feature which enriches our societies` and end the text there. Are there any objections?

Syria: I believe that the original text is simple, rational and more comprehensible. The proposal of India is acceptable, but the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union to add new elements to the text, takes us away from the emphasis on cultural diversity.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union The main point of the paragraph is that cultural diversity is advancement and should influence us in all aspects of our live. We can go along with the shorter version, but like to add `in all aspects and at all levels` at the end of the paragraph.

United Arab Emirates: We go along with the suggestion made by India. However, we would like to add that if you put `embrace` than you should also add `promote`, but we can go along with the suggestion of India and leave it at that.

Iran: The focus of the paragraph should be kept as much as possible. We also go along with the suggestion made by India. However, we would like to add `should be genuinely accepted and embraced`.

Algeria: We have a preference for the initial text, but we can accept the proposal of India. We go along without further additions.

Cuba: Listening in Spanish to the word `embrace`, the word does not come across. Perhaps we should use another word.

Chair: Can delegations accept `genuinely accepted and embraced`?

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union It should not just read `genuinely accepted`, but also `enjoyed`.

Chair: I suggest putting `genuinely accepted, enjoyed and embraced`.

Algeria: I think that the word `enjoyed` is a redundant addition to the text.

Chair:

21 I suggest that we end the paragraph at the word `societies` and leave out the proposals made by Sweden.

Syria: My colleague of Cuba says to have problems with the word `embrace`. We do not have to embrace and enjoy. We have to accept and nothing else.

Cuba: I would like to clarify why I have difficulties with the word `embrace`. When translated in Spanish it sounds vague and broad. Cultural diversity is so important it should be used explicit. The text as now amended is acceptable to me.

China: Cultural diversity is not to be enjoyed, it is a fact and therefore the wording is not appropriate. The word `valued` as suggested by Sweden on behalf of the European Union can be placed before the words `genuinely accepted`.

Chair: I suggest we take out the word `enjoyed` and put in the text the word `valued` as suggested by China, so it would read `valued and genuinely accepted and embraced`.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union Cultural diversity will influence society. We insist on keeping the language `in all aspects and at all levels` at the end of the paragraph.

Iraq: We have no objections to the proposed text. The last proposal of Sweden: on behalf of the European Union is acceptable.

Chair: I suggest a compromise. We keep `enjoyed` and delete the last part `in all aspects and at all levels`. With this change the text will read `should be valued, enjoyed and genuinely accepted and embraced`.

Iran: We can accept this suggestion.

Chair: If there are no objections than the paragraph is adopted and reads as follows:

PP5bis1 Reaffirming that cultural diversity is a cherished asset for the advancement and welfare of humanity at large, and should be valued, enjoyed, genuinely accepted, and embraced, as a permanent feature which enriches our societies;

Let us now consider paragraph 5bis3 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the text where it is and in its present format.

Looking at the text I would like to say that adjectives, such as `peremptory`, could weaken the text rather than strengthen it in legal terms.

Canada: I have a proposal for the last part of the paragraph`. After the word `law` we should add `of high priority`. Also instead of `peremptory` we should use `customary`.

United States of America:

22 This paragraph should be deleted entirely. It is not in our mandate top establish international law in this document. So, my delegation suggests deleting the paragraph or placing it in brackets.

Ethiopia: We agree that the word `peremptory` should be deleted.

Switzerland: We support the proposal made by Canada.

Russian Federation: We support the deletion of `peremptory`, but we find it difficult to accept the proposal made by Canada to use `customary`.

Denmark: This paragraph belongs in the Programme of Action.

Algeria: We believe that neither term is appropriate. The word `customary` does not fit here, because we have international instruments that refer to it so it is not customary law. Peremptory is not the case, because international instruments are signed by the international community and are not a general rule. We should just use the word `laws`.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union: This discussion shows that placement of the paragraph can be questioned. The purpose of the paragraph is not clear. We should move the paragraph to the Operative Paragraph part of the Declaration. Also we have reservations to the listing in the first line of the paragraph.

Kenya: We should delete the word `torture` and insert `slave trade` after `slavery`. This paragraph is general enough to fit in the Preamble of the Declaration.

Chair: There are general reservations on this paragraph. I suggest that we do not spend time on fine-tuning the text. I therefore suggest placing the paragraph in square brackets. The word `peremptory` has been questioned by several delegations. I suggest deleting this word. Also we should delete the word `torture` since it is not directly linked to racism. Slavery encompasses the slave trade, so we should leave the text in that respect as it is.

So the text that we leave pending reads as follows:

PP5bis3 [Acknowledging that the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, apartheid, and slavery are norms of international law from which no derogation is permitted;]

Let us now consider paragraph 11 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to delete the first part of this paragraph starting with `Having listened` and ending with `justice`, and to retain the second part, which would be redrafted during the negotiations. The following text was proposed:

Having listened to the peoples of the world and recognizing their aspirations to justice, equality of opportunity for all, to the enjoyment of their rights to development, to live in peace and freedom, and to equal participation in the cultural, economic, political and social life of their societies;

Are there any objections to this text?

23 Sweden: on behalf of the European Union

We should put in the text not just the `aspiration to justice …` but also enjoyment of human rights. So, we suggest inserting the word `human` before the word `rights`, so the text will read `enjoyment of their human rights and rights to development`.

India: In the text as proposed by the Group of 21, it should be `right to development`. We can accept the proposal made by Sweden.

Iraq: We have no objections to the text as proposed by the Group of 21, but we should use the correct order and put `economical, social, cultural and political rights`.

Cuba: At the end of the paragraph we should replace the words `of their societies` with `at the national and international level`.

Brazil: We can go along with these proposals.

Chair: I suggest putting the following: `Having listened to the people of the world and recognizing their aspirations to justice, equality of opportunity for all to the enjoyment of their human rights and the right to development, to live in peace and freedom, and equal participation in the economical, social, cultural and political life of their societies`

Russian Federation: Regarding the proposal made by Cuba, in paragraph 11bis the same idea is contained.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union The Millennium Declaration reads `for all and everyone`. We should insert this wording in the text.

Iraq: The text as suggested is acceptable to us.

Iran: We would like to endorse the proposal made by Cuba. We should make sure that the balance between the international and national level is kept. It is therefore quit relevant and justified to add `at the national and international level`. We have no objections to the proposal made by Iraq on the sequence in the last line of the paragraph, but we would just want to mention for the sake of consistency that we decide on one sequence. Also I we would like to recall that this matter was taken up in Vienna and they agreed on a specific sequence.

Chile: We support the proposal made by Cuba. As to the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union to add `for all and everyone^, we have no difficulty with this proposal. However, the word `everyone` is superfluous, because `for all` means also `individuality`.

United Kingdom: We support the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union.

24 There are two different areas where rights can be enjoyed, national and international. Paragraph 11bis raises this issue.

India: We accept the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union to put `all and everyone`.

Chair: I suggest we put the following in the text: `all and everyone` `at the national and international level` If we add this than we could delete paragraph 11bis. Also we should put the list in the last line in alphabetical order and not the order as proposed by Iraq.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union Paragraph 11 and 11bis each cover slightly different grounds. The words `without any discrimination` lack in paragraph 11, but are present in paragraph 11bis. We suggest putting the word `civil` before `cultural` in paragraph 11 in line 4.

Chair: We will consider paragraph 11bis later on.

Iraq: When we began discussing the text with the Group of 21, we wanted a new text for paragraph 11. Now we have a compromised text., We should order the list in the last line in accordance with the International Convention regarding economical, social and cultural rights. The word `civil` should be put before the word `political`.

Chair: We should indeed follow the order of the International Convention, however, for the present we will go with the alphabetical order.

Canada: I would like to propose adding the words `without discrimination` after `equal participants`.

Swaziland: We should begin the paragraph with the word `recognizing` instead of `Having listened to the peoples of the world`.

Chair: Using the words `Having listened to the peoples of the world` makes the text livelier, so I suggest keeping the present wording.

China: With regard to the proposal of Swaziland, I would like to say that my delegation supports it. We have no objection to adding the word `civil` in the last line of the text. How do we deal with paragraph 11bis? Some delegations suggested deleting it. If we do so we think that it would be wrong because it is a very important paragraph, because of the words `participation … in their domestic as well as global decision-making`.

Chair: The idea was to cover the concept of global decision-making by the addition of the words `the international level`. We will come to paragraph 11bis later on, but we first have to reach agreement on paragraph 11.

25 We welcome the proposal made by Swaziland. Also we should just have reference to social life and delete `civil`, because the latter is redundant. The sequence in the last line of the paragraph should be in accordance with the International Convention. We agree on this with Iraq.

Chair: In any event we should keep the same order in the Declaration and Programme of Action. It is something to take up in the editorial stage of the document. For now, we can change the order and check consistency throughout the document later on. So the text in the last line would read `economical, cultural, social and political`.

Egypt: We agree with China. The idea of global decision-making is an idea we must retain.

Sweden: On behalf of the European Union We have some minor amendments to make. We suggest inserting `without any discrimination`. Paragraph 11bis is redundant at this stage.

United Arab Emirates: Paragraph 11 and 11bis are different, especially on the issue of participation and decision-making. So it should be retained as a separate paragraph to highlight this.

Cuba: Decision-making is important, but we could include it at the end of paragraph 11. The text would than read ` at the national and international level, in particular in the decision-making process`.

China: There are two different concepts, global decision-making and decision. Making. If we add it at the end of paragraph 11, we should add the word `global` before the word `decision-making`.

Sweden: We request that the proposal made by Cuba is moved upwards in the text, so that it would read `including the participation in the decision- making process`.

Iran: We would like paragraph 11bis to be retained.

Chair: We will discuss these paragraphs further in the afternoon session.

We will now have a short plenary session:

I would like to welcome the Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa. We are grateful to her country to host the World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and to dedicate so much to the preparation of this World Conference. We need a lot of urging by the host country to work at a faster speed.

Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa: (Compilation) She would like to talk about the South Africa in the context of the World Conference. She wants to encourage everyone to participate enthusiastically in the upcoming World Conference. We need to confront Racism head on. Through actions, policies and laws we must create an environnement that makes racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance unacceptable. The Declaration and Programme of

26 Action will contain concrete measures to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Tuesday 29 May 2001 Afternoon Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

Chair: During the morning session we agreed to keep two separate paragraphs.

Cuba: We should leave out the words `of their societies` and keep the paragraph in general terms. So the paragraph should end with `political life`.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union: We should keep `of their societies` in the text, because it refers to the national level.

Cuba: There is no need to refer to national issues in the text.

Canada: In paragraph 11bis there is a referral to domestic issues. We should therefore keep paragraph 11 referring to international issues. We should keep `of their societies`

Chair: Since the merger of the paragraphs was not accepted we went back to the separate paragraphs and deleted in paragraph 11 the words `at the national and international level` and `decision-making`.

Iraq: If the amendment of Cuba is rejected, than how about the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union?

Algeria: If we separate the two paragraphs, than we go along. Regarding the words `of their societies`, it is pointless having these words in the text.

China: We agree with other delegations that the words `the national and international level` should be added to the text of paragraph 11.

Cuba: Insisting on the addition of the words `the national and international level` will be useless if there is no consensus on it. The right to development has a national and international level. We do not need these words added to paragraph 11 and therefore we suggest leaving them out of the text.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union With go along with Cuba on this matter.

Chair: Cuba suggests ending the paragraph after the words `political life`. Are there any objections to this suggestion? No, than the paragraph is so adopted and reads as follows:

PP 11 Having listened to the peoples of the world and recognizing their aspirations to justice, equality of opportunity for all and everyone, to the enjoyment of their human rights including the right to

27 development, to live in peace and freedom, and to equal participation without discrimination in the economic, social, cultural, civil and political life;

Paragraph 11bis of the Preamble; The Group of 21 agreed to retain the text where it is and in its present format. Any comments?

India: Paragraph 11bis deals with both the national and the international level. It is a good suggestion to keep paragraph 11 with the addition of these words.

Canada: In paragraph 11bis it is difficult to see what we are trying to get at. The text is not logical.

Australia: My delegation has problems with paragraph 11bis.

Barbados: The reason of this World Conference is because of the existing illogic in the World. It is a reality that people do not have the same participation.

Iraq: We should add the word `States` after the word `all` in paragraph 11bis.

China: The words `all peoples and nations` refer to the same thing, so I suggest deleting the word `all nations`.

Sweden: On behalf of the European Union Paragraph 11bis deals with both the domestic and international level. Therefore, we should put the individual perspective in the text by adding `everyone` before `all peoples`. We support Canada to keep the domestic aspect in the text and put `domestic and global affairs`.

Algeria: We should combine the two paragraphs 11 and 11bis. The first one is accepted. Paragraph 11bis should be considered in its link to paragraph 11. My delegation would therefore like to ask to retain paragraph 11bis as it was at the outset. We should not add the individual aspect to the text by putting `everyone`. The notion is already covered by the words `all peoples` in the text.

India: We should add the word `respectively` since it might be a solution to the problem of Canada.

Canada: It might solve the problem. We can add the word `respectively` at the end of the sentence after `decision-making`. We should replace the word `nations` with `States`, since nations cannot participate at the domestic level.

Australia: We need to keep the word `their` before the word `domestic` because people of one country cannot take part in domestic decision- making of other countries.

Russian Federation: It seems that at this stage we should already be accepting that there is no consensus. Also we would like to mention that States cannot exist without people.

28 India: I have concerns whether the paragraph can be justified logically. We suggest putting the following `The importance of equal access` before `equitable participation` and after `discrimination` putting `in the process of decision-making, respectively at the domestic as well as global levels`.

Iraq: When we introduce a paragraph we have to look at whether it can be implemented. The paragraph we have before can be implemented. However, we believe, that there is a preference to use `all peoples and States` and `in global decision-making`.

Brazil: We agree with the Russian Federation. The paragraph before is not a well-drafted paragraph. We should have something in line of paragraph 10 of the Vienna programme of Action.

Barbados: We support the suggestion of Iran. The word State cannot replace the word nations but the word nations can replace the word States.

United States of America: We support the Russian Federation. Perhaps it is best to have `peoples and States` in brackets and move on to the next paragraph.

Chair: There are many proposals made that take a long time to consider. So I suggest that we put brackets around the text and return to it later on.

Venezuela: Maybe we should have a small group of two or three delegations working on this paragraph because we are close to reaching consensus on it.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We agree with Venezuela. Chair: I suggest we put in the text the word `States` instead of the word `nations` and the word `respectively` at the end of the paragraph and put `peoples and States` in brackets.

Syria: The current text is close to consensus. I plea with the United States of America and the Russian Federation to go along with the text as it reads now with the added amendments.

Mexico: I agree with the proposal made by Venezuela to have a small group working on this paragraph.

United States of America: It is unclear in the paragraph whom we are identifying with the word participation in the text.

Chair: Let us now consider paragraph 4bis2 and paragraph 7bis2 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 considered the following two options:

(1) [[Considering] / [Expressing concern] that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are against the dignity of humankind constitute [flagrant] and [serious]

29 violations of human rights, offences to humanity, obstacles to friendly and peaceful relations among peoples and nations and are among the root causes of many internal and international conflicts, including armed conflicts, and that for the full enjoyment of human rights, which are indivisible and interdependent, national and international actions are required to improve the living conditions of men, women and children of all nations, at civil, political, economic, social and cultural level]; or

(2) [Considering] / [Expressing concern] that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are against the dignity of humankind constitute [flagrant] and [serious] violations of human rights, offences to humanity, obstacles to friendly and peaceful relations among peoples and nations and are among the root causes of many internal and international conflicts, including armed conflicts;

[Recognizing that national and international actions are required to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in order to improve the living conditions of men, women and children of all nations, at the civil, political, economic, social and cultural level];

Are there any comments?

Switzerland: I suggest we discuss part 1 of what the Group of 21 considered first. There is a crucial reference missing to `universal and interrelated`. We should use the Vienna Declaration to add this element tot the text.

India: We prefer to keep the second suggested paragraph. We suggest deleting the word `considering` and keeping the word `expressing concern`. Also we suggest the deletion of the word `and serious` in line three of the text, which is weaker in meaning than the word `flagrant`.

Algeria: We support the proposal of India to use the second text as suggested the Group of 21.

Switzerland: I’m willing to go along with keeping paragraph 2.

Iran: We can support the suggestion made by India with the amendment that we prefer to use the word `considering` instead of `expressing concern`.

Chair: I suggest the following in the third paragraph: `Recognizing that for the full enjoyment of human rights, which are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, national and international actions are required to combat racism racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in order to improve the living conditions of men, women and children of all nations, at the civil, political, economic, social and cultural level` This takes the Swiss proposal on board.

United Arab Emirates: I suggest using the word `considering` in the second paragraph. The proposal made by India captures the essence of what we are trying to convey.

Chair:

30 I suggest we take up the suggestions and start the second paragraph with the word `considering`. In the third paragraph we shall put the following order of words: `economic, social, cultural, civil and political level`.

Canada: We prefer not to have any qualifying term to the notion of human rights violations. So we suggest leaving out the word `flagrant` and `serious`. It is easier to describe it as serious, but they are not necessarily flagrant. In the third paragraph we suggest that the paragraph ends after the words `all nations`.

Chair: The word flagrant means obvious. This may exclude the non-obvious.

China: We support the proposal made by India to use the second text suggested by the Group of 21. The second paragraph is closer to the original text. We should use neither of the opening words, because they are not appropriate. We propose to use the word `Affirming`. Racism and racial discrimination are the result of policies and laws of States. In our view after the word `dignity` in the text, there should be a comma. After the word `nations` in the text there should also be a comma.

India: We should use either `considering` or `affirming` to open the text of the second paragraph. The concerns of Switzerland should be inserted lower in the text of paragraph three.

Chair: It will not change the substance very much, but it does make it read better.

Switzerland: We support the proposal of India to insert my proposal lower in the text of paragraph three.

Pakistan: Perhaps we should put brackets around the first paragraph. We support China in using the word `affirming` to open the text of the second paragraph. Concerning the words `flagrant` and `serious`, there is a hierarchy in international law. There is a difference and we have to respect that. During previous World Conferences, the Declarations referred to `serious` violations of human rights. The word flagrant causes problems.

Russian Federation: We have two amendments to make to the second paragraph. Intolerance is not in itself a violation of human rights without a certain action. So, after the word ìntolerance` the word àcts` should be added. Not all human rights violations are serious enough to be under the phrase as in the second paragraph. So, after the word `human kind` we should add ànd may constitute`.

Syria: Concerning the proposal made by Canada, we think that the word `flagrant` is appropriate, because violations are flagrant, serious violations. It is not enough to just call them serious. Why should we have a full stop after the word `all nations` as suggested by Canada? The word `reaffirming` would weaken the text, so we suggest not using that word to open the text of the second paragraph. We are not defining human rights so we should not add the proposal made by Switzerland.

Brazil: We suggest using the word `gross` instead of `flagrant`. We also suggest the deletion of all words after the word `nations` in the second paragraph.

31 We support to keep the second paragraph. We go along with using the word `considering`. We also agree with the Russian proposal that an act is necessary for intolerance for it to be a human rights violation. We should delete the words `flagrant` and `serious`.

Algeria: We should keep the word `flagrant` in the text. The second paragraph is prefect and should remain as it is. Also we do not agree with a full stop after the word `nations`.

Pakistan: Concerning the necessity of an act in order to speak of human rights violations, there is also the concept of intimidation in international law. Intimidation and threat are human rights violations. So we propose to put `acts of Racism`.

Chair: I suggest we add the word acts in brackets to the text after the word `intolerance`. We shall keep the word `flagrant` in square brackets.

China: India, among other delegations, agreed with our proposal to use the word `affirming`. So we insist on using this word as the opening word in the second paragraph. We have no problem with adding the word `acts` to the text. However, related intolerance includes acts, threats etc. The title of the World Conference also has related intolerance and not the word acts. However, on this issue we can be flexible.

Cuba: We should only put related intolerance and not the word `acts` in the text.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union The United Nations Commission on Human Rights uses the wording `among the most serious violations`. Maybe we should add this wording to the text.

Kenya: We cannot accept the new language suggested by Sweden on behalf of the European Union. If the Russian Federation does not insist on the word `acts` than we have fewer brackets in the text. We do not accept the word acts, because of the title of the World Conference and grammatically it also makes no sense.

Brazil: If we are to use the word `acts` than it should be added to text before the word `related intolerance`. Also we should use the word `flagrant` in the text, because it takes care more of the visible act of Racism. The text `among the most serious violations` suggested by Sweden on behalf of the European Union would change to much the idea behind the paragraph.

Canada: We have a preference for the description of violations. We agree on the gravity of violations. They are obstacles for peaceful relations. We agree with putting in the text `among the most serious violations`.

Iraq: We have no objection to the adoption of the second paragraph. We should use the wording `among the most serious violations`.

Russian Federation: We do not agree with using ` related intolerance acts`. The state of mind is also very important in this matter.

32 We also suggest putting `may constitute violations of human rights`.

Algeria: We accept the text as it now is with the brackets in place.

United States of America: There are not always violations of human rights. You do need to act on it. The word `acts` should be added to the text before the word `xenophobia`.

Syria: We need to keep the title of the World Conference as it is in the text and keep out the word `acts`. The suggestion of the Russian Federation to put `may constitute` is unacceptable to us. The proposal made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union to use the wording of the UN Commission on Human Rights is also unacceptable to us. The use of the word `flagrant` is appropriate in the text. Therefore we should keep it in the text.

Kenya: We cannot agree with the proposal made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union and the proposal made by the Russian Federation. So we request that they are put in brackets. Also put in brackets the words `affirming` and `flagrant`.

Chair: I suggest that we delete the word `considering` and put the word `affirming in brackets. The texts we leave pending read as follows:

PP4bis2 and PP7bis2 [Affirming] that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance [ acts] are against the dignity of humankind, [may] constitute [flagrant/most serious] violations of human rights, offences to humanity, obstacles to friendly and peaceful relations among peoples and nations and are among the root causes of many internal and international conflicts, including armed conflicts;

Recognizing that, national and international actions are required to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in order to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights, which are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and to improve the living conditions of men, women and children of all nations [at the economic, social, cultural, civil and political level];

Let us now consider paragraph 13bis2 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 have agreed to retain the text where it is and in its present format and to move it up, after PP4bis2. An alternative proposal, which was discussed, remains inconclusive. This alternative proposal reads as follows:

`Bearing in mind that the adequate and clear resolution of the problems caused by racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and practices, which occurred in the past, could contribute to the prevention of the recurrence of such policies and practices and to friendship and peaceful relations among peoples and nations`;

Canada: South Africa suggested deleting the text. It is difficult to speak of past problems and use the word `would contribute` instead of `could contribute`.

Mexico: The topics, which have developed over the past few years, are going to characterize the upcoming World Conference. South Africa would try to identify these present phenomena. The question of

33 Xenophobia does not appear to be reflected in earlier Declarations like the ones of 1975 or 1983. However, later on it was recognized as one of the contemporary forms of discrimination, which is of greatest concern to the international community. In the Declaration and Programme of Action we have a series of references to xenophobia. We do not have it in the preamble. It is essential to have a specific reference to the scourge, which distinguishes this World Conference from the previous two. ¨Therefore we would like to submit on behalf of a number of countries a new paragraph before paragraph 13bis2, which reads as follows:

`Considering that xenophobia, in its different manifestations, is one of the main contemporary forms of discrimination and requires urgent attention of the international community`;

Chair: Are there any reactions to this proposal?

Turkey: We support the proposal made by Mexico.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We also support the proposal made by Mexico. We should not only put the emphasis on the international community but also on States. So we suggest adding `States` before `international community`.

Argentina: We fully endorse the proposal made by Mexico.

United States of America: We also support the proposal made by Mexico. We would like to suggest replacing `contemporary forms` with `sources of discrimination`. This way the legal connotation of discrimination is present in the text.

Ecuador: We support the proposal made by Mexico and agree with Sweden on behalf of the European Union to add a reference to States.

Cuba: We support the proposal made by Mexico and the suggestion made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union. However, we do not agree with the amendment of the United States of America.

India: We support the proposal made by Mexico and the suggestion made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union and go along with the suggestion made by the United States of America.

China: We support the proposal made by Mexico.

Switzerland: We support the proposal made by Mexico and the suggestion made by Sweden on behalf of the European union.

Iran: We suggest replacing the word `considering` with the word `acknowledge` in the proposal made by Mexico. We also suggest adding the following to the text suggested by Mexico: `combating of which requires urgent attention and prompt action of States as well as the international community`

34 United States of America: We support Sweden on behalf of the European Union and suggest putting `sources `or `forms`. So the text would read `one of the main sources or forms of discrimination`.

Syria: We accept the proposals made by Mexico, Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Iran and the United States of America.

Chair: The text suggested by Mexico, which we adopt with slight amendments, reads as follows:

New PP Acknowledging that xenophobia, in its different manifestations, is one of the main contemporary sources and forms of discrimination and conflict, combating of which requires urgent attention and prompt actions of States as well as the international community;

The remaining time will be given to the NGOs to make their statements.

Women Caucus: (summary) Wishes to recall the general recommendations on gender issues of the Committee against all forms of Discrimination. Reminds the Preparatory Committee that there are certain situations in which only women are racially discriminated against and not men.

Roma Centre: (summary) Have several proposals: To add a new paragraph concerning Roma after PP11bis2 To add in PP13bis the word `anti-Romatism` To add in PP9 the words `Roma, Sinti and travellers`

Afro American and Caribbean Alliance: (summary) Stressing the need for a section on African descent in the Declaration and Programme of Action. Reminds the Preparatory Committee that this group has been invisible for so long. Stresses that reparation for damages must be made. This World Conference should ensure that, what the Afro descendants have endured, will not be endured by others in the future. Asks States for a real commitment to take action.

Asia Pacific NGO Caucus: (summary) Stresses the need for four important issues to be discussed by the Preparatory Committee. (1) Caste: -vulnerability to violence -it is a form of Apartheid -It is a distinct form of racism -it should be included in the Declaration and Programme of Action

(2) Globalisation: -destroys opportunities of affirmative action by States -continuing dominance of European originated cultures

(3) Foreign occupation: -leads to violence -some of the worst forms of racism as direct result of State policies

(4) Minorities: - denial of political power

35 -denial of land -there should be equal treatment in language -right to self-determination

Stresses that racial discrimination is mainly about vulnerability. Urges a repeal of legislation that deprives minorities of their basic rights.

NGO Caucus Working Group on Migrations and Xenophobia: (summary) Urges States to adopt protective laws for migration, refugees, asylum seekers and displaced persons. Urges States to remove all reservations made to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and to ratify all international instruments on the protection of human rights.

Wednesday 30 May 2001 Morning Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

Chair: I will first give the floor to several NGOs to make their statement.

Caucus on Sexual Orientation: (summary) There is a link between sexual orientation and race. Homosexuals are prosecuted across the world. The United Nations has so far remained silent on this issue. In Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states: `All human beings`. The upcoming World Conference is the first World Conference that includes related intolerance. The United Nations is set out to protect the vulnerable people in the world. Gays and lesbians need to be protected, because they are also vulnerable. They suffer from multiple discrimination.

Caste Caucus: (summary) Caste discrimination is an extreme form of discrimination. There is not a single mention of this problem in the Draft Declaration and Programme of Action. Therefore this caucus proposes a few revisions. They say that under the heading `victims` a new paragraph is needed that addresses this issue of Caste discrimination.

Chair: Let us continue on the Preamble of the Draft Declaration, paragraph 13bis2.

Iran: Through consultations with other delegations we have come up with a new text we would like to submit as replacement of paragraph 13bis2:

`Affirming that identification and acknowledgement of the sources, causes and manifestations of racism and racial discrimination such as colonialism, slavery and slave trade, which have been pursued in the past and their resolution are crucial to the prevention of recurrence of such policies and practices as well as attitudes and tendencies emanating from these evils and thus in saving the present and future generations from suffering and deprivation of all human rights thereof `;

Brazil: We were not aware of this new proposal of Iran. This proposal has a few important issues that are being addressed. However, there is also repetition, because the new paragraph before paragraph 13bis2 we discussed, also addresses the peaceful relations among peoples and nations.

36 The proposal of Iran could be a lot better than the current paragraph 13bis2. We therefore prefer to work on the Iranian proposal.

Chair: I suggest we place the current paragraph 13bis2 as proposed by the Group of 21 in brackets.

PP13bis2 [Bearing in mind that the adequate and clear resolution of the problems caused by racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and practices, which occurred in the past, could contribute to the prevention of the recurrence of such policies and practices and to friendship and peaceful relations among peoples and nations];

We will also put the paragraph as suggested by Iran as a new PP13bis2 and put the paragraph in brackets.

New PP13bis2 [Affirming that identification and acknowledgement of the sources, causes and manifestations of racism and racial discrimination such as colonialism, slavery and slave trade, which have been pursued in the past and their resolution are crucial to the prevention of recurrence of such policies and practices as well as attitudes and tendencies emanating from these evils and thus in saving the present and future generations from suffering and deprivation of all human rights thereof];

Let us now consider paragraph 7bis1 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the text where it is and in its present format.

Do we have agreement on this paragraph or is there opposition to it?

Palestine: We ask for removal of the brackets.

Guatemala: We want removal of the text. This paragraph ahs no place in the Declaration concerning the upcoming World Conference. Settlements do not necessarily have anything to do with racism. The same counts for occupation.

Switzerland: I suggest the addition of `A source, a course, a form of racism` to the text.

United States of America: We will probably not receive consensus on this matter. So, I propose to leave the brackets and move on to the next paragraph.

Egypt: The brackets should be removed. Occupation is very much related to racism. We are dealing with settlement in occupied territories.

Cuba: The paragraph is political in nature. This subject is linked to the upcoming World Conference. We will have to take a political decision at some point. We ask for retention of the paragraph. We would like to add text to the paragraph. After the word `settlers` we would like to add `in occupied territories`. This subject is of great importance to the World Conference in Durban.

Chair: I suggest that we retain the paragraph In square brackets and return to it later on.

37 Guatemala: My delegation has never passed judgement on the position of another delegation. We want Cuba to be called to order.

Cuba: We are here to have a discussion. Any judgement is a valued judgement by definition.

United Arab Emirates: The brackets should be removed. This is a very important paragraph. It is not a political statement. Occupation is de-humanisation. Many of the rights of the people living in these occupied territories are being denied. We are talking about universal international law and the violation thereof.

Saudi Arabia: This is an issue of paramount importance. It is directly relevant to the World Conference. We are discussing a political issue. Let us not forget that we are working towards a world without discrimination.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union: We feel that this paragraph should remain in brackets and that proposals to this paragraph should be dealt with in a separate format and that we should proceed with the next paragraph.

Iraq: Settlements are the result of occupation. They have discriminative sectors, which cannot be denied. We must condemn foreign occupation.

Syria: Settlements are one of the harshest forms of discrimination. People can be erased from the world by it. We must retain this paragraph without the square brackets.

China: We support the statement made by Syria. It is a highly sensitive issue. We are of the view that settlement constitutes violations of human rights. China has experienced foreign occupation. We support Cuba in adding `in occupied territories` to the text. We want the brackets removed.

Palestine: The subject in the paragraph is extremely important. It is very closely linked to racism and racial discrimination. This paragraph speaks of one cause of racism, the foreign occupation through settlement. Foreign occupation goes hand in hand with racial discrimination. The paragraph must be retained.

Qatar: We support the previous speakers and ask for the removal of the brackets. The rights of peoples in occupied territories are being denied.

Iran: We want the retention of the paragraph and the brackets removed. In this document there is a great range of important issues, which are political to different degrees. We should not treat each paragraph differently.

Sudan: We ask for removal of the square brackets and adoption of the paragraph as it stands now. Foreign occupation by settlement is a flagrant form of racial discrimination.

Australia:

38 We ask for the retention of the paragraph with square brackets and would like to move on to the next paragraph.

Norway: We agree to keep the paragraph in square brackets and move on.

Jordan: There is a direct link with racial discrimination. We should therefore keep the paragraph.

Algeria: Paragraph 20 of the Declaration of more than 20 years ago refers to the Palestinian territory. In 1983 this subject was referred to much more general. The current form would be a good paragraph for the current times and therefore it should be retained.

Eritrea: We agree with Palestine.

Tunisia: This paragraph should be retained and the brackets removed. We would also like to mention that the entire World Conference and its work are highly political.

Israel: We have shown our willingness to work on the recommendations of the Mitchell Commission, which is currently making recommendations on the situation between Israel en the Palestinian territories. Any discussion on this subject does not regard the World Conference. The text has no place in the Declaration and we therefore ask for it to be at least placed in brackets.

Brazil: It seems that no consensus will be emerging, so we suggest keeping the paragraph in brackets and moving forth to another paragraph.

Chair: Let us retain the brackets around the paragraph and return to it later on.

PP7bis1 [Reaffirming that colonization by settlers and foreign occupation constitute sources, causes and forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance];

We will now return to the new paragraph 13bis2 as suggested by Iran.

Can the paragraph be agreed on as it reads now?

Iraq: We fully endorse the entire paragraph.

United States of America: Our position is that paragraph 13bis2 is a better paragraph as amended by Canada. So we do not support the present reading of the paragraph.

39 United Kingdom: We had no opportunity to discuss this paragraph with the Western Group. The issues in this paragraph are issues, which occur throughout the text and have quit severe sensitivity. It is the preference of our delegation that this paragraph is placed in brackets and that we deal in a comprehensive way with the issues addressed in the paragraph.

Cuba: We cannot agree with the proposal of Canada. The proposal of Iran should be selected. Necessarily the paragraph proposed by Iran can be placed in brackets.

Pakistan: The mandate of the Working Group is drafting and not brainstorming. We should move on from the controversial issues. We should have discussions on the core issues and if no consensus than place the text in brackets, but not in cold storage from the start.

Australia: We have difficulties with the text because of the lack of clarity. The resolution of problems will not necessarily prevent them from happening again in the future. There are several concepts in the proposal of Iran we can pick up and add to the original text.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We should have a separate group to deal with the sources and causes of discrimination.

Saudi Arabia: We should discuss proposals before we put the whole paragraph in brackets.

Canada: The focus of this paragraph should be on prevention. So we prefer not to have the word `resolution` in the text.

Venezuela: We prefer the proposal of Iran. In the list we could also add the word `enslavement` in line three of the proposal of Iran.

Korea: We also prefer the proposal of Iran. My delegation cannot accept the proposal of Canada and Australia and want those proposals in brackets.

Switzerland: We have no problem with the proposal of Iran.

Cuba: This paragraph will without any doubt not reach consensus at this moment. So we better keep it pending and move on to the next paragraph.

Chair: Reaching consensus on this paragraph is not impossible. We could even merge the original text with the proposal of Iran. Perhaps a smaller group could meet and discuss how to blend the two paragraphs together.

India: My delegation can accept the proposal of the Group of 21 or the proposal of Iran. We recognize the sensitivities. We should however, not rush through the paragraph.

40 We have a comment on the proposal of Sweden on behalf of the European Union to set up another working group. We do not have enough people in some delegations to have several small groups working on issues.

Latvia: We support the proposal of Canada. The list of sources, causes etc. listed in the proposal of Iran are not complete. We therefore suggest a more general text as in in the original paragraph 13bis2.

United Arab Emirates: We fully support the proposal of Iran. The scope for agreement is much greater than the differences. We should try and work something out.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We have a request from the Working Group on the Programme of Action on how to deal with the issues dealt with in paragraph 13bis2.

Pakistan: The issues dealt with in the paragraph are extremely important. The proposal of Iran is very constructive and we will accept it as it is.

Cuba: Perhaps we should have a small group that works on a merger of the original paragraph 13bis2 and the proposal made by Iran. We suggest the addition of `servitude against indigenous peoples` in the text.

Mexico: Paragraph 3 of the Santiago Declaration should be taken into account when putting the two paragraphs together. After `slave trade` we suggest adding `and other forms of servitude` in the proposal made by Iran.

Chair: I suggest a small working group to merge the two paragraphs together. We will come back to these paragraphs later on.

PP13bis2 [Bearing in mind that the adequate and clear resolution of the problems caused by racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and practices, which occurred in the past, could contribute to the prevention of the recurrence of such policies and practices and to friendship and peaceful relations among peoples and nations];

If there is no objection, let us than now move on to paragraph 13bis of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain this paragraph with some minor editorial changes. The new text as suggested reads as follows:

`[Fully aware that, despite efforts undertaken by the international community, Governments and local authorities, the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, religious intolerance, anti-Arabism, anti- Semitism. Islamophobia, Negrophobia, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance continue to result / persist in violations of basic human rights, in suffering, disadvantage and violence, which must be combated

41 by all available and appropriate means and as a matter of highest priority, preferably in cooperation with affected communities]`;

The paragraph is in brackets and has a list of forms of discrimination and intolerance. I suggest that we do not discuss the list, since there is a Working Group working on the list. Setting the list aside, are there any comments?

Cuba: We want the brackets and the list removed from the text. Once there is a new list, we can add it to the text. Also in line 4 of the text instead of the word `persist` we suggest using the word `result`.

Brazil: We support the proposal of Cuba. We would also like to propose a new paragraph before paragraph 13bis.

Chair: We should first sort out this paragraph 13bis and than come back to your proposal.

Mexico: The idea concept behind this paragraph is that the international community and States have made efforts to combat these evils, but despite these efforts the evils still exist. We need a systematic approach to the text. We agree with the proposal of Cuba. This paragraph does not have the purpose of listing the victims. We should keep the basic idea behind the paragraph and delete the list.

Chair: I suggest we put brackets around the list, not the whole paragraph. Can we agree to deal with the paragraph in this way?

Iran: The list of victims is very long. We agree with Cuba and Mexico to withdraw the list. It would be better to wait for the results of the small Working Group working on the list of victims.

Kenya: We agree with Cuba. We suggest putting `persist and continue to result in` in line 4 of the text.

Chair: We agree with deleting the list in line 3 of the text.

Iran: We have no objections to the paragraph, but suggest replacing `basic` in line 5 by `all` before the words `human rights` since all human rights should be protected.

Chair: Maybe we should pet human rights and place nothing before the words.

Israel: We should bracket the list pending the result of the Working Group working on the list.

United States of America: We agree with Israel on the list.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We agree with Israel and the United States of America.

Mexico:

42 If the list is retained, we would like to add the groups listed in paragraph 10bis. However, we do think that there should not be a list in the paragraph at all.

Chair: The list is being dealt with in a special Working Group. So we are not going to discuss it here. We can put the current list in brackets.

Cuba: What the delegate of Mexico said is quit right. We should keep the list, but keep it pending. So merely put the list in brackets while we wait for a new list. The current list is unacceptable to us.

China: We agree with Mexico and Cuba. We should have a list, but wait for the new list. The current list should be deleted. We agree with deleting the word `basic` in line 5 of the text. After the word `human rights` we should add `fundamental freedoms`. This is often done in international human rights instruments.

Mexico: We want a rational solution for this paragraph. The proposal made by Cuba seems reasonable. However, we do insist on having all groups in the list.

Chair: I suggest that we endorse the proposal made by Cuba. So in line 3 we will add a footnote and immediately under the paragraph we will put the following words `list is to be determined`.

India: Do we need a list in the text? My delegation can go along with the indication of a possible list later on.

United States of America: We have no objection to the footnote, but there is no consensus on removal of the current list. We propose to reinsert it with brackets and a footnote.

Algeria: Either we have a complete list or we wait for the Working Group and sort it out later on. We support not to have a list in the paragraph at all. My delegation does not understand why we have eliminated `religious intolerance` from the text. It is not part of the list and should be left in.

Chair: So, we will put the initial list back in the text with a footnote.

PP 13bis Fully aware that, despite efforts undertaken by the international community, Governments and local authorities, the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, [*] xenophobia and related intolerance persist and continue to result in violations of human rights, in suffering, disadvantage and violence, which must be combated by all available and appropriate means and as a matter of the highest priority, preferably in cooperation with affected communities;

* The original proposal reads as follows: [religious intolerance, anti-Arabism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Negrophobia] A list is being discussed.

Wednesday 30 May 2001 Afternoon Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

43 Chair: I will first give the floor to the NGOs.

Indigenous Caucus: (summary) An appeal is made for indigenous people to get more respect. They are people with their own languages, customs etc. They remind all governments that diversity and recognition of differences between people do not harm the world.

Latin American NGO Caucus: (summary) They ask the delegations to not place square brackets around everything in Durban. The significance of the World Conference is basically being questioned. There needs to be compensation and reparation for certain groups. They urge States not to put Durban in square brackets.

Media Caucus: (summary) The point out that there is a lack of interest in the World Conference. They hope that governments will urge national news agencies to give news on the World Conference as full as possible.

Arab Caucus: (summary) They raise two key issues concerning the Declaration and Programme of Action. (1) Language of the document: issues on all Palestinians should be covered. (2) The concerns of all Caucuses should be endorsed. The Caucuses should have a voice in the context of language in the Declaration.

Chair: Let us resume our work. The result of the deliberations of the small working group on paragraph 13bis2 has brought us back to square one, unfortunately. The paragraphs are still and will remain in square brackets and we will move on to other paragraphs.

Iran: My delegation regrets that the small Working Group was not able to solve the matter concerning paragraph 13bis2. The issue is too important to not have a paragraph on.

Chair: Let us now consider paragraph 13bis1. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the text where it is and in its present format. Are there any comments on this paragraph? If there are no objections, than the text is adopted and reads as follows:

PP13bis1 Noting with concern the continued and violent occurrence of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and that theories of superiority of certain races and cultures over others, promoted and practiced during the colonial era, continue to be propounded in one form or another even today;

On paragraph 13bis3 of the Preamble the Group of 21 agreed to retain the text where it is and in its present format. Are there any comments on paragraph 13bis3?

Sweden: On behalf of the European Union We have a suggestion for new text to add to the paragraph. There is a significant overlap between paragraph 13bis1 and paragraph 13bis3. We suggest merging elements of these two paragraphs. The proposed new text reads: `Alarmed by the continued emergence of racism as growing phenomenon and their banalised and contemporary forms of racial discrimination including subtle manifestations inter alia based on

44 ideologies or theories of supposedly insurmountable cultural differences between groups. Theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races should be rejected`

Barbados: This paragraph refers to racism in a more subtle and contemporary form. This paragraph is critical to keep in the text.

Egypt: We have already adopted paragraph 13bis1. Should we consider a merger?

Cuba: There is a real difference in time and objective between the two paragraphs. So we do not want a merger.

United Arab Emirates: We fully support Cuba and Egypt. Paragraph 13bis1 has already been adopted. So we should not have a merger of the two texts.

Russian Federation: It is logical to merge the two paragraphs. We agree with Sweden on behalf of the European Union.

Kenya: We want to leave paragraph 13bis1, since we have already adopted it.

Chair: The text is at referendum and can be reopened at plenary.

Brazil: We want the last phrase of the original text retained.

Cuba: We suggest a rewording of the words `practices based on` after the word `manifestations`.

Switzerland: We agree with Sweden on behalf of the European Union on the increase of the discrimination phenomenon especially in Europe. In the last sentence we suggest the words `so called distinct` instead of `separate human races`.

Barbados: The text of Sweden on behalf of the European Union does not contain what is contained in the original paragraph 13bis3. The text of Sweden on behalf of the European Union speaks of something else than the original text. We find the text as proposed redundant.

India: The more subtle and contemporary forms of Racism are missing in the proposed text. Also there are differences with the original text. The claimed superiority of certain groups is also not completely addressed. The text is not completely acceptable to us.

China: We agree with the comments made by India and Barbados. The ideas in the original text are quit different. The focus is on the subtle and contemporary forms of racism. This idea we do not see in the proposed text. Also the word combination `continued emergence` has a different meaning than just the word ` emergence`. Furthermore, the word `banalised` gives a unclear impression. We prefer the original wording of paragraph 13bis3, which we think is much clearer.

45 Iran: The original text of paragraph 13bis3 seems straightforward, clear and concise.

Uruguay: We support the retention of the original paragraph 13bis3. Paragraph 13bis1 has already been adopted and a merger of paragraph 13bis3 with paragraph 13bis1 is unacceptable to us at this point. Paragraph 13bis3 refers to new contemporary forms of racism and paragraph13bis1 refers to continued forms of racism from the past.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We are very attached to the elements in our proposal. We respect the adoption of paragraph 13bis1. Also, it is not just an emergence of racism, but also a continued occurrence, which gives more cause to be alarmed. The last sentence of our proposal can be a new paragraph after paragraph 13bis3. So, we suggest adding `emergence and continued occurrence` and the word `manifestations` after `contemporary forms` in the original paragraph 13bis3.

Brazil: We see a problem in the paragraph as it now stands with the amendments made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union. There needs to be a comma after the word `manifestations`. We also need to add `as well as` in the text. So the text would read `and manifestations, as well as by other ideologies`.

Uruguay: We should not add `continued occurrence` to the text, because it constitutes a problem in its translation into the Spanish.

Chair: For the time being I suggest we put `continued occurrence` in square brackets. I also suggest we leave paragraph 13bis3 as it stands now. The text we leave pending reads as follows:

PP13bis3 Alarmed by the emergence [and continued occurrence] of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in their more subtle and contemporary forms and manifestations, as well as by other ideologies and practices based on racial or ethnic discrimination or superiority;

Let us take a look at the suggestion made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union to have the last sentence of their proposal added after paragraph 13bis3.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union The last sentence reads as follows: `Strongly rejecting theories which attempt to determine the existence of so called distinct human races`

Ecuador: In principal we do not have a problem with the text, but we have some doubts. Academic theories and the existence thereof, should not necessarily be condemned. It may not be propagating racial discrimination.

Chair: I would like to remind delegates that we are here against racism, not to justify racism.

Iran: We would like some further explanation on the question that this paragraph attempts to address.

46 We are happy to explain our proposal. There are new emerging groups that say to have superiority over other human races.

Iran: Having listened to the explanation, we have no problem with this text.

Chair: We will leave the text as it is and return to it later on. The text we leave pending reads as follows:

[PP13bis6 (new) Strongly rejecting theories which attempt to determine the existence of so called distinct human races;]

We will now consider paragraph 15bis1 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain the text where it is and in its present format.

Cuba: What is the source of the paragraph? The paragraph seems rather weak. We need to change its wording. We should add something on impunity. The current text does not keep up with developments.

Chair: The source of the paragraph is the Group of 21. Any amendments to it are welcome.

Cuba: We will have to hold consultations first and come back to the paragraph later on with proposals. Chair: Do other delegations agree?

Syria: We have great respect for Cuba, but if we can address it now and adopt it that would be better. It is a short and clear text. We should just adopt it.

Cuba: After the word `combat` we suggest adding `racism` and after the word `xenophobia` we suggest adding `related intolerance`.

Russian Federation: We have one addition to the text We suggest adding `and denounce` after `to combat`.

Iran: We should improve the language of the text. After the word `politicians` we should add às well as groups and individuals`. The word èspecially` should be deleted. We support the addition of ànd denounce` to the text.

Chair: The situation is more serious when there is a failure by public authority or politicians than by individuals. Therefore we should use the word `especially` so all groups are referred to, but the word especially indicates that it is more serious when it is a failure of public authorities and politicians.

United Arab Emirates: We should add `reluctance or failure` after the word `that` in line 1 and add `civil society and individuals` after the word `politicians`.

47 Eritrea: We agree to have a referral in the text to civil society.

United States of America: We support the chair on his view that the situation is more serious when it is a failure of public authorities and politicians. Everyone’s failure is mentioned in the text, but the failure of public authorities and politicians means much more. We should keep the text as drafted.

Chair: The educational system can be added as particular responsibility.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union Some actors in society have more responsibility than others. We welcome a separate paragraph on civil society and their combat against racial discrimination.

Chair: I suggest we add `reluctance and failure` to the text. I suggest adding the words `racism` and `related intolerance` and `and the educational system` to the text.

China: The formulation of this paragraph was rather weak. Now we have made it strong. Public authorities, however, is still not a clear wording. We should also refer to governments at the local level. We suggest putting `by State and or other public authorities`.

United Arab Emirates: If we leave the words `civil society` out of the text it will weaken the text. Also, in many States the educational system is in hands of the State. Where does civil society fit in here?

Venezuela: We should leave the paragraph as it is with the referral to public authorities and politicians. We can have a separate paragraph on civil society if necessary. We should not include anything relating to the educational system or civil society. Also we should not add the word `denounce`, because we need to combat.

Chair: Let us just add the words `by all` after `failure` so we have a clearer text and leave it at that.

Iran: We suggest `by all sectors of society including groups and individuals and in particular States and all other public authorities and politicians`. The reality is that public authorities and politicians are not the only two who perpetuate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Maybe ewe should delete `in society` and stop after the word `perpetuation`.

Switzerland: We should go back to the original spirit of the paragraph. To put the perpetuation of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the shoulders of politicians and public authorities we could put `especially by State authorities at all levels`. We should have a separate paragraph on civil society.

Tunisia: We still have a preference for the paragraph as originally worded. We can have a separate paragraph on civil society.

48 Australia: All actors of society failed to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Some actors however, do make efforts to combat. So not all sectors of society have failed. We suggest replacing `politicians` with `public institutions`.

Chair: I suggest placing square brackets around `all actors of society including groups and individuals`.

Cuba: We need to focus on public authorities and politicians. We accept the paragraph with the words as mentioned by the chair in square brackets.

Mexico: The paragraph puts into question the seriousness of our work. We added new text. We have at least four paragraphs that address the same issue of failure of several actors to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. We can blame virtually everyone for failing to combat. So the original proposal of our delegation was to delete the paragraph. At this point we have no opinion on the paragraph.

Venezuela: We should leave the text as proposed by the chair and move on and come back to it alter.

Chair: Since we will have a paragraph later on in the document on civil society, can Iran go along with deleting the words `civil society` from the current text?

Iran: We should not turn a blind eye on all the actors. There is a vigorous attempt to have a balance. We need to have a reflection of all actors. However, we are willing to accept the proposal of the chair. The word `by all` should be in the text without brackets`.

Pakistan: We can go long with the original text that was proposed on this paragraph. The proposal of Iran makes good sense, but since they agreed to the current text we will not go back to it.

Brazil: We agree with Latin America that by adding new concepts we have altered the concept of the original paragraph. The words `by all` are implicit and not necessary. We suggest adding `institutions` after `public authorities`. That would add positively to the list.

India: The responsibility lies with the public authorities. We would have accepted the original text. However, we can also accept the current text with the words `by all`.

Chair: Can we now adopt paragraph 15bis1? The text is adopted and reads as follows:

PP15bis1 Recognizing that failure to combat and denounce racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance by all, especially by public authorities and politicians at all levels is a factor encouraging their perpetuation;

49 Let us now consider paragraph 9 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed on a single paragraph covering all the victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Concerning the list of victims we have already noted that an informal group is working on the list. So we are not going to discuss the list. In line 5 of the text we have to opt for either `should` or `must`.

United Arab Emirates: In line 3 we suggest the deletion of `documented and undocumented` and adding to the text `migrant workers`.

Chair: I suggest that you take these comments to the Working Group working on the list.

Canada: We prefer `should` rather than `must`. Instead of the words `these groups` we suggest putting `they`.

India: This paragraph is all about the list. We need the list, so we suggest putting the entire paragraph in brackets and returning to it when we have the list. We do agree with Canada on the word `should`. We suggest the deletion of the words `important actors` for all must enjoy equal rights. So we suggest putting `and should recognize that the enjoyment of their civil …`.

Uruguay: We have no objection to the paragraph. We would like to note that migrants coming to Uruguay are both documented and undocumented.

Brazil: We have a specific proposal to make on this paragraph. In line 5 after `should` we suggest adding àpply a perspective which recognizes the intersection of gender and race as well as other factors`. We suggest the deletion of ànd must also proceed on the basis that these groups are important actors`. The last sentence should be reformulated into ènjoyment of these groups of their … rights etc.`.

Chair: I suggest we insert `should` and delete `must`. Also I suggest putting square brackets around the list and adding a footnote and putting square brackets around `important actors`. We will consider the text further in our next Session on Thursday morning.

Thursday 31 May 2001 Morning Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

Chair: I will first give the floor to several NGOs.

Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru: (summary) They urge the Preparatory Committee to make sure there is a proper reference to victims in the document.

Caucus del Americas: (summary) They talk about the massive and destructive nature of discrimination in the American region. They speak of the universal recognition of peoples, territories, rights to self-government, and rights of peoples to full participation and the eradication of all forms of related intolerance. Racism and

50 discrimination have colonial roots in the Americas. In the context of the globalisation process this will become manifest. All governments should see the Conference as a step forward for mankind.

Chair: We will now return to paragraph 9 of the Preamble.

Canada: We support the proposals of Brazil, but have a suggestion as well. We suggest putting the following `a gender perspective which recognizes the intersection of race and gender as well as other factors`. Also we suggest putting `enjoyment of their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights` and leave out `these groups`.

India: We suggest the deletion of `important actors`.

Iran: The paragraph starts with the first sentence and than goes on with the listing. Is it not our responsibility to respect all levels of society? This is not what we want to say with this paragraph, but that is what the paragraph is saying now. Also, apart from a few references to vulnerable groups there is nothing else that under scribes the notion of the paragraph. The topic of the Conference should be more reflected in the paragraph.

Australia: We strongly support the paragraph as amended by Brazil and than by Canada. The language does well in a balanced fashion. The use of `important actors` as in the text is fine by us.

Kenya: We suggest putting `recognizing the importance of States to protect and promote`. We are not comfortable with the word `must` in line 5. We agree with India that `important actors` should be left out of the text.

Brazil: We can go along with the proposal of Canada. We agree with India on the deletion of `important actors`, but are flexible on that. Emphasizing the need to protect vulnerable groups in the text, that is what the World Conference is also about. So no inappropriate term or phrase should be used in the text.

New Zealand: We are happy to support Brazil and Canada. It is important that the intersection is put in the text early because discrimination does not always affect man and women in an equal way.

Venezuela: We would like to return to the paragraph later on when there is a Spanish translation of the word `intersection`.

Chair: I suggest we put the entire paragraph in square brackets.

Cuba: We do not object to this suggestion.

Russian Federation: We support the Chair in his proposal, because we agree with Iran that the topic of the World Conference should be more reflected in this paragraph.

51 United Arab Emirates: The first line of the text does not convey what we should say. We also suggest deleting the words `documented and undocumented`.

Canada: In our view this paragraph contains one of the main issues in the Declaration and Programme of Action. It is clear that States have an obligation to protect. This paragraph addresses the particular situation of those victims. We suggest a amendment fort the beginning of the paragraph so that it reads as follows `recognizing that States have the duty to protect and promote`. We suggest deleting `for the application of`, which was proposed by Kenya. Also we agree with the deletion of `important actors`.

Iran: We would like to indicate that the vulnerable groups need the particular attention of States. The text should read as such. This is currently not the case. Also `recognizing the duty of States in particular to` or something in that nature is suggested by my delegation to open the text with.

Saudi Arabia: There is a Working Group working on the list of vulnerable groups. Once the paragraph is reworded, we need to go over it again. There are a lot of things in the text that should not be there. We would like to keep the paragraph in brackets until we have the list.

Mexico: The Preamble is going to establish the context of the whole document. Putting `recognizing the importance` as in the earlier text is too weak. We need to `reaffirm`. The paragraph should also not be in square brackets. We can accept brackets around the list of vulnerable groups. On the rest of the text we have a proposal, because elements of the text are currently scattered over the text. Also what does `as well as other factors` mean? It could well be deleted.

Our proposal reads as follows: `Reaffirming that for the best development of societies throughout the world States have the duty to promote and protect economic, social, cultural and civil rights of [list of vulnerable groups] and that they should apply a gender perspective recognizing the intersection of race and gender`

Venezuela: The context of `intersection` has been explained to me. We support Mexico to add at the end of the text the reference to `and others`. Also, if we mean multiple discrimination, we should be precise and put it as such in the text.

United Kingdom: We can go along with the amended text the way it was before the proposal of Mexico. We cannot go along with the rewording as suggested by Mexico, because it moves the focus away from the protection of vulnerable groups. The paragraph as proposed by Mexico takes us in a different direction.

Chair: I would like to ask Mexico to consider the proposal of the Chair to put the entire paragraph in brackets, since several delegations asked the Chair to do so. This paragraph is seen as important to all delegations. The previous amended text of paragraph 9 was coherent. I do not agree with rewording the whole paragraph. I suggest we go back to the previous text because it was a coherent text. We will also put brackets around it.

Canada:

52 Regarding the proposal made by Mexico we suggest putting `Recognizing that States have the duty to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, but in particular [ list of vulnerable groups]` . Reaffirming can be used, but we do not accept the rest of the text proposed by Mexico. So we would like to go back to the previous wording.

Cuba: We apparently cannot agree on paragraph 9 so, we should have it in brackets and move on. Brackets mean nothing more than that we will have a further discussion on it later on.

Russian Federation: The language is almost identical to the beginning of Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We support the previous paragraph, especially the word `reaffirming`. We suggest having `interaction of ` instead of `intersection`, because of the problems the latter gives in its translation to Spanish and French.

Mexico: We can go along with working on the previous amended text, with the small amendment ot put `Reaffirming` and not `Recognizing`. We also still have a problem with using `other factors`. Perhaps we should put `as well as other factors such as poverty`.

China: We agree with the appeal made by Cuba to place the entire paragraph in brackets. We are pressed for time. If we fail to reach consensus at this time we should have the paragraph in brackets and move on. We have no difficulty with the proposal made by Mexico. However, if we are to retain the previous amended text than we support Iran to add `of all` after ` fundamental freedoms` and also support the Russian Federation to put `of all on the basis of equality before the law`.

Iran: Regarding paragraph 9 we fully support the proposal made by Mexico to replace the first two lines. We have no difficulty with putting either `recognizing` or `reaffirming`.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We repeat our suggestion made concerning the word intersection. `intersection of one or more grounds of discrimination, such as [ list of grounds]`.

Chair: I suggest stopping the list of grounds with race and gender. So the text would read `intersection of one or more grounds of discrimination, such as race and gender as well as other factors`.

Regarding the text of Iran, the text is weakened by human rights and fundamental freedoms. Do we need the list here when we have it at the end of the paragraph?

Russian Federation: We cannot accept the word `especially` before the list of vulnerable groups in line3. It gives them a special status, which is unacceptable.

Chair: We either remove all the brackets, except the brackets around the list, and keep the proposal made by the Russian Federation or we keep the entire paragraph in brackets and move on.

53 Are there any comments?

Cuba: We would like the entire paragraph in brackets, because there are various questions on how the list will relate to parts of the text.

Kenya: Parts of the text are confusing. We suggest adding the following to the text: `Recognizing the particular [vulnerability] of women to multiple forms of discrimination`

Chair: I am delighted by this language. I suggest we add this to the text.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We suggest replacing `and especially` with `including`. We do not like women to be associated with `vulnerability` so we want it in square brackets.

Chair: Does the word `including` cover the Russian concerns?

Russian Federation: It does not remove all the concerns, but we agree to the text reading `of all including`.

Kenya: We do not mind the brackets around the word `vulnerability`. We understand the concern of Sweden on behalf of the European Union, but my delegation does not know a better word to express what we mean.

Chair: Shall we put the text in brackets or not?

Canada: My delegation would like to propose putting `Recognizing the multiple forms of discrimination which women can face`.

Kenya: The proposal made by Canada is acceptable to us.

Australia: We agree with the proposal made by Kenya and as amended by Canada. We should acknowledge that there are other forms of discrimination. We suggest `Recognizing the particular problem of multiple discrimination`.

Iran: Let us not reopen the discussion.

Iraq: We keep on redrafting and the paragraph is getting rather long.

India: The main problem is the list and nothing else. We should delete the part on the `intersection of race and gender as well as other factors`.

Brazil:

54 We agree with deleting that part. We suggest adding `such as gender and race` after `multiple discrimination` or wherever the Chair think it is appropriate to include it the text.

Chair: We will keep the following text pending:

PP9 Reaffirming that States have the duty to protect and promote the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all including [indigenous peoples, people of African descent, people of Asian descent, migrant – documented and undocumented, refugees and asylum seekers, internally displaced persons and persons belonging to other vulnerable groups, *] and that they should apply a gender perspective recognizing the multiple forms of discrimination which women can face and that the enjoyment of their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights is essential for the development of societies throughout the world;

* A list is being discussed.

Let us now consider paragraph 13bis4 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain this text where it is and in its present format.

India: The second paragraph as left pending on PP4bis2 and PP7bis2 covers what we want to say with paragraph 13bis4.

The second paragraph reads as follows: `Recognizing that national and international actions are required to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in order to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights, which are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and to improve the living conditions of men, women and children of all nations [at the economic, social, cultural, civil and political level]`

Do we need to retain paragraph 13bis4?

Kenya: We are grateful to India for bringing up the similarity of the two paragraphs.

Iran: It is relevant to have a paragraph referring to the importance of international cooperation. So we should retain paragraph 13bis4.

Canada: Rather like India and Kenya we think that the paragraph 13bis4 is a repetition. The paragraph We left pending even goes further, so we suggest deleting paragraph 13bis4.

Cuba: We prefer to keep paragraph 13bis4 with a few changes. We refer to OP1 of the Vienna Declaration in this respect. We should replace the word `recalling with `reaffirming`.

China: This paragraph is very important. The other paragraph is different. We suggest retaining this paragraph and amending it by putting `enhancing the international cooperation`.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We support India that paragraph 13bis4 is a redundant paragraph. We agree that paragraph 13bis4 should be deleted.

55 Turkey: We also agree with India. Perhaps we can make an addition to the paragraph, which we left pending. We should add `and international cooperation` after `international actions`.

United Arab Emirates: There is a difference between the contents of the two paragraphs. The word `enhancement` could strengthen the paragraph we left pending. Also, the proposal made by Turkey would strengthen the paragraph.

Chair: We will discuss paragraph 13bis4 further in our Afternoon Session.

Thursday 31 May 2001 Afternoon Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

Chair: I will first give the floor to several NGOs.

African Descendent Caucus: (summary) They urge the States to give support to ending discrimination against African descendents. They call for the adoption of national policies, culture specific measures, policies specific for African descendent women, reform of the legal system for dismantling racism and funding of a United Nations body to monitor this.

African Indigenous and minorities Organisation: (summary) They talk about the denial of the rights of Indigenous peoples and minorities. They are optimistic that the World Conference will lead to measures and instruments to combat racism. They ask for moral and financial support to fight racism.

Minorities Caucus: (summary) Handicapped persons are victims of colonialism. These handicapped persons are Africans, African descendents, refugees, asylum seekers and so on. They hope that the reference to handicapped persons remains in the text.

Chair: We will now proceed with the consideration of paragraph 13bis4 of the Preamble. Turkey proposed to add `international cooperation` in the pending paragraph.

Norway: We are flexible on the addition of `international cooperation` to the text.

Mexico: The paragraphs we are discussing at this moment should be successive. They should be taken together. We have no problem with merging the two paragraphs. Two options were mentioned: (1) to delete paragraph 134bis4 and add the words `international cooperation` to the pending paragraph. (2) Keeping both paragraphs as separate paragraphs, because one paragraph addresses the national and the other the international level.

Both these options are acceptable to my delegation.

Chair:

56 Indeed we have various options. We should not spend too much time on it.

India: The subject matter of the paragraph is clear. It is not our intention to prolong this debate, since the paragraph contains nothing controversial. However, international cooperation could possibly be added to the pending paragraph. My delegation does not insist on its addition to the text and suggests retaining paragraph 13bis4.

Iran: The paragraph captures the very important issue of international cooperation. In the United Nations Commission on Human Rights there is a resolution. Given the importance of the notion, we can bring that idea directly after the pending paragraph. We should leave the international aspect for paragraph 13bis4 to appear immediately after the pending paragraph. We would also like to reintroduce the word `enhancement`. So the text would read `importance and enhancement of international cooperation`.

Kenya: We would like to revise our position. We believe that the issue of international cooperation is very important. We should leave paragraph 13bis4 as a separate paragraph. We support the proposal of Cuba to replace `Recalling` with `reaffirming`. Regarding the proposal of Iran, we think it would be a useful addition.

China: During the Morning Session my delegation already expressed clearly the importance of this paragraph. We support that this paragraph should be retained as a separate paragraph. We should not spend much time on a possible merger of the two paragraphs. We do not oppose to moving paragraph 13bis4 after paragraph 7bis2. We support Cuba on their proposal to put `reaffirming` and `enhancement` in the text.

United Kingdom: We feel attracted to a merger of the two paragraphs. It is hard to see the distinction between international actions and international cooperation as a native English speaker. We go along with India on their proposal. If there is no consensus on that than we go along with Turkey on their proposal.

United Arab Emirates: We should maintain the paragraph and restrict international cooperation to combating racism

Nigeria: We prefer a separate paragraph 13bis4.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We do not see the distinction between international action and international cooperation. We are tempted to support Turkey on their proposal. We suggest deleting paragraph 13bis4 and strengthen the pending paragraph.

Egypt: International cooperation is much more specific and important for us than international action, which is vague. We agree with the addition of the word `enhancement` to the text.

Brazil: Since the paragraph is not too controversial, let us move on to the next paragraph.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We suggest that the word `reaffirming` is placed in brackets until we have had more time to study the paragraph.

57 Chair: We will leave paragraph 13bis4 pending and return to it later on. The text we leave pending reads as follows:

PP13bis4 [Reaffirming] the importance of the enhancement of international cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights and for the achievement of the objectives of the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

We will now consider paragraph 13bis5 of the Preamble. The group of 21 decided to retain the original paragraph. Consideration was given to merging paragraph 13bis5 with paragraph 15 of the Preamble, which reads as follows:

`Recognizing both the challenges and opportunities presented by an increasingly globalized world in the struggle to eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and in this context, determined to strengthen the notion of a ``human family`` based on equality, dignity and solidarity and to make the twenty-first century a century of human rights and the realization of genuine equality of opportunity and treatment for all individuals and peoples;

Can we adopt paragraph 13bis5 as it is or do we need to consider the merger of paragraph 13bis5 with paragraph 15? Are there any objections to the adoption of paragraph 13bis5 as it stands? No objections, than paragraph 13bis5 is adopted.

PP13bis5 Recognizing both the challenges and opportunities presented by an increasingly globalized world in relation to the struggle to eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

Are there any objections to keeping paragraph 15 in brackets? If there are no objections, it is so decided. We will return to that paragraph later on. The paragraph that we leave pending reads as follows:

PP15 [Determined] in an era when globalisation and technology have contributed considerably to bringing people together to materialize the notion of a ``human family`` based on equality, dignity and solidarity, and to make the twenty-first century a century of human rights and the eradication of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the realization of genuine equality of opportunities and treatment for all individuals and peoples;

Let us now consider paragraph 4bis and paragraph 4bis1 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to merge these paragraphs and proposes the following text:

`Reaffirming the right of all peoples to live in a society free of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and stressing that such a right must be protected by all lawful means as a matter of the highest priority, and recognizing the duty to take prompt, decisive and appropriate measures to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination whenever, wherever and however they occur`

Are there any comments on this proposal by the Group of 21?

Switzerland: We suggest putting `all individuals` so that the text reads `the right of all individuals and peoples`.

58 Iraq: We propose to add in line 1 `to live in peace`.

United States of America: We should end the sentence at the word `discrimination` in an effort to clarify and shorten the paragraph. So leave out ` whenever, wherever and however they occur`.

Eritrea: `by all lawful means` to whom does that apply? We suggest deleting it from the text.

Turkey: At the end of the text it says `take prompt, decisive and appropriate measures`. We should bring the text in line with the name of the World Conference. The title of the upcoming World Conference should be fully reflected in the text. In the last sentence we therefore suggest adding `racism` and ` xenophobia and related intolerance`.

Canada: We suggest placing brackets around the word `peace`, because the subject of the paragraph is that of the upcoming World Conference.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union There is no right to live in peace. So we suggest deleting the word `peace` that was suggested by Iraq.

Iran: We suggest deleting paragraph 4bis and paragraph 4bis1.

United States of America: We support Iran in their suggestion to delete the paragraph. Several of the concepts in the paragraph have been addressed earlier in other texts.

Cuba: We want the paragraph retained. The paragraph reiterates the right of peoples to live in a society free of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Russian Federation: We should be consistent in our wording. If the right to live in peace does not exist as Sweden on behalf of the European Union claims, than the right to live in a society free of racism does not exist either.

Iraq: Most delegations seem to find it useful to delete the paragraph. We agree with the deletion. However, if we are going to retain the paragraph, than we should add `individuals of States`. Brazil: We agree with deletion of the paragraph.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union There is a right for the individual to be protected from discrimination. We suggest adding to the text `States to take prompt, decisive and appropriate measures` and place `and peoples` in brackets.

Switzerland: We should not replace `individuals` with `States`, because States are made up of individuals.

Chair: I suggest we place `and peoples` and `in peace` in brackets and add to the text `States to take prompt`.

59 Norway: This paragraph is very important and needs to be moved upwards in the document. All individuals have the right to live in a society free of racism. We suggest deleting `by all lawful means` , because what it implies is not clear.

China: The paragraph should be retained. Victims are made up of individuals of States. In this paragraph it is emphasized that governments should have responsibility to combat racism.

Chair: I suggest we delete `by all lawful means`. I also suggest we place the whole paragraph in brackets at this point.

Czech Republic: Should we merge this paragraph with paragraph 14?

Chair: I have ruled that possibility out. The whole paragraph is now in brackets with the last suggestion made by Iran to place brackets around `all individuals`. The text we leave pending reads as follows:

PP4bis and PP4bis1 [Reaffirming the right of [all individuals] [and peoples] to live [in peace] in a society free of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and stressing that such a right must be protected as a matter of the highest priority, and recognizing the duty of States to take prompt, decisive and appropriate measures to eliminate all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance];

We will now consider paragraph 8bis of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to retain this paragraph where it is and in its present format. It was also stated that the text could be re-enforced by replacing the word addressing` by `combating` in the first line.

Cuba: We would like to propose an amendment. In line 2 it says `on grounds of` and is followed by a list. This list should be `race, descent, colour, national or ethnic origin`. This should be followed by `aggravated by forms of multiple discrimination inter alia age, gender, sexual orientation`.

China: I believe we have consensus on the subject of the paragraph. Due to the list and areas of manifestations of discrimination, there still lacks consensus on this paragraph. We should refrain from discussing the context of the paragraph until we have the list of grounds. Another option was proposed by Cuba to have the first part of the paragraph using the language accepted by the International Community.

Chair: The listing as done by Cuba comes from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Canada: We have no problems with this particular paragraph. There is a Working Group dealing with the list of grounds. So we suggest having the current list in brackets. Also the actual Conference theme is

60 broader than the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. So we need more grounds added to the list. It is best if we place the current list in brackets.

Venezuela: This is a very important paragraph and to some extend relates to paragraph 9. The proposal as amended by Cuba is a reasonable one. We want the part of `aggravated by forms of` deleted from the text.

Uruguay: We suggest removing all brackets and inserting Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Chair: I suggest we return to the initial text and put the initial list in brackets with a footnote that the list will be further clarified.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We would like to ask the Working Group to present us with a list as broad as possible. Also we suggest adding to the text of the paragraph `all` before `manifestations` in line 1. We have a slight amendment regarding the list of grounds in brackets. We suggest deleting `for reasons of` and deleting `physical and mental ability` and retaining `disability`. As last words we should use `or other status` instead of `socio-economic status`.

Chair: We can add the word `all` before `manifestation`, but we will leave your other suggestion out, since I already said to have closed the list of grounds.

Mexico: We follow the line of the Swedish delegation. We are not clear on the ongoing exercise of the list. We would like to bring in other grounds in the list. We obviously have to wait for the Working Group that is currently working on the list of grounds, but we would like to make our own suggestions any way. After `socio-economic status `we suggest adding `genetic condition`.

Chair: I will not re-open the list. We need to move on and not discuss the list.

Brazil: We accept the ruling of the Chair on this matter, although the list is unacceptable in its present form. We agree with Sweden on behalf of the European Union to retain the word `disability` instead of having `physical and mental ability`. We have taking note of the proposal of Cuba to use the list of grounds as laid down in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. We have an amendment to make to `aggravated`. Instead we use `aggravated forms based on`.

Canada: With respect to the proposal made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union, it originally was our idea. We agree that the word `disability` should be retained. We suggest adding to the text the following `aggravated by forms of multiple discrimination based on reasons of`.

Uruguay: We do not understand the brackets that are placed around the core part of the paragraph, reading `aggravated by forms of multiple discrimination based on reasons of age, gender, disability or socio- economic status`. We suggest placing brackets around the whole paragraph.

61 Mexico: If further modifications are not accepted than we should place the whole paragraph in brackets.

Chair: We will place the paragraph in brackets and return to it later on. The text as we keep it pending for now reads as follows:

PP8bis [Reaffirming our commitment to combating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on grounds of [race, lineage, colour, religion, culture, language or national or ethnic origin*] [aggravated by forms of multiple discrimination based on reasons of age, gender, [sexual orientation], physical and mental ability, or socio-economic status*];

* Lists are being discussed.

We will now consider paragraph 14 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 agreed to restructure this paragraph. The following text was submitted for consideration: `Dedicating ourselves [without reservation] to combat the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance fully and effectively, while drawing lessons from manifestations of racism and past experiences in all parts of the world with a view to avoiding their recurrence and giving this struggle the priority attention it deserves`

The paragraph could also be reversed starting with `Drawing lessons`.

Are there any comments on this proposal made by the Group of 21?

Brazil: We suggest deleting the text that is in brackets.

Cuba: We should not delete `without reservation` because it gives more body to the text.

Brazil: It is redundant. Of course we dedicate ourselves without reservation. To put it as such in the text is redundant.

Cuba: If consensus requires deletion of the words, than we can go along with the deletion, although we would have preferred to keep it in the text.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union We support to have the words `without reservation` deleted. We suggest deleting the last part of the paragraph `and giving this struggle the priority attention it deserves`. We should add `as a matter of priority` instead.

India: `as a matter of priority` should be moved up in the text after `fully and effectively` in line 2.

Kenya: Since there seems to be consensus if we delete `without reservation` we agree. We also agree with the proposal made by Sweden on behalf of the European Union and India. In the first line it should not be `to combat` but `to combating`.

Chair:

62 If there are no objections to these proposals, I suggest we adopt the text. It is adopted and reads as follows:

PP14 Dedicating ourselves to combating the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance fully and effectively as a matter of priority, while drawing lessons from manifestations of racism and past experiences in all parts of the world with a view to avoiding their recurrence;

We will now consider paragraph 16 of the Preamble. The Group of 21 undertook to reconstruct this paragraph. The following text was submitted for consideration: `Join together in a spirit of renewed political will and commitment to universal equality, justice and dignity, salute the memory of all victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance all over the world, and solemnly adopt the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action`

Are there any comments on this paragraph? If there are no objections than this paragraph is adopted. The adopted text reads as follows:

PP16 Join together in a spirit of renewed political will and commitment to universal equality, justice and dignity, salute the memory of all victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance all over the world, and solemnly adopt the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action;

We will now discuss the request of the Working Group on the Programme of Action to consider three paragraphs of the Programme of Action.

Paragraph 122 new – proposed by India `The World Conference emphasises that poverty and economic disparities amongst various parts of the world contribute significantly to the persistence of racist attitudes`

Part of paragraph 31 – origin not identified `Recognizing the negative economic consequences of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including historical factors such a s the slave trade and colonialism, which have contributed significantly to the economic underdevelopment of developing countries, and in particular of Africa, (a) resolves to free every man, woman and child from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected, to make the right to development a reality for everyone, and to free the entire human race from want`

Paragraph 69bis1 – suggested by Azerbaijan `The World Conference states that aggressive nationalism, separatism, extremism and terrorism, in all their forms and manifestations, can never be justified in any instance, including as a means to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedom in particular those of persons belonging to national minorities`

Do any of the three paragraphs need to be taken up in the Declaration?

Azerbaijan: On paragraph 69bis1 we suggest placing it in the Operative part of the Declaration.

Venezuela: The part of paragraph 31 is not complete. It says a) in line 4 but b) etc. is missing.

Chair: We will try to obtain the full text.

63 Are there any further comments on this paragraph 69bis1?

United States of America: The meaning of the word `aggressive` is unclear to us. We could resolve the ambiguity by using `violent` instead of `aggressive`.

Chair: We will discuss this text further when we get to the Operative part of the Declaration. On the part of paragraph 31, we are only to consider this part as given to us. We can remove the a) in line 4.

Friday 1 June 2001 Morning Session (parallel) – The Draft Declaration

Chair: Let us begin with the consideration on the Operative part of the Declaration. We will use the document called Draft Declaration General Issues dated 24 May 2001.

Are there any comments on OP 1bis5?

Kenya: This is a very relevant paragraph and we want to propose its adoption on behalf of the African Group.

United States of America: We need some clarification on this paragraph. What does `inhuman tragedy` refer to? We do support the paragraph.

Chair: Lets make a change in the text.

OP1bis5 Express our solidarity with the peoples of Africa in their continuing struggle against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and recognize the sacrifices made by them as well as their efforts in raising international public awareness of these inhuman tragedies;

If there are no objections, the paragraph is adopted.

Let us now consider OP1bis7.

United States of America: We support OP1bis7. There are two important concepts in OP1bis5 and OP1bis7. Maybe we should merge them to one OP?

Cuba: We should retain both paragraphs, because they deal with different issues. We have a small amendment to make. In line 1 we suggest `we attach`. In line three we suggest `which have occurred in different parts of the world and in particular in Africa` after the words `too long`.

Venezuela: The wording suggested by Cuba is very important. We support their proposal.

Brazil: We should reformulate OP1bis7. The proposals made by Cuba are a good basis for changing OP1bis7.

64 The word `recalling` needs to be r3eplaced, because it is more a Preamble word.

Chair: I propose a slash after `too long` and than add the proposal of Cuba.

Kenya: We prefer the word `affirm` instead of `recalling`.

Chair: We will put `recalling / we also affirm`. I suggest we delete `African peoples` in the first line.

Tunisia: We should retain both OP1bis5 and OP1bis7.

Chair: The majority at this stage wants to retain both paragraphs.

United States of America: The proposal of Cuba strengthens the OP by broadening its scope. We agree with the deletion of `African People`. We also agree with putting `we also affirm`. In the last sentence as proposed by Cuba we suggest putting `which have occurred throughout the world, particularly in Africa`.

China: `in different parts of the world` would be a better wording.

Chair: I suggest deleting `recalling` in the first line.

Canada: We support the paragraph. We have two suggestions to make. After `solidarity` add `respect`. Also we think that the text reads better without the phrase `which have occurred`. We should just put `throughout the world`.

Australia: We would like to reiterate our support for this OP. We support the use of `we also affirm`. We agree with adding last sentence in whatever form.

Sweden: on behalf of the European Union This OP should perhaps start off with the recognition of the unique opportunity of this World Conference to combating racism.

Regarding OP 1bis5 and OP1bis7, we favour a merger of the two, but we can go along with keeping them separate.

In OP1bis7 we agree with putting `we also affirm`. We support the proposal of Canada to put `respect` and also support the proposal of Cuba and the United States of America on the last sentence of the OP. The African situation can be dealt with in a separate paragraph.

United Arab Emirates: We should keep OP1bis7 separate. We agree with using `we also affirm` it gives the paragraph a universal character.

65 Algeria: We have to come back to the starting point and basic notion that this OP should centre on Africa. The inhuman tragedies have occurred in different parts of the world, but not throughout the world. It has occurred in different regions and in particular in Africa. We prefer the proposal made by Cuba.

Cuba: We would like to make a new proposal. `throughout the world, bearing in mind that the African peoples have been suffering in particular these inhuman tragedies for so long`.

Chair: Lets add it to the text as the third possible option.

Brazil: We should emphasize the phenomenon.

Egypt: We should have particular reference to African people in the text.

Chair: Purpose of the OP is to show the specific tragic suffering of the African people.

Sweden: We should have the African struggle in a separate paragraph.

Algeria: We should strengthen `in particular` by putting `the African people has most particularly suffered`. We suggest this since Africa suffered more than other regions.

Norway: We prefer to have a separate paragraph, but if no consensus on that than we can accept the OP as it currently stands.

United States of America: We suggest adding `which constitute the moral ground and inspiration for`. We suggest deleting `which have occurred`, because it is difficult to refer the `which` back to something in the text.

We should end the OP at `throughout the world`. This will broaden the OP.

Syria: This Op should only deal with Africa and not be broadened.

Kenya: Racism is racism, whether in the past, present or future. The aspect of the past is very important. It is therefore also importance to remain the reference to Africa in the text. We also want the bottom of the text back to its original wording.

Chair: Is this acceptable to delegations?

Australia: We agree with Kenya. However, we do suggest adding `worldwide` before `struggle` so that it reads `inspiration for our worldwide struggle`.

66 Chair: Can we accept the text as now proposed?

Venezuela: Maybe we should have an extra OP on other peoples in other regions of the world.

Chair: I suggest that Venezuela and another delegation come up with a text for a new OP on other peoples in other regions of the world.

If there are no further objections to the text of OP1bis7, it is adopted. The adopted text reads as follows:

OP1bis7 We also affirm the great importance we attach to the values of solidarity, respect, tolerance and multiculturalism, which constitute the moral ground and inspiration for our worldwide struggle against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, inhuman tragedies which have affected people throughout the world, especially in Africa, for too long;

Iran: We propose to put a new OP1bis at the beginning of the Declaration.

Chair: New OP1bis will remain in brackets and reads as follows:

[New OP1bis Recognizes and affirms that at the outset of this millennium, a global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, all its abhorrent and evolving forms and manifestations is a matter of priority for the international community, and that this Conference offers a unique and historical opportunity to assess, identify, and reappraise the obstacles in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as ways and means to strengthen and enhance this fight]

New OP1bis alternative also remains in brackets and reads as follows:

[New OP1bis alternative Recognizes and affirms that at the outset of this third millennium, a global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, all its abhorrent and evolving forms and manifestations is a matter of priority for the international community, and that this Conference offers a unique and historical opportunity for an objective assessment and identification of the real dimensions of those devastating evils of humanity with a view to their total elimination through initiation of innovative and holistic approaches and the strengthening and enhancement of practical and effective measures at the global level]