Contemporary Anti-Semitism: an Urgent Challenge

Contemporary Anti-Semitism: An Urgent Challenge

MARY ROBINSON Director Ethical Globalization Initiative

An Interview with Priya Bindra, Jesse Finkelstein, and Julia Kay; and an Abridged Transcript Brown University, 8 November 2004

The Honorable Mary Robinson was the first female President of Ireland, serving from 1990 to 1997, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, from 1997 to 2002. She is currently Director ofthe Ethical Globalization Initiative, which aims to foster more equitable international trade and development, strengthen responses to HIV/AIDS in Africa, and shape more humane miration policies.

Brown Journal of World Affairs: You are speaking today about contemporary anti- Semitism in Europe. Do you think this is a global phenomenon, or is it solely a Euro- pean problem?

Mary Robinson: I think it a global phenomenon. It just happens to be particularly virulent in Europe, and I have been conscious of that for a number of years. This is not the first time I am speaking about this; as Commissioner, I wrote to the foreign minis- tries of a number of European governments in 2002 asking them to take more active steps. It was of course the Nazi period in Europe that was one ofthe darkest moments of anti-Semitism, and was what led to global recognition ofthe problem. It prompted the recognition that the world needed a United Nations Charter, and I recall that the Jewish community here in the United States played a very significant role in the draft-

WINTER/SPRING 2005 • VOLUME XI, ISSUE 2 MARY ROBINSON

ing of that charter. With significant Muslim populations in a number of European countries, I think that there is some reinvigoration, but as I say in my speech, it is not a good thing to oversimplify. Some European countries in particular have not dealt with the issue consistently; it is really an issue of racism and should be treated as such.

Journal: Do you think current anti-Semitism is different from previous incarnations?

Robinson: I deal with that in my speech, and what I say is that there are different reference points today. Nevertheless, it tends to be seen too simplistically, as a rising problem furthered by the current conflict in the Middle East, and due to the fact that there are large Muslim populations in Europe. For various reasons, which I will go through today, that is not an adequate way of explaining it.

Journal: What is a more appropriate way of engaging this issue in Europe?

Robinson: You have to engage, firstly, by seeing it as a human rights issue, secondly by seeing it as an issue of racism. After you change your perspective, you then need to have appropriate monitoring of hate crimes. There is currently a larger need to have hate crime units, not just for anti-Semitic crimes, but also for anti-Muslim crimes and crimes 12 that target other vulnerable populations. We also need effective ways of dealing with the problem in national legislation; some countries have addressed this, but many have not. In my speech, I comment a little bit on the recent conferences in Europe: the OSCE conferences, the Berlin conference, the Vienna conference, and more recendy, the meeting in Brussels. I take a lot of my information and awareness from the organization Human Rights First. Michael Posner, Executive Director of Human Rights First, is a very close friend and ally, and so I am aware of what he has been trying to do. I have supported him, as he supports the work I am trying to do.

Journal: Do you see connections between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in Europe? Does anti-Semitism arise from anti-Zionism, or vice-versa?

Robinson: I think that anti-Zionism is a particularly virulent, hateful form of anti- Semitism. The issue came up in the World Conference Against Racism, when I was Commissioner, and it was the reason why I would not accept the text put forward by the NGO forum. Even though there were some very good points in the text on other issues, it tried to say that Zionism is racist. As a result, I made it very clear that I would not recommend the text to the government representatives, which was unprecedented,

THE BROWN JOURNAL OF WORLD AFFAIRS Contemporary Anti-Semitism: An Urgent Challenge because normally in a human rights context, one tells governments to look to civil society and to listen to those working on the frontlines of child rights and poverty.

Journal: Do you see anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism affecting the United Nation's treatment of Israel?

Robinson: What I certainly was aware of during my five years as High Commissioner was that the United Nations has an almost impossible and inappropriate way of dealing with the issue, both from the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. It is a context where both peoples feel victimized. On the Israeli side, victimization comes from the fact that Israel is targeted on the UN Commission for Human Rights agenda, in the General Assembly, and in the Security Council, through various motions that are brought up and through various resolutions and through the fact that many countries vote in support of those resolutions. On the Palestinian side, no matter what is brought up, and even though they may have the support of every other country in the world, the United States will always back Israel. So it is double victimization. It is a very sad situation, because it is all so politicized. It does not actually deal with the human rights situation at all. I tried to deal with that because I had no other agenda. I am neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side; I am on the human rights side. I was helped by an extremely good Israeli NGO telling me ofthe human rights issues that were of concern to me, of certain actions ofthe Israeli military, for example, that were violating human rights norms. Equally, I condemned again and again suicide bombing. Suicide bombing of civilians is never justified and never ac- ceptable. The mechanisms of dealing with the problem have to be inter-governmental, but are currently so politicized that they only lead to this double victimization.

Journal: As you mentioned, we have seen this binary emerge in aspects of global poli- tics, with the United States and Israel on the one side and perhaps everyone else on the other. Do you think that rising anti-Americanism in Europe is related to anti-Semitism?

Robinson: My personal, subjective sense is that these are less connected in parts of Europe, but they are worryingly related in the Middle East. I was recendy in Cairo, for hearings of the Global Commission on International Migration, and I was in Jordan not very long before. In Jordan, which is by many standards a moderate Arab state, I was shocked by the depth of the anti-Americanism I encountered. The Jordanians would then qualify their dislike by suggesting that is not the American people who they dislike, but rather the Bush Administration, because of the approach it is taking to- wards the Middle East. Now, after President Bush's re-election, will that distinction still

WINTER/SPRING 2005 • VOLUME XI, ISSUE 2 MARY ROBINSON

be drawn? Anti-Americanism is associated with the very close support ofthe Bush Administration for the government of Prime Minister Sharon and the close re- lationship between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon. That is very clearly part of a much more outspoken and very strong anti-American senti- ment, which is not good for anybody. Putting the need for a political way forward in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the front burner would ease things a lot. It is a problem that is wider than anti- Semitism, and a resolution would ease a whole range of issues; I agree with those Photos Courtesy of Nancy Soukup who think it is a priority. President Mary Robinson speaks at the Watson Institute's Director Series. 14 (8 November 2004)

Journal: What do you think are the other human rights priorities for the world today?

Robinson: Darfur, naturally. The violence is spinning out of control, and it is appall- ing that the world does not care enough. It was an interesting development when Secretary of State Colin Powell—somebody who I admire greatly—gave evidence before a committee of Congress recently and described what was happening in Darfur as genocide. That was a change in State Department position, and what worried me was that it conveyed a message that what was happening in Darflir was genocide, but that no additional steps were going to be taken. For me, this is the worst of all possible things. I think that the Secretary General was right to set up a commission to investi- gate whether it is, in all its contexts, genocide, but it is terrible to think that in 2004 we can have the Secretary of State ofthe United States say that this is genocide, but then not venture to do anything, and nor does anybody else. That is not to say that Secretary Powell and civil society here have not done much more than has been done in Europe. There is a tension here in the United States, but I think we have to reserve a character- ization of genocide for when we are prepared to do something. It is too serious. In the context of current action, Africa is taking the lead in addressing this prob-

THE BROWN JOURNAL OF WORLD AFFAIRS Contemporary Anti-Semitism: An Urgent Challenge lem. It has something like three thousand troops there now. The way the international community should act is to support and reinforce the building capacity ofthe African Union. The present chair of the African Union, Alpha Oumar Konare, who is the former President of Mali, is very focused on Darfur; he has been there several times himself. The African Union has taken ownership, but it is sometimes difficult for them to speak up. We saw recently that they were not prepared to condemn the government of Sudan in a way that I think is necessary. So they need both capacity support and a supportive political push to fully address all aspects ofthe problem. As for other priorities, given the current work that I do on ethical globalization, absolute poverty is, in my opinion, the worst human rights problem in the world, very often associated with deep conflict. When you are dirt poor, you have no human rights. You have no right to food, to safe drinking water, to health, to education, or to shelter. You have no freedom of speech, the police harass you, you get raped, and there is a gun at every corner. That is the worst problem, and we must tackle that by at least keeping faith with the commitment of the Millennium Development Goals. They are abso- lutely essential, and we are trying to ensure that when there is a review in 2005 with a decade to go, these concerns will be addressed. This was a commitment that was to be realized by 2015, but we are way behind. No African country currendy can reach those goals for another fifiy years—never mind by 2015. This is, in my opinion, how we can make our world safer and really address human security

Journal: Now, there has been a questioning of the relevance of the United Nations, especially since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. What do you think the role ofthe United Nations is going to be, in the international community?

Robinson: Having been on the inside for five years, I usually answer any question like that by borrowing Winston Churchill's famous phrase about democracy, "The United Nations is the worst system, except for all the others," and unhappily, we do not have another. We need a multilateral system more than we ever did. Our world is more divided and more dangerous than any other point in my lifetime. We desperately need a well functioning United Nations, which will take necessary decisions when there is a sufficient threat. Otherwise, we will have countries, most notably the United States, going into preemptive situations that are very bad for the world, as is the case in Iraq at this moment. The Secretary General has addressed this by forming another high-level panel and will be making recommendations in December. They are looking at how the UN can address real threats to hunrian peace and security, to ensure that there will be a collective approach and not a unilateral one. There was a very interesting report by President Cardoso, who is a very good

WINTER/SPRING 2005 • VOLUME XI, ISSUE 2 MARY ROBINSON

friend of mine. His panel criticized the United Nations, rightly, for not having proper links with civil society. That is extremely important, as we are seeing again. Civil society groups are noting that a focus on security law, both in this country and others, is coming at the expense of human rights and other freedoms and should be addressed internationally. We are seeing tightened security law in Russia, for example, and in a number of other countries in that region.

ABRIDGED TRANSCRIPT

It is a pleasure to return to Brown University and the Watson Institute for International Studies. I would like to thank Tom Biersteker and his colleagues from the Watson Institute for inviting me to address the Brown community again—this time as part of the Directors Lectures Series on Contemporary InternationalAfairs. When Tom first invited me, he explained that Brown was hosting the eighth bi-annual Lessons and Lega- cies Conference organized by the Holocaust Educational Foundation. As many of you will know, these conferences, held at a different a university in the United States every two years, bring together scholars from around the world to explore the continuing relevance ofthe Holocaust in today's world. They also serve as a powerful reminder of the need for vigilance in the ongoing struggle against anti-Semitism. I was pleased to accept the invitation, in part because I found the theme of this year's conference. From Generation to Generation, to be an important opportunity to reflect on the struggle against anti-Semitism in the region I know best, Europe. Over the last two days, the distinguished scholars participating in the conference have brought a variety of interesting and useful perspectives to bear on the Holocaust and its legacy. To the voices ofthe historian, the political scientist, and experts on the arts, literature, and religion, I would like to add the perspective of someone working to combat antisemitism in our contemporary world from a human rights perspective. I confess I was shocked recently when I was telephoned by a senior member of the Jewish Community based in New York, who advised me not to speak on anti- Semitism. "You are not qualified to speak on anti-Semitism," he said, "especially anti- Semitism in Europe." He explained he was giving me this advice as a friend. How do you "qualify," I wondered? I am, afiier all, a European, and I have a lifelong record of fighting anti-Semitism. Over twenty-five years ago as a senator in Ireland, for example, I raised the issue ofthe persecution ofthe Jews in the Soviet Union, and steered through a resolution calling on the Irish Foreign Minister to take up the issue. As President of Ireland, I visited Auschwitz in June 1994. At theendof the visit I was invited to write in the Visitor's Book, which had not been anticipated, so I had nothing prepared in advance. I handwrote the following:

THE BROWN JOURNAL OF WORLD AFFAIRS Contemporary Anti-Semitism: An Urgent Challenge

"On my own behalf and on behalf of the people of Ireland, I have come to pay deep respect, to honour the victims, and co remember the terrible deeds in this place. We must always remember the inhumanity of man to men, to women and to children. Only if we remember will we remain eternally vigilant. Sadly, that vigilance is needed in our world today." Later, in 2002, during my last year as UN High Commissioner from Human Rights, I wrote to a number of European Governments at the Foreign Minister level, drawing attention to rising anti-Semitism in their countries and urging them to take appropriate actions. Currently, I am honored to serve, together with Elie Wiesel and others, on the Advisory Board ofthe Center for the Study ofthe Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights at Claremont McKenna College. Yes, I will continue to speak out against anti-Semitism. Yet regrettably, I do so in an environment where some of my critics have determined that I myself am anti- Semitic and not a friend ofthe Jewish people. If you Google my name you will learn that twice this year there were protests on college campuses, at Emory and McGill universities. At both of these universities, I was invited to and did give commencement addresses. However, critics on both campuses asked ihat the invitations to me be re- scinded for two reasons. First, they objected to the fact that as UN High Commis- sioner for Human Rights I was, in their view, unfairly critical of Israeli human rights practices in the West Bank and Gaza. Second, they hold me personally responsible for a number of shameful anti-Semitic incidents that marred the UN's World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001, of which I was Secretary General. One critic at Emory went so far as to label me a "war criminal" in the school newspaper. This is not the place to debate those charges, which are totally unwarranted and deeply painful to me. On a larger scale, I am perhaps even more disturbed by the current climate in this country with respect to these issues. It seems to me that a contemporary form of McCarthyism is emerging, where some of my critics are determined to deny me and others a platform on college campuses. I have never allowed myself to be bullied, and I fully intend to keep addressing these issues. I welcome the chance to address these issues here at Brown today. When I speak on anti-Semitism I do so from a human rights perspective. Those of you familiar with the international human rights movement will know that it was created in direct response to the Nazi atrocities. This commitment was central to the founding ofthe United Nations almost sixty years ago, with strong support from the Jewish community here in the United States. It led to the adoption ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Eleanor Roosevelt, the first chair ofthe UN Commission on Human Rights, provided essential leadership in the effort to draft and win support for a document which, more than fifiy-five years later, continues to speak

WINTER/SPRING 2005 • VOLUME XI, ISSUE 2 MARY ROBINSON to all of us about the rights necessary for a life of dignity. I believe the Universal Declaration's vision ofthe equal dignity and rights of each person is shamefully absent in our world today. To make the Declaration more than an unfulfilled promise, we as individuals, communities, and nations must learn to deal more constructively with a very basic human emotion—fear. Fear of difference, fear that one's economic or social position is threatened, fear that identity could be lost in an increasingly globalized world; these and other fears present the most powerful ob- stacles to recognizing the dignity and rights of others. When pushed to extremes, these fears can elicit intolerance, hatred, and violence. One of the most disturbing manifestations of fear in our world today is anti- Semitism. Sixty years after the Holocaust, there is a renewed and urgent need to em- phasize international human rights law as a central component of efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Much ofthe recent media coverage of anti-Semitism around the world has centered on the situation in Europe. Synagogues and Jewish cemeteries there have been defaced and Jews have been physically attacked on the streets. While many in Europe will point out that the situation today is too complex to be easily equated with historical anti-Semitism on the continent, it is vital that Europeans take effective action to stop these reprehensible events. In Belgium, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and Russia, cases of Jewish businesses and schools being defaced with racist slogans, Jewish cemeteries and Holocaust memorials being desecrated, and synagogues being firebombed are tragi- cally frequent. In a recent three month period in France, forty-three synagogues and three Jewish cemeteries were attacked. Despite some positive measures taken by the French government, the violence has continued without significant abatement. In November of 2003, a wine ofthe Merkaz Hatorah school in the Paris suburb of Gaenv was torched by unidentified assailants. In news reports about this horrible incident, students at the school reported that they often endured racist abuse: they were spat on, called "Dirty Jew," and their skullcaps were snatched from their heads. Although the resurgence of anti-Semitism in France has earned it special notori- ety, anti-Semitic acts are occurring throughout Europe. Human Rights First, a non- governmental organization that has focused on this issue, has documented antisemitic violence in Italy, Belgium, Russia, Greece, Austria, the Ukraine, and Belarus, to name just a few. Earlier this year. Human Rights First published an important report entided Anti-Semitism in Europe: Challenging Official Indifference, which I commend to you. Despite efTorts by human rights groups and Jewish organizations to document anti- Semitic acts, a lack of official recognition ofthe problem is muting the alarm in these countries. Moreover, the causes ofthe rise in anti-Semitism in Europe have been the subject of much debate. Journalists, governments, and other observers speak of a "new

THE BROWN JOURNAL OF WORLD AFFAIRS nti-Semitism: An Urgent Challenge

Photos Courtesy of Nancy Soukup Pboto: 1-r: Former President of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso (now a Brown University Professor-at-Large), Brown University President Rutb J. Simmons, Presi- dent Mary Robinson (and a Watson Institute Overseer), Dr. Rutb Cardoso, Mr. Nicbolas Robinson, and Watson Institute Director Tbomas J. Biersteker. (8 November 2004) anti-Semitism" animated by increased bostilities in tbe Middle East. Tbe growing populations of Muslim immigrants in Europe bring to tbeir new bomes old prejudices, fueled by anti-Semitic propaganda disseminated tbrougb tbe Internet and in tbe Arab- language media. Tbese demograpbic cbanges clearly are contributing to tbe new wave of anti- Semitism. We must, bowever, be cautious about tbe argument tbat anti-Semitism is tbe inevitable side-effect of tbe Middle East confiict for tbree reasons. First, it too often becomes an excuse for inaction. We saw tbis bappen in tbe 1990s, wben U.S. officials and otbers in tbe international community distanced tbemselves from tbe buman rigbts crisis in Bosnia by describing tbe Balkan conflict as a local tragedy, rooted in "ancient" or "tribal" batreds. Second, it pits two minorities against one anotber and increases tbeir vulnerability. In Rwanda and Cbecbnya, Colombia and Sierra Leone, and close to bome in Nortbern Ireland, I bave seen bow patterns of discrimination drive wedges between communities. Tbese tensions in turn embolden racist extremists, including neo-Nazi groups in Europe, wbose racist batred extends to Jews and Muslims alike. Ultraconservative politicians, like Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, are likely to be botb

WINTER/SPRING 2005 • VOLUME XI, ISSUE 2 MARY ROBINSON

anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. Although in many countries most anti-Semitic violence is perpetrated by these traditional right-wing groups, growing emphasis on the Middle East conflict promotes the perception that young Muslim men pose the gravest danger to Jewish communities in Europe. Third, this analysis diverts attention from the much-needed discussions about how to combat antisemitism by creating a secondary debate—one that blurs the line between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of Israel. Anti-Semitic attacks often masquerade as opposition to Israeli policies, in both subtle and virulent ways. This, understandably, has led some to regard any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. In Febru- ary 2004, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan clarified the boundary thus: "Criticism of Israeli policies is one thing. But it is quite another when such cri- tiques take the form of attacks, physical or verbal, on Jewish individuals and the sym- bols of their heritage and faith. No one should be allowed to use criticism of Israel's actions as a mask for anti-Semitism. Nor, on the other side, should Israel's supporters use the charge of anti-Semitism to stifle legitimate discussion. The United Nations, for its part, must reject all forms of racism and discrimination." The Secretary General's remark highlights the importance ofthe broader human rights perspective to the fight against anti-Semitism, and indeed against all forms of racial discrimination. Anti-Semitism is racism and, as such, is a human rights issue of global importance. The responsibility for reporting, tracking, and combating anti- Semitism must not be regarded as a matter exclusively for Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. Human rights principles, expressed in numerous international treaties, provide an established framework for fighting racial discrimination of all kinds. Consistent with this framework, the necessary first step in combating anti-Semitism is to hold governments responsible for their actions, or for their inaction, in addressing this endemic problem. There are some recent signs of progress on this front. In the last year, the Organi- zation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has taken up the problem of anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. The OSCE is a regional security organization with flfty-fiveparticipatin g states from Europe, Central Asia and North America, which was founded on the human rights principles contained in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. Its predecessor organization, the Commission on Security and Co- operation in Europe, was a primary venue during the Cold War years for discussing human rights issues arising in the former Soviet Union and in countries under Soviet control. In September 2003, the OSCE convened a meeting in Vienna to acknowledge collectively, and for the firsttime , the growing problem of anti-Semitism in Europe. In April 2004, the OSCE governments met again in Berlin to devise a plan of action. The German government, led by Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, has continued to play a

THE BROWN JOURNAL OF WORLD AFFAIRS Contemporary Anti-Semitism: An Urgent Challenge prominent role in efforts to combat anti-Semitism. As a European nation mindful of its past, it is encouraging that the German government is playing such an important leadership role today. Unfortunately, most of the governments attending the Berlin meeting demonstrated an astonishing unwillingness to acknowledge either the histod- cal roots of anti-Semitism in their own societies or the need for strong measures to combat anti-Semitism today. At the Berlin meeting, a delegation of U.S.-based civil rights and human rights organizations, spearheaded by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights First, put forward a series of recommendations for government action. First, they highlighted the importance of monitoring. Effective monitoring requires system- atic collection of data on the frequency, type, and perpetrators of anti-Semitic acts. At present, only a handful of European governments, including France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, systematically monitor and generate public reports on hate crimes. Second, there is a need for stronger laws that make "racist motives" an aggravating factor in prosecuting hate crimes. Again, only a small number of governments, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal and Sweden, have adopted such laws, thereby signaling their seriousness in prosecuting hate crimes. Third, governments should create official bodies to oversee monitoring and law enforcement efforts to combat hate crimes. Only a handful of European governments have established these special hate crimes units to date.

The Leadership Conference and Human Rights Fitst are urging the OSCE to play a more active oversight role. At the Berlin meeting, they proposed that the OSCE appoint a Special Representative to direct its efforts to combat anti-Semitism. In Sep- tember 2004, at a follow-up meeting in Brussels focusing on anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination, they urged that the OSCE also appoint a second Special Rep- resentative to address attacks against the Muslim population, African refugees, and other vulnerable groups in Europe. Whether working through the OSCE or at the national level, the spread of hate crimes will be stopped only when governments make a serious commitment to address the problem. This will require much greater political will than governments have demonstrated to date. In the absence of such political will, governments will continue to inhabit what author Samantha Power has called the "twi- light between knowing and not knowing." The threat posed by this dangerous and artificial position is well recognized. It is up to all of us to speak in the voice of human rights, to fmd ways for Jews, Muslims, and all vulnerable peoples to confront and combat racial hatred.

Hatred of another's viewpoint or identity can become a life and death issue. Last Tuesday, a Dutch film maker, Theo van Gogh, was stabbed to death. He was an outspoken opponent of Islamic extremism and had received death threats after the broad-

WINTER/SPRING 2005 • VOLUME XI, ISSUE 2 MARY ROBINSON

cast of his short film Submission, which criticized mistreatment of Muslim women. Several Muslim men have been arrested in connection with his killing, and there is some fear in the Netherlands that the incident may incite right wing groups to attack immigrants. From generation to generation we must continue to be vigilant. Whether our world becomes a more brutal or more peaceful place rests in our own hands. Hu- man rights have become the world's common benchmark for justice, but they have yet to become our common framework for action. If we can overcome doubts and fears, if we can build on shared values and learn to recognize ourselves in "the other," this century can, after such a tragic beginning, become one of human development and human security for all—a century of human rights and peace. ^

THE BROWN JOURNAL OF WORLD AFFAIRS