22 WebMemo Published by The Heritage Foundation No. 3368 September 23, 2011

The Obama Administration Was Right to Boycott Durban III, but Should Also Withhold U.S. Funds Brett D. Schaefer

The United Nations General Assembly held a surrounding the conference. Pre-conference drafts high-level meeting on September 22 to commemo- condemned Israel for allegedly pursuing a rac- rate the 10th anniversary of the adoption of The ist Zionist agenda and committing crimes against Durban Declaration and Programme of Action at humanity. Nongovernmental organizations exerted the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against enormous pressure on the conferees to criticize Racism, Racial Discrimination, and the U.S. for a litany of perceived crimes, includ- Related Intolerance. The Durban commemora- ing widespread racism, a foreign policy that was tion (also called Durban III) was boycotted by at “responsible for racial oppression around the world,” least 15 countries,1 including the United States, denial of economic rights, and refusal to adopt U.N. which announced June 1 that it would not attend treaties without reservations.2 the meeting, at the urging of a number of U.S. American efforts to resolve these disputes before legislators. and during the conference were largely unsuc- The Obama Administration should be commend- cessful. In the end, the 2001 Durban conference ed for this decision. The symbolism of the boycott degenerated into a noxious series of speeches and is important. If the U.S. had attended Durban III, it statements dominated by anti-Semitism and anti- would have lent legitimacy to the proceedings and Americanism. Among other objectionable issues, to the original Durban Declaration and its associat- the Durban Declaration associated only Israel out of ed anti-Semitic agenda. However, even though the all the world’s nations with racism, eliciting memo- U.S. rightly boycotted Durban III, unless action is ries of the notorious 1975 General Assembly Reso- taken, American taxpayer dollars will help pay for lution 3379 that determined that “ is a form the disgraceful conference. The U.S. should com- of racism and racial discrimination.” plement its boycott by withholding the proportion- When it became obvious that the conference ate U.S. share of the cost of Durban III. would not be a useful venue for combating racism, Ongoing U.S. Opposition to the Durban Dec- discrimination, xenophobia, or intolerance, the U.S. laration. The 2001 U.N. World Conference Against and Israeli delegations walked out. 3 Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (held in Durban, South Africa) started as a seemingly well-intentioned effort to focus the international community on fighting rac- This paper, in its entirety, can be found at: ism. However, it was quickly derailed. Those intent http://report.heritage.org/wm3368 on condemning Israel and America dominated the Produced by The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Published by The Heritage Foundation agenda, the drafting of documents, and the events 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002–4999 (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. No. 3368 WebMemo September 23, 2011

The 2009 (also explained its vote opposing the Durban commemo- called Durban II) echoed the 2001 conference on ration unambiguously: a number of levels. Countries sought to reaffirm We remain deeply concerned about speech the objectionable Durban Declaration and include that advocates national, racial, or religious discriminatory references to Israel in the Durban II hatred, particularly when it seeks to incite outcome document. However, Durban II also saw violence, discrimination, or hostility. How- Muslim countries insert statements into the out- ever, based on our own experience, the Unit- come document that would support constraints on ed States remains convinced that the best freedom of speech and expression to prevent the antidote to offensive speech is not bans and “defamation of religions.” The Obama Administra- punishments but a combination of three key tion determined that these and other passages in elements: robust legal protections against the draft outcome document were too objectionable discrimination and hate crimes, proactive to justify America’s participation in Durban II and government outreach to racial and religious announced that the U.S. would boycott the confer- groups, and the vigorous defense of freedom ence unless they were changed. Last-minute chang- of expression.… es fell short, and the Obama Administration walked away from Durban II just as the Bush Administra- In addition to these concerns with the reso- tion did at the first Durban conference in 2001.4 lution, we are also deeply troubled by the choice of time and venue for the 10th anni- Last fall, the U.N. General Assembly debated versary commemorative event. Just days ear- the idea of holding a 2011 conference commem- lier, we will have honored the victims of 9/11, orating the 10th anniversary of the 2001 Durban whose loved ones will be marking a solemn Declaration and affirming the outcome document 10-year anniversary for them and the entire of the 2009 Durban Review Conference. The U.S. nation. It will be an especially sensitive time opposed these proposals in the Third Committee for the people of New York and a repeat of (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural)5 and the Fifth 6 the vitriol sadly experienced at past Durban- Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) of the related events risks undermining the relation- U.N. General Assembly, but was outvoted. The U.S. ship we have worked hard to strengthen over

1. Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 2. For a narrative, see John Fonte, “Durban vs. America: NGOs Take on Racism, Poverty, and the First Amendment,”Hudson Institute, August 21, 2001, at www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=961 (September 23, 2011); John Fonte, “Boycott Durban,” Hudson Institute, August 31, 2001, at www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_ details&id=968 (September 23, 2011); and Tom Lantos, “The Durban Debacle: An Insider’s View of the UN World Conference Against Racism,” Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Winter/Spring 2002), at http://www.lantosfoundation.org/news/PDFs/Durban.pdf (September 23, 2011). 3. Colin L. Powell, “World Conference Against Racism,” U.S. Department of State, September 3, 2001, at http://2001-2009. state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/4789.htm (September 23, 2011). 4. Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves, “Durban II: Lessons for U.S. Engagement with the U.N. on Human Rights,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2284, June 10, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Durban-II-Lessons- for-US-Engagement-with-the-UN-on-Human-Rights. 5. The Third Committee passed the resolution 121–19 with 35 abstentions. See United Nations Third Committee, “Subject: Global efforts for total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” 52nd Meeting, Vote Name A/C.3/65/L.60, November 23, 2010, at http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/65/docs/voting_sheets/L.60.pdf (September 23, 2011). 6. The Fifth Committee passed the measure 102–17 with 33 abstentions. See United Nations General Assembly, “Official Records Fifth Committee: Summary record of the 27th meeting,” United Nations Document A/C.5/65/SR.27, January 27, 2011, p. 4.

page 2 No. 3368 WebMemo September 23, 2011

the past few years between the United States Review Conference adopted in 2009, are a and the UN.7 comprehensive United Nations framework Over U.S. objections, the General Assembly over- and solid foundation for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related whelmingly voted to approve and provide funding 11 for the Durban commemoration.8 intolerance. A Justified Boycott.Despite voicing its opposi- This simple statement places the United Nations tion to the Durban commemoration in these U.N. on record as supporting, in the words of former votes, the Obama Administration did not rule out Secretary of State Powell: the possibility of participating in the event at the declarations containing hateful language, time. It was not until June 1, 2011, that Acting some of which is a throwback to the days of Assistant Secretary of State Joseph E. Macmanus “Zionism equals racism;” or supports the idea responded to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D–NY)9— that we have made too much of the Holo- who had written a letter in December 2010 to caust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Isra- Ambassador Susan Rice along with 17 other Sena- el; or that singles out only one country in the tors urging a U.S. boycott—and informed her that world—Israel—for censure and abuse. 12 “The United States will not participate in the Durban 10 The symbolism of a U.S. boycott of Durban III Commemoration.” was important. If the U.S. had attended the Durban The decision by the Obama Administration to boy- commemoration, it would have lent unwarranted cott the Durban commemoration was well founded. credibility to the proceedings and legitimacy to the During the Durban commemoration, the General Durban Declaration. Even if the U.S. had attended Assembly unanimously passed a resolution to: only to oppose the sentiments of the Durban Dec- Reaffirm that the Durban Declaration and laration or the statements being made, American Programme of Action, adopted in 2001, participation would have implied that the process and the outcome document of the Durban was serious and worthy of debate when, in truth, Durban III was intended only to celebrate “the hate-

7. John F. Sammis, United States Deputy Representative to ECOSOC, “Explanation of Vote by John F. Sammis, Deputy Representative to ECOSOC, on the Third Committee Resolution Regarding ‘The Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Program of Action,’ ” U.S. Mission to the United Nations, November 23, 2010, at http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/151912.htm (September 23, 2011), and Ambassador Joseph H. Melrose, Jr., “Statement by Ambassador Joseph H. Melrose, Acting Representative for Management and Reform, on the Programme Budget Implications of the Commemoration of the Tenth Anniversary of the Durban Conference, in the Fifth Committee, General Assembly,” U.S. Mission to the United Nations, December 24, 2010, at http://usun.state.gov/briefing/ statements/2010/153735.htm (September 23, 2011). 8. The General Assembly passed it 104–22 with 33 abstentions. See United Nations General Assembly, “Official Records,” United Nations Document A/65/PV.73, December 23, 2010, p. 7, at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/65/ PV.73 (September 23, 2011). 9. Senator Gillibrand had written a letter with 17 other Senators on December 17, 2010, urging the U.S. to “refrain from participating in the conference as long as it undermines the very goal of fighting discrimination with a demonstration of anti-Semitism.” See Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, “At Gillibrand’s Urging, U.S. Announces Pull-Out From U.N. Durban III Summit,” June 1, 2011, at http://gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=bbd7f23a-f55f-475b-bf59-2b4fcd292b7b (September 23, 2011). 10. Letter to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from Joseph E. Macmanus, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. See UN Watch, “U.S. pulls out of U.N.’s controversial ‘Durban III’ Summit,” June 1, 2011, at http://www.facebook.com/ notes/un-watch/us-pulls-out-of-uns-controversial-durban-iii-summit/10150223580899273 (September 23, 2011). 11. United Nations General Assembly, “United Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,” United Nations Document A/66/L.2, September 16, 2011, at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/L.2 (September 23, 2011). 12. Powell, “World Conference Against Racism.”

page 3 No. 3368 WebMemo September 23, 2011 ful and anti-Semitic displays of the 2001 Durban objectionable to merit U.S. participation. If a confer- Conference.”13 ence is too objectionable to attend, it should also be Unfortunately, even though the U.S. boycotted too objectionable to support financially. Congress Durban III, unless action is taken, American tax- and the Administration should refuse to support payer dollars will pay for the disgraceful conference, Durban III financially by withholding America’s because it is funded through the U.N.’s regular bud- proportionate share of the conference from U.S. get—22 percent of which is paid by the U.S. With- contributions to the U.N.’s regular budget. holding America’s proportionate share of the cost of —Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in the conference from U.S. contributions to the U.N.’s International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret regular budget would be a fitting funding boycott Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn that would complement the U.S. decision to not and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International attend Durban III. Studies, at The Heritage Foundation and editor of Be Consistent: Withhold Funding from Dur- ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and ban. The Obama Administration correctly con- the Search for Alternatives (Rowman & Littlefield cluded that the Durban commemoration was too Publishers, 2009).

13. The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the Press Secretary on the 10th Anniversary of the Durban Conference,” September 22, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/22/statement-press-secretary-10th- anniversary-durban-conference (September 23, 2011).

page 4