Sec. 701. Findings

2,706 words·~12 min read·/bill/113/hr/3155/ih/section-701·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress makes the following findings: The United States is opposed to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, and has long been a party to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Expensive and politically skewed international conferences can disserve and undermine the worthy goals that they are ostensibly convened to support. The goals of the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism—held in Durban, South Africa, and commonly referred to as Durban I —were undermined by hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric, and anti-Israel political agendas, prompting both Israel and the United States to withdraw their delegations from the Conference.

The official government declaration adopted by Durban I, the Durban Declaration and Program of Action , focused on the , and thereby singled out one regional conflict for discussion and implicitly launched a false accusation against Israel of intolerance towards the Palestinians. plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation On September 3, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell explained the withdrawal of the United States delegation from Durban I by stating that . you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of Zionism equals racism; or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world—Israel—for censure and abuse The late United States Representative Tom Lantos, who participated as a member of the United States delegation to the Durban Conference, supported that delegation’s withdrawal and wrote in 2002 that the conference . provided the world with a glimpse into the abyss of international hate, discrimination and, indeed, racism On December 19, 2006, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution initiating preparations for a Durban Review Conference (commonly referred to as Durban II ), which was held between April 20 and 24, 2009, in Geneva, Switzerland.

The chair of the preparatory committee for Durban II was Libya, and the co-chairs included Iran and Cuba. Throughout the preparatory process for Durban II, member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference urged that the conference again focus criticism on Israel and single out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for discussion, and also urged that the conference advocate global speech codes that would impose restrictions contrary to fundamental freedoms recognized in the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In testimony before the House of Representatives on April 2, 2008, then-Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Kristen Silverberg stated that the United States had decided against participating in preparatory activities for Durban II because . [there is] absolutely no case to be made for participating in something that is going to be a repeat of Durban I. We don’t have any confidence that this will be any better than Durban I On September 23, 2008, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 1361, which, among other things, called on the President to and urged all United Nations Member States urge other heads of state to condition participation in the 2009 [Durban II] Conference on concrete action by the United Nations and United Nations Member States to ensure that it is not a forum to demonize any group, or incite anti-Semitism, hatred, or violence against members of any group or to call into question the existence of any state . not to support a 2009 Durban Review Conference process that fails to adhere to established human rights standards and to reject an agenda that incites hatred against any group in the guise of criticism of a particular government or that seeks to forge a global blasphemy code The present United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dr.

Navanethem Pillay, who served as Secretary General of Durban II, has repeatedly sought to downplay the level of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas present at Durban I, describing it as merely and praising the biased 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action as the virulent anti-Semitic behavior of a few non-governmental organizations on the sidelines , has repeatedly sought to downplay the level of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas present at Durban II and its preparatory activities, and has repeatedly praised and urged the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. [t]he legacy of this Conference High Commissioner Pillay has repeatedly and publicly criticized nations, including the United States, which announced that they would not participate in Durban II, but has almost never publicly criticized governments who succeeded in using the conference and its preparatory activities to single out Israel for criticism and to attempt to restrict fundamental freedoms.

A United Nations press release on September 8, 2008, regarding an address by High Commissioner Pillay, disturbingly dismissed objections raised by non-governmental organizations to Durban II as . ferocious, and often distorted, criticism by certain lobby groups focused on single issues During February of 2009, the United States actively participated in intergovernmental consultations on Durban II’s draft outcome document and engaged in high-level diplomatic efforts to dramatically reverse the path of Durban II by directing it towards meaningful efforts to combat intolerance and bigotry and directing it away from efforts to undermine the cause of fighting discrimination through singling out Israel for implicit criticism and calling for restrictions on fundamental freedoms.

On February 27, 2009, a State Department spokesman stated that, despite United States efforts to redirect the path of Durban II, and therefore, the United States would not participate in further consultations and negotiations regarding the the document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse, and the current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable … A conference based on this text would be a missed opportunity to speak clearly about the persistent problem of racism draft outcome document , and would not participate in Durban II itself unless the draft outcome document was radically shortened and revised to eliminate objectionable material.

On April 17, 2009, the third and final session of the preparatory committee for Durban II proposed a final draft outcome document that contained a number of provisions advocating restrictions on freedom of expression, and that also implicitly singled out and criticized Israel for racism by reaffirming, in its very first paragraph, the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. On April 18, 2009, a State Department spokesman announced that , noting that the United States will not join the [Durban II] conference .

The current document … still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

(DDPA)from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support … The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding incitement , that run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech. On April 19, 2009, the President stated at a press conference that . I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe … we expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you incorporated—if you adopted all the language from 2001, that’s just not something we could sign up for … our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something that we just don’t believe … Hopefully . . . we can partner with other countries on to actually reduce discrimination around the globe. But this wasn’t an opportunity to do it. Canada, Israel, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Australia, and New Zealand also did not participate in Durban II, and the Czech Republic walked out of the Conference during its proceedings, never to return. Libya was the chair of the Main Committee of Durban II, and vice presidents of Durban II included Libya, Iran, and Cuba. Speaking at Durban II on April 20, 2009, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the democratic State of Israel totally racist and the most cruel and repressive racist regime , and called for Israel’s destruction, stating that . Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists … Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism In his speech at Durban II, Ahmadinejad also propagated anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, saying that . Those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world … mobilize all the resources, including their economic and political influence and world media, to render support in vain to the Zionist regime Disgusted by Ahmadinejad’s biased and incendiary statements, delegates from about two dozen nations walked out of the assembly hall in protest, but most delegations remained, and a large number of delegations and observers repeatedly applauded Ahmadinejad’s remarks. On April 21, 2009, governments participating in Durban II adopted by consensus an outcome document that contained a number of provisions advocating restrictions on freedom of expression, and that also implicitly singled out and criticized Israel for racism by reaffirming, in its very first paragraph, the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action. Throughout Durban II, many speakers singled out Israel for criticism or called for restrictions on fundamental freedoms, including representatives of Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Switzerland, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Arab League, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and a number of other organizations and countries. During Durban II, several speakers who sought to draw attention to genuine instances of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, related intolerance, and human rights violations by the governments of Iran, Libya, and China were repeatedly interrupted by the delegations from those governments and instructed by the conference’s chair to not refer specifically to those governments. On December 18, 2009, the United Nations General Assembly approved Resolution A/RES/64/148, which urged the and called for a full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action . The United States, joined by 12 other nations, voted against this resolution. one-day plenary event to commemorate the ten-year anniversary [of Durban I] during the high-level segment of the General Assembly to be devoted to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance during its sixty-fifth session, in 2011 On December 24, 2010, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/65/240, authorizing the holding of a in September of 2011. The resolution also states that the meeting (commonly referred to as one-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, at the level of Heads of State and Government, on the second day of the general debate of the sixty-sixth session Durban III ) will adopt a . The resolution also requests that the United Nations Secretary General political declaration aimed at mobilizing political will at the national, regional, and international levels for the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and its follow-up processes. The resolution also requests that establish a programme of outreach, with the involvement of Member States and United Nations funds and programmes as well as civil society, including non-governmental organizations, to appropriately commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. . The United States, joined by 21 other nations, voted against this resolution. the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat … launch a public information campaign for the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action The Government of Canada announced that it would not participate in the Durban III meeting. Canadian Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney stated that . Our government has lost faith in the entire tainted Durban process. Canada will not participate in this charade any longer. We will not lend our country’s good name to a commemoration of what has widely been characterized as a hatefest … Canada is clearly committed to the fight against racism, but the Durban process commemorates an agenda that actually promotes racism rather than combats it. The Government of Israel announced that it would not participate in the Durban III meeting, stating that Durban process Israel is part of the international struggle against racism. The Jewish people was itself a victim of racism throughout history. Israel regrets that a resolution on an important subject—elimination of racism—has been diverted and politicized by the automatic majority at the UN, by linking it to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

(2001)that many states would prefer to forget. The Durban Conference of 2001, with its antisemitic undertones and displays of hatred for Israel and the Jewish World, left us with scars that will not heal quickly … Under the present circumstances, as long as the [Durban III] meeting is defined as part of the infamous . , Israel will not participate … On June 2, 2011, the United States publicly announced that it would not participate in the Durban III meeting. The Department of State’s deputy spokesman stated that the . Durban process includes displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism, and we don’t want to see that commemorated. In our conversations about this commemoration, we’ve not seen the kind of progress that we think is indicative. We remain unconvinced that the conference is moving in a new direction. The Governments of Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United Kingdom also did not participate in the Durban III meeting. On September 22, 2011, at the Durban III meeting, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/66/3, a which political declaration , [r]eaffirm[ed] that the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action … and the outcome document of [Durban II] … are a comprehensive United Nations framework and solid foundation for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance , and [r]ecall[ed] that the aim of [Durban III] is to mobilize political will at the national, regional and international levels and reaffirm our political commitment to the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the outcome document of [Durban II], and their follow-up processes, at all these levels . welcome[d] the continued engagement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to incorporate the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action into the United Nations system On September 22, 2011, the White House Press Secretary stated that . Since its inception … the Durban process has included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism … Last December, the United States voted against the resolution establishing [Durban III] because we did not want to see the hateful and anti-Semitic displays of the 2001 Durban Conference commemorated. Over the last few months, we did not participate in negotiations on [Durban III’s] Political Declaration document and, like many other countries, we were not present when the Declaration was adopted. We are also deeply disappointed that the rules established for credentialing non-governmental organizations to participate were used by some delegations to silence voices critical of the Durban process. Durban I, Durban II, Durban III, and their preparatory and follow-on activities, have made little or no demonstrable contribution to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. To date, several million dollars from the United Nations regular budget has been expended on Durban I, Durban II, Durban III, and their preparatory and follow-on activities. The United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations system, and is assessed for a full 22 percent of the United Nations regular budget, which is funded by assessed contributions from Member States. Funding for Durban I, Durban II, Durban III, and their preparatory and follow-on activities through the United Nations regular budget has resulted in United States taxpayer dollars being used for those purposes. Congress, through its adoption of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ( Public Law 110–161 ) withheld from the United States assessed contribution for fiscal year 2008 to the United Nations regular budget an amount equivalent to the United States share of the United Nations Human Rights Council budget, including its share of the Council-administered preparatory process for Durban II.

Connections1 off-index

1 reference not yet in our index

Pub. L. 110-161

Citation graph

cites case law

Sec. 701

Findings

Pub. L.Pub. L. 110-161

Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources