IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 42 

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to withhold United 

States funding for and participation in the Durban Review Conference 

and its preparatory activities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. BURTON of 

Indiana, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. WILSON

of South Carolina, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. BILIRAKIS, and Mr. GARRETT

of New Jersey) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to withhold United States funding for and participation in the 

Durban Review Conference and its preparatory activities, 

and for other purposes. 

Whereas 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; 

Whereas expensive and politically skewed international conferences can disserve and undermine the worthy goals 

that they are ostensibly convened to support; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 42 IH 

Whereas the goals of the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism—held in Durban, South Africa 

and commonly referred to as the ‘‘Durban Conference’’— 

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; 

Whereas during the preparations leading up to the World 

Conference Against Racism, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who served 

as Secretary-General of the conference, repeatedly failed 

to publicly condemn efforts by member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to single out Israel 

for criticism and to single out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for discussion; 

Whereas the official government declaration adopted by the 

World Conference Against Racism, the ‘‘Durban Declaration and Program of Action’’, focused on the ‘‘plight of 

the Palestinian people under foreign occupation’’, and 

thereby singled out one regional conflict for discussion 

and implicitly launched a false accusation against Israel 

of racism towards the Palestinians; 

Whereas on September 3, 2001, Secretary of State Colin 

Powell explained the withdrawal of the United States delegation 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’’; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 42 IH 

Whereas 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’’; 

Whereas 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’’); 

Whereas the Durban Review Conference will be held between 

April 20 and 24, 2009, in Geneva, Switzerland; 

Whereas the chair of the preparatory committee for the Durban Review Conference is Libya, and the co-chairs include Iran, Pakistan, and Cuba; 

Whereas throughout the preparatory process for the Durban 

Review Conference, member states of the Organization of 

the Islamic Conference have urged that the conference 

again focus criticism on Israel and single out the IsraeliPalestinian conflict for discussion; 

Whereas throughout the preparatory process for the Durban 

Review Conference, member states of the Organization of 

the Islamic Conference have also urged that the Durban 

Review Conference consider global legal codes that would 

impose restrictions on the freedoms of religion, expression, thought, conscience, the media, and opinion, contrary to fundamental freedoms recognized in the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 

Whereas in testimony before the House of Representatives on 

April 2, 2008, then-Assistant Secretary of State for 

International Organizations Kristen Silverberg stated 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
4 

•HRES 42 IH 

that the United States had decided against participating 

in preparatory activities for the Durban Review Conference 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’’; 

Whereas Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, United States Permanent 

Representative to the United Nations, stated on April 8, 

2008, that ‘‘we have made clear that the United States 

is not participating in the [Durban Review Conference] 

process and we have no plans to do so. We will not participate unless it is proven that the conference will not be 

used as a platform for anti-Semitic behavior’’; 

Whereas on January 23, 2008, Canada’s secretary of state 

for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, Jason 

Kenney, announced that Canada would not participate in 

the Durban Review Conference, stating that ‘‘Canada is 

interested in combating racism, not promoting it . . . 

Our considered judgment having participated in the preparatory meetings, was that we were set for the replay 

of Durban I. And Canada has no intention of lending its 

good name and resources to such a systematic promotion 

of hatred and bigotry’’; 

Whereas on September 23, 2008, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 1361, which, among other 

things, called on the President to ‘‘urge other heads of 

state to condition participation in the 2009 Durban Review 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 antiSemitism, hatred, or violence against members of any 

group or to call into question the existence of any state’’ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
5 

•HRES 42 IH 

and urged all United Nations Member States ‘‘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’’; 

Whereas the draft declaration or ‘‘draft outcome document’’ 

published at the second preparatory session of the Durban Review Conference in October 2008 again implicitly 

criticized Israel, singled out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for discussion, and advocated global legal codes that 

impose restrictions on the freedoms of religion, expression, thought, conscience, the media, and opinion; 

Whereas in December of 2008, the intersessional working 

group, chaired by Russia, published on the website of the 

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for 

Human Rights a revised ‘‘draft outcome document’’ that 

reaffirmed the biased 2001 Durban Declaration and Plan 

of Action ‘‘in its entirety’’; ratcheted up implicit criticism 

of Israel and singling-out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for discussion, and also increased its calls for global 

legal codes that impose restrictions on the freedoms of 

religion, expression, thought, conscience, the media, and 

opinion; 

Whereas the present United Nations High Commissioner for 

Human Rights and Secretary-General of the 2009 Durban Review Conference, Dr. Navanethem Pillay, has 

sought to minimize the level of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas present at the 2001 

Durban Conference, describing it as merely ‘‘the virulent 

anti-Semitic behavior of a few non-governmental organizations on the sidelines’’ and praising the biased Durban 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
6 

•HRES 42 IH 

Declaration and Program of Action as ‘‘[t]he legacy of 

this Conference’’; 

Whereas the present High Commissioner Pillay has repeatedly and publicly criticized nations that have announced 

that they do not plan to participate in the Durban Review Conference or are considering not participating, but 

she has yet to publicly criticize countries who have thus 

far succeeded in using the conference’s preparatory conference to criticize Israel and to attempt to restrict fundamental freedoms; 

Whereas a United Nations press release on September 8, 

2008, regarding an address by High Commissioner 

Pillay, disturbingly dismissed objections raised by nongovernmental organizations to the Durban Review Conference as ‘‘ferocious, and often distorted, criticism by 

certain lobby groups focused on single issues’’; 

Whereas on November 19, 2008, Israeli Foreign Minister 

Tzipi Livni announced that Israel would not participate 

in the Durban Review Conference and called on other nations ‘‘not to participate in the conference, which seeks 

to legitimize hatred and racism’’; 

Whereas on December 16, 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister 

Maxime Verhagen announced that the Netherlands was 

considering not participating in the Durban Review Conference, stating ‘‘It seems like the sole intention is to 

criticize Israel and condemn the West for slavery and its 

colonial history . . . We will take every opportunity at 

this time to fight racism and discrimination but we will 

not be used for a propaganda circus’’; 

Whereas to date, over $2,000,000 from the United Nations 

regular budget has been expended on Durban Review 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
7 

•HRES 42 IH 

Conference preparatory activities, and on December 24, 

2008, the United Nations General Assembly approved a 

program budget for the biennium 2008–2009 that, over 

the objections of the United States, the European Union, 

Canada, Australia, and other prominent Member States, 

will provide a significant portion of the funding for the 

Durban Review Conference and its preparatory activities 

from the United Nations regular budget; 

Whereas 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; 

Whereas funding Durban Review Conference activities 

through the United Nations regular budget would result 

in United States taxpayer dollars being used for those 

purposes; 

Whereas the United States decided to withhold from its 2008 

funding for 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 the 2009 Durban Review Conference; 

Whereas the preparation and management of the Durban Review Conference has been committed to the United Nations Human Rights Council; and 

Whereas during the 110th Congress the House of Representatives approved a prohibition on United States funding 

for the United Nations Human Rights Council, and has 

strongly condemned the Council for ignoring severe 

human rights issues in other countries, while choosing to 

unfairly target the State of Israel: Now, therefore, be it 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
8 

•HRES 42 IH 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) reaffirms the fundamental commitment of 

3 the United States to combating racism, racial dis4 crimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance; 

5 (2) believes strongly that the 2009 Durban Re6 view Conference, like its 2001 predecessor, has been 

7 subverted by members of the Organization of the Is8 lamic Conference and irredeemably distorted into a 

9 forum for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activity; 

10 (3) urges the President and the Secretary of 

11 State to build upon present United States policy by 

12 publicly declaring that the United States will not 

13 fund or participate in any portion of the Durban Re14 view Conference or its preparatory activities; 

15 (4) urges the President and the Secretary of 

16 State to withhold from United States funding for 

17 the United Nations regular budget an amount equiv18 alent to the United States share of assessed con19 tributions for the Durban Review Conference and its 

20 preparatory activities; 

21 (5) urges the President and the Secretary of 

22 State to lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encour23 age other responsible nations to not fund or partici24 pate in any portion of the Durban Review Con25 ference or its preparatory activities; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
9 

•HRES 42 IH 

1 (6) commends the governments of Canada and 

2 Israel for publicly refusing to fund or participate in 

3 the Durban Review Conference; and 

4 (7) calls upon the President and the Secretary 

5 of State to lead a high-level diplomatic effort to ex6 plore credible, alternative forums for combating rac7 ism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related 

8 intolerance. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS