(2) Expensive and politically skewed inter-
national conferences can disserve and undermine the 
worthy goals that they are ostensibly convened to 
support. 
(3) 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 rhet-
oric, and anti-Israel political agendas, prompting 
both Israel and the United States to withdraw their 
delegations from the Conference. 
(4) The official government declaration adopted 
by Durban I, the ‘‘Durban Declaration and Program 
of Action’’, focused on the ‘‘plight of the Palestinian 
people under foreign occupation’’, and thereby sin-
gled out one regional conflict for discussion and im-
plicitly launched a false accusation against Israel of 
intolerance towards the Palestinians. 
(5) 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 Zion-
ism’ equals racism; or supports the idea that we 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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’’. 
(6) The late United States Representative Tom 
Lantos, who participated as a member of the United 
States delegation to the Durban Conference, sup-
ported that delegation’s withdrawal and wrote in 
2002 that the conference ‘‘provided the world with 
a glimpse into the abyss of international hate, dis-
crimination and, indeed, racism’’. 
(7) On December 19, 2006, the United Nations 
General Assembly approved a resolution initiating 
preparations for a Durban Review Conference (com-
monly referred to as ‘‘Durban II’’), which was held 
between April 20 and 24, 2009, in Geneva, Switzer-
land. 
(8) The chair of the preparatory committee for 
Durban II was Libya, and the co-chairs included 
Iran and Cuba. 
(9) 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 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
that the conference advocate global speech codes 
that would impose restrictions contrary to funda-
mental freedoms recognized in the provisions of the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
(10) In testimony before the House of Rep-
resentatives on April 2, 2008, then-Assistant Sec-
retary of State for International Organizations 
Kristen Silverberg stated that the United States had 
decided against participating in preparatory activi-
ties 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 Dur-
ban I’’. 
(11) 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 participa-
tion 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’’ and urged 
all United Nations Member States ‘‘not to support 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 gov-
ernment or that seeks to forge a global blasphemy 
code’’. 
(12) The present United Nations High Com-
missioner 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 
‘‘the virulent anti-Semitic behavior of a few non-gov-
ernmental organizations on the sidelines’’ and prais-
ing the biased 2001 Durban Declaration and Pro-
gramme of Action as ‘‘[t]he legacy of this Con-
ference’’, has repeatedly sought to downplay the level 
of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel polit-
ical agendas present at Durban II and its pre-
paratory activities, and has repeatedly praised and 
urged the full implementation of the Durban Dec-
laration and Programme of Action. 
(13) High Commissioner Pillay has repeatedly 
and publicly criticized nations, including the United 
States, which announced that they would not partici-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
pate 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. 
(14) A United Nations press release on Sep-
tember 8, 2008, regarding an address by High Com-
missioner 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’’. 
(15) During February of 2009, the United 
States actively participated in intergovernmental 
consultations on Durban II’s ‘‘draft outcome docu-
ment’’ and engaged in high-level diplomatic efforts 
to dramatically reverse the path of Durban II by di-
recting it towards meaningful efforts to combat in-
tolerance and bigotry and directing it away from ef-
forts to undermine the cause of fighting discrimina-
tion through singling out Israel for implicit criticism 
and calling for restrictions on fundamental free-
doms. 
(16) On February 27, 2009, a State Depart-
ment spokesman stated that, despite United States 
efforts to redirect the path of Durban II, ‘‘the docu-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ment 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’’ and there-
fore, the United States would not participate in fur-
ther consultations and negotiations regarding the 
‘‘draft outcome document’’, and would not partici-
pate in Durban II itself unless the ‘‘draft outcome 
document’’ was radically shortened and revised to 
eliminate objectionable material. 
(17) On April 17, 2009, the third and final ses-
sion of the preparatory committee for Durban II 
proposed a final ‘‘draft outcome document’’ that 
contained a number of provisions advocating restric-
tions on freedom of expression, and that also implic-
itly singled out and criticized Israel for racism by re-
affirming, in its very first paragraph, the 2001 Dur-
ban Declaration and Programme of Action. 
(18) On April 18, 2009, a State Department 
spokesman announced that ‘‘the United States will 
not join the [Durban II] conference’’, noting that 
‘‘The current document . . . still contains language 
that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and 
Programme of Action (DDPA) from 2001, which the 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
21:32 Oct 17, 2013
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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. commit-
ment to unfettered free speech.’’. 
(19) 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 adopt-
ed all the language from 2001, that’s just not some-
thing 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 actu-
ally reduce discrimination around the globe. But this 
wasn’t an opportunity to do it.’’. 
(20) Canada, Israel, Italy, Germany, the Neth-
erlands, Poland, Australia, and New Zealand also 
did not participate in Durban II, and the Czech Re-
public walked out of the Conference during its pro-
ceedings, never to return. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(21) Libya was the chair of the Main Com-
mittee of Durban II, and vice presidents of Durban 
II included Libya, Iran, and Cuba. 
(22) 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 rac-
ism’’. 
(23) In his speech at Durban II, Ahmadinejad 
also propagated anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, 
saying that ‘‘Those who control huge economic re-
sources 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’’. 
(24) 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 ap-
plauded Ahmadinejad’s remarks. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(25) On April 21, 2009, governments partici-
pating in Durban II adopted by consensus an ‘‘out-
come document’’ that contained a number of provi-
sions advocating restrictions on freedom of expres-
sion, and that also implicitly singled out and criti-
cized Israel for racism by reaffirming, in its very 
first paragraph, the 2001 Durban Declaration and 
Program of Action. 
(26) Throughout Durban II, many speakers 
singled out Israel for criticism or called for restric-
tions on fundamental freedoms, including represent-
atives of Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Ven-
ezuela, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, 
Qatar, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, 
Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia, Ban-
gladesh, Switzerland, the Organization of the Islamic 
Conference, the Arab League, the Palestine Libera-
tion Organization, and a number of other organiza-
tions and countries. 
(27) During Durban II, several speakers who 
sought to draw attention to genuine instances of rac-
ism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, related intol-
erance, and human rights violations by the govern-
ments of Iran, Libya, and China were repeatedly in-
terrupted by the delegations from those governments 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
and instructed by the conference’s chair to not refer 
specifically to those governments. 
(28) On December 18, 2009, the United Na-
tions General Assembly approved Resolution A/RES/ 
64/148, which urged the ‘‘full and effective imple-
mentation of the Durban Declaration and Pro-
gramme of Action’’ and called for a ‘‘one-day ple-
nary 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 dis-
crimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance dur-
ing its sixty-fifth session, in 2011’’. The United 
States, joined by 12 other nations, voted against this 
resolution. 
(29) On December 24, 2010, the United Na-
tions General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/ 
65/240, authorizing the holding of a ‘‘one-day high- 
level meeting of the General Assembly to commemo-
rate 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’’ in September of 2011. The resolution also 
states that the meeting (commonly referred to as 
‘‘Durban III’’) will adopt a ‘‘political declaration 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
21:32 Oct 17, 2013
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
aimed at mobilizing political will at the national, re-
gional, and international levels for the full and effec-
tive implementation of the Durban Declaration and 
Programme of Action and its follow-up processes.’’. 
The resolution also requests that the United Nations 
Secretary General ‘‘establish a programme of out-
reach, with the involvement of Member States and 
United Nations funds and programmes as well as 
civil society, including non-governmental organiza-
tions, to appropriately commemorate the tenth anni-
versary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration 
and Programme of Action.’’ The resolution also re-
quests that ‘‘the Office of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Human Rights and the Depart-
ment of Public Information of the Secretariat . . . 
launch a public information campaign for the com-
memoration of the tenth anniversary of the adoption 
of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Ac-
tion’’. The United States, joined by 21 other na-
tions, voted against this resolution. 
(30) The Government of Canada announced 
that it would not participate in the Durban III 
meeting. Canadian Minister of Citizenship, Immigra-
tion, and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney stated that 
‘‘Our government has lost faith in the entire tainted 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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.’’. 
(31) The Government of Israel announced that 
it would not participate in the Durban III meeting, 
stating that ‘‘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 politi-
cized by the automatic majority at the UN, by link-
ing it to the Durban Declaration and Programme of 
Action (2001) that many states would prefer to for-
get. 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 cir-
cumstances, as long as the [Durban III] meeting is 
defined as part of the infamous’’Durban process‘‘, 
Israel will not participate . . .’’. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(32) On June 2, 2011, the United States pub-
licly 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 indic-
ative. We remain unconvinced that the conference is 
moving in a new direction.’’. 
(33) The Governments of Australia, Austria, 
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, 
Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Po-
land, and the United Kingdom also did not partici-
pate in the Durban III meeting. 
(34) On September 22, 2011, at the Durban 
III meeting, the United Nations General Assembly 
adopted Resolution A/RES/66/3, a ‘‘political declara-
tion’’ which ‘‘[r]eaffirm[ed] that the Durban Dec-
laration and Programme of Action . . . and the out-
come document of [Durban II] . . . are a com-
prehensive United Nations framework and solid 
foundation for combating racism, racial discrimina-
tion, 
xenophobia, 
and 
related 
intolerance’’, 
‘‘[r]ecall[ed] that the aim of [Durban III] is to mo-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
21:32 Oct 17, 2013
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
bilize political will at the national, regional and 
international levels and reaffirm our political com-
mitment 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’’, and 
‘‘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’’. 
(35) On September 22, 2011, the White House 
Press Secretary stated that ‘‘Since its inception . . . 
the Durban process has included ugly displays of in-
tolerance and anti-Semitism . . . Last December, 
the United States voted against the resolution estab-
lishing [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 par-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
21:32 Oct 17, 2013
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ticipate were used by some delegations to silence 
voices critical of the Durban process.’’. 
(36) 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 re-
lated intolerance. 
(37) To date, several million dollars from the 
United Nations regular budget has been expended 
on Durban I, Durban II, Durban III, and their pre-
paratory and follow-on activities. 
(38) The United States is the largest contrib-
utor 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. 
(39) Funding for Durban I, Durban II, Durban 
III, and their preparatory and follow-on activities 
through the United Nations regular budget has re-
sulted in United States taxpayer dollars being used 
for those purposes. 
(40) Congress, through its adoption of the Con-
solidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 
110–161) withheld from the United States assessed 
contribution for fiscal year 2008 to the United Na-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:31 Sep 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3155.IH
H3155
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS