The 2009 U.N. Durban Review Conference: Follow-Up to the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism
Released: 2009-04-06T00:00:00

Summary:
In April 2009, U.N. member states will convene in Geneva, Switzerland, for the U.N. Durban Review Conference Against Racism (Review Conference) to examine possible progress made since the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR), held in Durban, South Africa. At WCAR, participating governments, including the United States, sought to recommend ways for the international community to address racism. The United States withdrew from WCAR because of what it viewed as participating governments' disproportionate focus on Israel as a perpetrator of racism and intolerance in the Middle East.
The George W. Bush Administration did not participate in Review Conference preparations and voted against U.N. resolutions supporting or funding the Conference because of concerns that it may repeat the perceived mistakes of WCAR. In February 2009, the Barack Obama Administration announced that it would send a delegation to the Review Conference consultations. Based on its observations, the Administration concluded that it would not participate in further negotiations due primarily to the draft outcome document's focus on Israel. It stated that it remained open to re-engaging in negotiations if a draft document appeared to take a "constructive approach" to addressing racism and discrimination. Canada, Israel, and Italy announced that they will boycott the Review Conference, and other governments announced they will not participate unless it is demonstrated that the Review Conference will not target Israel.
Congressional perspectives on U.S. participation in the Review Conference vary. Some Members of Congress have introduced legislation supporting U.S. participation in the Conference, arguing that the United States should play an active role in combating international racism. Other Members contend that the United States should not participate or fund the Conference because of WCAR's focus on Israel. Specifically, they propose that the United States withhold a proportionate share of its U.N. assessed contributions that fund the Conference. Because assessed contributions finance the U.N. regular budget in its entirety and not specific parts of it, withholding funds in this manner would not affect the Review Conference.
For many, U.S. participation or non-participation in the Review Conference touches on the broader issue of U.S. engagement in the U.N. system. Supporters contend that U.S. participation in U.N. efforts such as the Review Conference is important to the success and credibility of the United Nations as a whole. Opponents maintain that U.S. engagement in the Conference would give undeserved legitimacy to U.N. mechanisms that provide a platform for member states to target Israel.
This report provides information on the 2001 World Conference Against Racism and the circumstances of U.S. withdrawal. It discusses preparations for the Durban Review Conference, including U.S. policy and reaction from other governments. It also highlights possible issues for the 111th Congress, including the Review Conference preparatory process, U.S. funding of the Conference, and the political and diplomatic impact of U.S. engagement. For related information, see CRS Report RL33611, United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. This report will be updated as events warrant.

subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: From April 20 to 24, 2009, United Nations (U.N.) member states will meet in Geneva, Switzerland, for the U.N. Durban Review Conference Against Racism (Review Conference). Some Members of Congress are concerned that the Review Conference will repeat the perceived mistakes of the U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR), which was held in Durban, South Africa, from August 31 to September 7, 2001. At WCAR, participating governments, including the United States, sought to acknowledge and recommend ways for the international community to address racism and related intolerance. The Conference attracted a significant amount of national and international attention because of what many viewed as participating governments' disproportionate focus on Israel as a perpetrator of racism and intolerance in the Middle East. The United States withdrew from WCAR when, in its view, it became clear that governments, particularly members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) , would continue to target Israel while contemporary forms of racism remained unaddressed.
In December 2006, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a Durban Review Conference to assess the implementation of WCAR's main outcome documents—the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. The Bush Administration opposed the Review Conference and did not participated in the preparatory process or voted for U.N. resolutions supporting or funding it. 
In February 2009, the Barack Obama Administration decided to participate in Review Conference consultations to observe the current status of negotiations related to the Review Conference outcome document. After attending the consultations and reviewing the draft outcome document, it determined that it would not participate in future negotiations because of the draft document's focus on Israel. The Administration stated that it remained open to re-engaging in negotiations if a draft document appeared to take a "constructive approach" to addressing racism and discrimination. Other countries, including Canada, Israel, and Italy have announced that they will boycott the Conference, and some governments stated they will not participate unless it is clear that the Conference will not target Israel. In the coming weeks, participating countries will continue to negotiate the Review Conference draft outcome document.
Members of Congress have demonstrated continued interest in the Durban Review Conference. Some Members, for example, are concerned that the United States would fund a U.N. conference that serves as a forum for anti-Semitism. They have proposed legislation that would withhold a proportionate share of U.S. assessed contributions to the U.N. regular budget, which funds the Review Conference. Limiting U.S. contributions to the Review Conference in this manner would have no impact on the Review Conference because assessed contributions finance the U.N. regular budget in its entirety and not specific or separate parts of it. Other Members of Congress have emphasized the importance of combating racism internationally, and have proposed and passed resolutions urging President Obama to engage in diplomatic efforts to ensure that the Review Conference does not further discredit U.N. efforts to address racism by disproportionately focusing on Israel.
Members of the 111 th Congress will likely consider a number of issues when conducting oversight of the Review Conference and determining appropriate levels of U.S. participation and financial contributions. Some suggest, for example, that ongoing Review Conference preparations indicate that certain U.N. member states will continue to target Israel. Others are concerned about the potential diplomatic or political impact of U.S. participation, or lack thereof. Some, for instance, maintain that the question of U.S. participation in the Review Conference is inherently linked to the larger issue of U.S. participation in international organizations. They are concerned that a selective approach to U.S. engagement in the United Nations may damage the reputation and negotiating influence of the United States both within and outside of the U.N. system. Opponents, however, contend that U.S. participation in the Review Conference contradicts the objectives of the Conference and would provide legitimacy to U.N. mechanisms that allow member states to criticize Israel in the context of racism.
This report provides background information on previous U.N. efforts to address racism and the 2001 World Conference Against Racism. The report also discusses the objectives of the Durban Review Conference, including U.S. policy and responses from other governments. It examines charges of bias against Israel in the preparatory process for the Review Conference, potential implications for U.S. participation or non-participation, and the impact of withholding a proportionate share of U.S. contributions to the Conference from the U.N. regular budget.
section_title: Overview of U.N. Activities to Address Racism
paragraphs: The 2001 World Conference Against Racism and the upcoming Durban Review Conference are part of broader U.N. efforts to address racism and racial discrimination.
subsections: section_title: Previous U.N. Efforts
paragraphs: Since the United Nations was established in 1945, member states have sought to address racism both in the broader context of human rights and as a stand-alone issue. Member states, for instance, incorporated the idea of racial equality into international documents such as the U.N. Charter in 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Through the 1960s, member states negotiated and ratified international agreements and declarations that addressed the issue. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), for example, requires parties to condemn and work to eliminate discrimination in all of its forms, regardless of race, sex, language, or religion. The treaty, which entered into force on January 4, 1969, has been ratified or acceded to by 173 U.N. member states. It was ratified by the United States on October 21, 1994.
U.N. member states have also addressed racism through U.N. bodies such as the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, the main subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council). In 1993, the Human Rights Council appointed a Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia to report to U.N. member states on contemporary forms of racism.
In the past three decades, U.N. member states have focused on raising global awareness of racism and taking measures to address the issue through U.N. "Decades Against Racism" and three global anti-racism conferences. During each Decade Against Racism—1973 to 1982, 1983 to 1992, and 1993 to 2002—participating U.N. member states held world conferences against racism, including the 2001 World Conference in Durban, South Africa. At each Conference, U.N. member states negotiated programs of action that would be implemented by governments and U.N. specialized agencies, funds, and programs.
Some U.N. member state efforts to address racism in U.N. fora have been controversial. Probably the most notorious effort occurred in 1975, when member states adopted General Assembly resolution 3379, which stated that Zionism is a form a racism and racial discrimination. The United States strongly opposed the resolution, stating that it treated racism not as a serious injustice, but as an "epithet to be flung at whoever [sic] happens to be one's adversary." Sixteen years later, on December 16, 1991, the General Assembly adopted a resolution to revoke resolution 3379. Despite its repeal, many argue that the adoption of resolution 3379 greatly diminished the credibility of U.N. efforts to address racism and had a lasting and adverse effect on relations among U.N. member states—particularly among Israel and other Middle Eastern countries.
section_title: U.S. Role
paragraphs: The United States did not participate in the 1978 and 1985 World Conferences Against Racism because of its strong opposition to resolution 3379. The Bush Administration decided, however, to participate in the 2001 World Conference Against Racism—in large part because of the 1991 General Assembly decision to revoke resolution 3379.
Congressional response to U.N. efforts to address racism has varied over time. Members have supported U.N. mechanisms that address racism, such as ICERD. On the other hand, Congress has condemned the efforts of some U.N. member states to address racism that appear to target Israel. Many Members were particularly critical of General Assembly resolution 3379 and adopted a joint resolution condemning its passage. Members also generally agreed with the U.S. decisions not to participate in the first two U.N. Decades Against Racism and first two World Conferences Against Racism.
section_title: The 2001 World Conference Against Racism
paragraphs: The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR or the Conference) was held in Durban, South Africa, from August 31 to September 7, 2001. Conference objectives included (1) reviewing progress made in the fight against racism, xenophobia, and intolerance; (2) increasing the level of awareness about racism; and (3) recommending ways to increase U.N. effectiveness through programs that combat racism and related intolerance. Conference participants also aimed to recommend ways to improve regional, national, and international measures to combat racism, and ensure that the United Nations had the resources to combat racism. Unlike previous World Conferences that focused primarily on racism and racial discrimination, WCAR also addressed issues related to xenophobia and related intolerance.
The U.N. General Assembly designated the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council) as the Conference preparatory committee, and directed that the Conference secretariat operate out of the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Participation was open to representatives from all U.N. member states, U.N. bodies and programs, regional organizations and commissions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organizations. Approximately 2,300 representatives from 163 countries attended WCAR, and nearly 4,000 NGO representatives were accredited. The Conference was funded through the U.N. regular budget and voluntary contributions from U.N. member states.
To prepare for WCAR, participating governments held a number of regional and organizational meetings where they made decisions related to the scope and agenda of the Conference. At the regional sessions, for example, governments drafted Declarations and Programs of Action for their regions. At the second session of the Preparatory Committee, held in May 2001, governments established a working group of 21 states (Group of 21), which included the United States. The group synthesized the outcome documents from regional meetings into the draft Declaration and Program of Action (hereafter "outcome documents") that was considered at the Conference. Though the outcome documents were non-binding, many countries considered them crucial to the success of WCAR because they provided international guidance and credibility for governments and organizations aiming to combat racism.
subsections: section_title: Bush Administration Position on WCAR
paragraphs: Initially, the United States supported the World Conference on Racism. In December 1997, the Clinton Administration co-sponsored the U.N. General Assembly resolution that decided to convene the Conference and established an interagency Task Force (WCAR Task Force) to coordinate U.S. participation in the Conference. The Bush Administration supported the Conference and continued to support the Task Force. It also agreed to pay the U.S. share of the Conference costs and to provide an additional $250,000 in voluntary contributions to the U.N. Secretariat. In addition, the Administration participated in Preparatory Committee and Group of 21 discussions. As preparations for WCAR progressed, however, the Bush Administration increasingly expressed concern with two issues: anti-Israel language in the draft outcome documents, and proposals for reparations and compensation for victims of slavery.
subsections: section_title: Anti-Israel Language
paragraphs: In February 2001, at the Asian regional preparatory meeting in Iran, members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) included language in the region's outcome documents that appeared to target Israel. Some of the controversial text from the regional meeting was incorporated into the outcome documents negotiated at the Conference. Initial drafts of the WCAR Declaration, for example, included language that equated Zionism with racism. Some countries, including the United States, Canada, and members of the European Union, strongly objected to these sentiments. They argued that WCAR was the wrong forum in which to raise the Israel-Palestine issue, and emphasized that individual countries and regional conflicts should not be singled out in Conference outcome documents. Countries in support of the text argued that the Israeli occupation of Palestine was racially motivated and therefore should be addressed at WCAR.
The Bush Administration emphasized that it would not participate in the Conference if language in the draft outcome documents continued to target Israel. Consequently, there were some questions regarding the level and extent of U.S. participation, and, in late August 2001, the Administration announced that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell would not attend WCAR. The Administration stated that it would instead send a mid-level working delegation.
section_title: Slavery and Reparations Language
paragraphs: The United States also expressed concern with language in the draft WCAR outcome documents that addressed reparations and compensation for slavery. At the African regional meeting in Senegal in 2001, participating governments agreed to language that requested an apology from states involved in the slave trade, as well as compensation and reparations for victims of racial discrimination and slavery. Some of this proposed language was included in the outcome documents considered at Durban. The draft Program of Action, for example, urged countries to protect against racism by ensuring that all persons have access to "adequate remedies ... and adequate reparations" for damage resulting from racial discrimination. The draft Declaration also expressed "explicit and unreserved apologies" to victims of slavery and their heirs. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, in particular, was cited several times in the draft outcome documents.
In July 2001, the Administration called the specific mention of trans-Atlantic slavery in the proposed Durban drafts "extreme and unbalanced," noting that its mention was "selective," and "inconsistent with the goals of WCAR." The Administration further stated that there was no consensus in the United States on the reparations issue, and noted that the United States had consistently opposed calls for reparations and would continue to do so. Assistant Secretary Wood further stated that the United States was ready to join WCAR participants in expressing regret for historic injustices such as slavery. He also emphasized that the purpose of WCAR was to focus on contemporary manifestations of racism and intolerance. The Administration advocated what it described as a "future-oriented approach" on the reparations issue, expressing support for programs that aimed to overcome Africa's development challenges.
section_title: U.S. Walk-Out
paragraphs: At the Conference, the United States participated in initial negotiations. When it became clear that the anti-Israel language would not be removed, however, the U.S. delegation withdrew under instructions from then-Secretary of State Powell. Israel joined the United States in withdrawing from the Conference. Because of its withdrawal, the United States did not pay $250,000 in voluntary contributions to WCAR.
section_title: Congressional Response to WCAR
paragraphs: Some Members of Congress viewed WCAR as a crucial international mechanism for combating racism and supported full U.S. participation. Others, however, were concerned that language in the draft outcome documents appeared to target Israel, and urged the Administration not to participate if such language remained. Some Members viewed WCAR as an opportunity to address historic and contemporary factors that may have contributed to present-day racism. They urged the Administration to participate regardless of controversial text in the draft outcome documents, arguing that the United States could bring balance to the issue. Some Members also viewed the Conference as an opportunity for the United States to acknowledge its role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and disagreed with the Administration's position that slavery reparations should not be discussed at the Conference. Some Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) were particularly supportive of WCAR's objectives and full U.S. participation.
Members who attended the Conference as part of a congressional delegation held differing views on the U.S. withdrawal. Some argued that singling out one country (Israel) in Conference outcome documents was unacceptable, and maintained that the Israel-Palestine dispute was not a racial issue. Other Members disagreed with the U.S. decision to withdraw and emphasized that the United States should not allow one issue to overshadow the Conference's overall purpose of combating racism.
section_title: WCAR Outcomes: The Durban Declaration and Program of Action
paragraphs: After the United States and Israel withdrew from the Conference, the remaining member states engaged in a series of intense and difficult negotiations that resulted in WCAR's main outcome documents—the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. These documents created international definitions and established new U.N. mechanisms to address racism and other related issues. In the Program of Action, for example, governments agreed to definitions of "victims of racism" and "grounds for discrimination." Governments also decided to establish an anti-discrimination unit within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and requested that OHCHR work with five independent experts to follow up on the implementation of provisions in the Declaration and Program of Action. The outcome documents also urged member states to establish and implement national policies and action plans to address racism, racial discrimination, and related intolerance.
Some observers expressed concern that WCAR's focus on Israel and Palestine overshadowed other aspects of the Conference. Some, for example, spoke positively of the outcome documents' focus on the vital role of human rights institutions in combating racism. Many supported the outcome documents' focus on education and the role of good governance in addressing racial discrimination. Yet, some maintain that WCAR's focus on Israel and Palestine diverted attention from subjects that they believe WCAR should have addressed more effectively—such as the rights of indigenous people and specific instances of contemporary racism—such as caste discrimination in India.
Prior to the adoption of the Declaration and Program of Action, however, some governments disassociated themselves from or expressed reservations about specific provisions in the text—particularly those that addressed the situation in the Middle East, the impact of historic injustices such as slavery and colonialism, and the rights of indigenous peoples. Some countries also disagreed with text that appeared to equate colonialism with slavery and genocide.
subsections: section_title: Provisions on the Situation in the Middle East
paragraphs: In the final WCAR outcome documents, governments expressed concern about the "plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation" and recognized "the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State." They also called for the "the end of violence and the swift resumption of negotiations" in the Middle East. The outcome documents did not include text equating Zionism with racism. Members of the European Union viewed the final language as an improvement over previous drafts that appeared to repeatedly target Israel. Other countries, however, maintained that the situation in the Middle East should not be addressed at WCAR because it was a political situation rather than a racial one. Canada, in particular, disassociated itself from text that directly or indirectly mentioned the situation in the Middle East. Conversely, some countries argued that the text did not go far enough to address the situation in the Palestinian territories.
section_title: Provisions on Slavery and Reparations
paragraphs: The Declaration acknowledged slavery and the slave trade, including the trans-Atlantic slave trade, as a "crime against humanity," and invited the international community to express regret or remorse for slavery. The Program of Action also recognized that slavery has "undeniably contributed" to poverty and underdevelopment. It urged countries to reinforce protection against racism by ensuring that all persons enjoy the right to seek just and adequate reparations from damage resulting from discrimination. Further, it recognized the need to develop programs for the social and economic development of societies impacted by historic injustices such as slavery. It called on developed countries and the U.N. system to support development mechanisms, particularly in Africa. The outcome documents did not call for reparations or an explicit apology for historical injustices such as slavery. Consequently, some African and Caribbean states maintained that the Conference did not sufficiently address the issue.
section_title: General Assembly Adoption of Outcome Documents
paragraphs: In March 2002, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution on the Durban Declaration and Program of Action that endorsed the implementation of the outcome documents, urged U.N. member states to create national action plans and policies to combat slavery, and called for the creation of the Anti-Discrimination Unit and a Group of Experts to follow up on implementation of Durban outcomes. One hundred and thirty-four countries voted for the resolution, two opposed it (United States and Israel), and two abstained (Australia and Canada). When explaining its vote, the United States stated that because it withdrew from the WCAR, it did not agree to the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. It opposed the creation of the Discrimination Unit and the group of experts, arguing that the cost of the new mechanisms would place additional pressure on the U.N. regular budget.
section_title: Non-governmental Organization (NGO) Forum
paragraphs: Representatives from local, national, and international NGOs held an NGO Forum parallel to the Conference in Durban. At its conclusion, Forum participants agreed to the NGO WCAR Declaration, which a number of observers viewed as an unbalanced document that disproportionately focused on Israel. Specifically, the Declaration called for the end of "Israeli systematic perpetration of racist crimes, including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing," and declared Israel a "racist, apartheid state." Because of the highly politicized wording of the Declaration, some NGOs disassociated themselves from the final text. Then-U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson described the NGO Forum as "hateful, even racist," and refused to receive or endorse the NGO Declaration. The Forum attracted significant attention from the international media, and some argued that it overshadowed the Conference itself.
section_title: The 2009 Durban Review Conference
paragraphs: Since WCAR, U.N. member states increasingly explored the possibility of holding a follow-up conference to review progress made on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. On December 19, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution deciding to convene the Durban Review Conference. The Conference will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, from April 20 to 24, 2009.
subsections: section_title: Objectives, Funding, and Participation
paragraphs: At the Conference, governments aim to
review the progress and assess implementation of the Durban outcome documents by all stakeholders, including assessing contemporary manifestations of racism; assess the effectiveness of the existing Durban follow-up mechanisms and other related U.N. programs; and identify and share good practices achieved in combating racism.
The preparatory process for the Review Conference is similar to the process for WCAR. The U.N. Human Rights Council, for instance, is the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference. All U.N. member states were invited to join the Review Conference Preparatory Committee to determine the objectives of the Conference. The Committee elected a Bureau composed of one chairperson and 20 vice-chairpersons (Group of 21) to decide on the objectives of the Review Conference. As with WCAR, governments are engaging in organizational, substantive, and regional meetings to determine the scope of the Conference and agree to regional outcome documents. (For more information on these meetings, see the "Issues for Congress" section.)
The Review Conference is funded through assessed contributions to the U.N. regular budget and through voluntary contributions from member states and organizations. On November 17, 2008, a report from the Secretary-General estimated that the overall additional financial requirements for the Durban Review Conference and its preparatory process was $3,754,800. The Secretary-General will ask for only $570,400 because he anticipates that the remaining balance of $3,184,400 will be absorbed by other human rights-related parts of the U.N. regular budget. Funding for the Conference and the Human Rights Council does not overlap. Both the Council and the Review Conference are funded under separate parts of the OHCHR budget.
Participation in the Review Conference is open to U.N. member states, U.N. bodies and programs, regional organizations and commissions, intergovernmental organizations, and NGOs. It is unclear whether an NGO Forum will be held parallel to the Conference.
section_title: U.S. Response
subsections: section_title: Barack Obama Administration
paragraphs: On February 14, 2009, the Barack Obama Administration announced that it would send a delegation to Review Conference consultations held from February 16 to 18, 2009. Administration officials stated that U.S. participation in the consultations "does not indicate—and should not be misconstrued to indicate—that the United States will participate in April in the World Conference Against Racism itself." On February 20, 2009, the Administration announced that during the February 16-18 consultations, "the [U.S.] delegation consulted with 30 national delegations from every region to outline our concerns with the current outcome document and to explore whether there exists the possibility for progress in re-shaping the document and tenor of the discussions." On February 27, 2009, the Administration further announced that the draft Review Conference outcome document being negotiated by member states "has gone from bad to worse, and....is not salvageable." Consequently, according to Administration officials, the United States "will not engage in further negotiations on this draft text nor will we [the United States] participate in a conference based on this text." 
The Administration stated that it remained open to re-engaging in negotiations if a draft document appeared to take a "constructive approach" to addressing racism and discrimination. Specifically, it emphasized that the Review Conference outcome document text should: not reaffirm the "flawed" 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA); single out a specific country (such as Israel); embrace the "troubling concept" of defamation of religion; or go further than the DDPA in addressing the issue of slavery reparations.
section_title: George W. Bush Administration
paragraphs: The Bush Administration consistently opposed a Durban Review Conference. It stopped short, however, of announcing it will boycott the Conference, likely recognizing that a new Administration would make the final decision regarding participation. The United States, along with Israel, voted against the General Assembly resolution calling for the Review Conference in December 2006. Similarly, in December 2007, the United States voted against a resolution related to the biennium budget for 2008-2009, primarily because it included funding for the Conference. The Administration also declined to participate in the preparatory events for the Review Conference, and has consistently voted against U.N. General Assembly resolutions that support or fund the Review Conference.
On April 8, 2008, then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad announced, "the United States is not participating in the 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." The Ambassador also announced that the United States would withhold a portion of its 2008 contribution to the U.N. regular budget that would fund the U.N. Human Rights Council, including money for the preparatory process for the Review Conference.
section_title: 111th and 110th Congresses
paragraphs: Members of the 110 th and 111 th Congresses have demonstrated an interest in the Review Conference. Some Members, for example, have introduced legislation stating the United States should not participate in the Conference because of WCAR's focus on Israel. On March 13, 2008, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the FY2009 Budget Resolution to deny funding to the Durban Review Conference. Some Members have also expressed opposition to U.S. funding of or participation in the Review Conference in correspondence with Administration officials. Nevertheless, some Members viewed the Conference as a key opportunity to address international racism. On September 23, 2008, for example, the House adopted a resolution expressing the sense of the House that the United States should lead a high-level diplomatic effort to ensure that the Durban Review Conference serves as a forum to review implementation of commitments made at the 2001 Durban Conference, rather than as a vehicle for anti-Semitism.
section_title: Participation of Other Governments
paragraphs: A number of governments have concerns about the Review Conference. In January 2008, Canada announced that it would boycott the Conference because of indications that it would repeat the mistakes of WCAR. Other countries announced that they will not participate if it becomes evident that the Review Conference will target Israel. French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated that France will "not allow a repeat of the digressions and extremes of 2001." Representatives of the United Kingdom announced that the government would not participate in an international conference with the "degree of anti-Semitism that was disgracefully on view" at WCAR. Initially, Israel stated that it would boycott the Review Conference unless it was proven that the Conference would not be used as a platform for further anti-Israeli sentiments and activities. In November 2008, however, Israel formally announced it would not participate in the Conference, stating that the Conference "appears to be heading once again towards becoming an anti-Israel tribunal, which has nothing to do with fighting racism." In March 2009, Italy also announced that it would not participate in the Conference. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay urged countries that announced they may not participate in the Conference to reconsider. She argued that the anti-racism debate and agenda will be significantly compromised without the participation of all countries. 
section_title: Issues for Congress
paragraphs: Members of the 111 th Congress may wish to consider a number of issues when conducting oversight and considering U.S. funding for the Durban Review Conference and possible follow-up activities.
subsections: section_title: Balance in the Durban Review Preparatory Process?
paragraphs: The Obama Administration and some Members of Congress have suggested that the United States should participate in the Durban Review Conference only if it is proven that the Conference will not: (1) become a vehicle for anti-Semitism, (2) reaffirm the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action, or (3) focus on defamation of religion. Consequently, Members of the 111 th Congress may wish to consider U.N. member state actions during the Review Conference preparatory process.
subsections: section_title: Scope of the Review Conference
paragraphs: During the preparatory process, participating governments aimed to determine the scope and agenda of the Conference. Countries such as Australia, Canada, and Israel, and members of the European Union, maintain that the Conference should focus primarily on member state and U.N. system implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action instead of reopening controversial issues agreed to at WCAR. Some hope that by concentrating on the implementation of WCAR outcomes, participants can achieve a broad consensus and avoid repeating the perceived mistakes of the previous Conference. Other countries, particularly members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), contend that the Review Conference should focus not only on implementation of WCAR outcomes but also on "the contemporary scourge of racism," including the plight and suffering of the Palestinian people and the defamation of religions, particularly Islam.
section_title: Composition of the Conference Bureau (Group of 21)
paragraphs: On August 27, 2007, the Review Conference Preparatory Committee elected a Bureau of 21 members (Group of 21) to determine Conference modalities and objectives. A number of Conference observers and participants have expressed concern about the composition of the Group, which includes countries that expressed anti-Israel sentiments at WCAR, including Iran, Indonesia, and Senegal. Some are particularly concerned that Libya and Cuba—states that many view as anti-Israeli and anti-democratic—are Bureau Chair and Vice-Chairperson Rapporteur.
section_title: Organizational Meetings and Intergovernmental Working Group Drafts109
paragraphs: To prepare for the Review Conference, participating governments have attended several organizational meetings to consider the scope and agenda of the Review Conference. Some governments also have participated in meetings of the Intersessional Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group of the Preparatory Committee, which is tasked with reviewing recommendations submitted by countries and other stakeholders for possible inclusion in the Review Conference outcome document. Some expressed concern with drafts proposed by the Working Group. In May 2008, for example, the Working Group circulated a list of issues that might be included in the Conference outcome document. The list specifically referred to the "plight of the Palestinian people" and stated that the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories violates a range of civil and political rights.
section_title: Draft Review Conference Outcome Document (as of March 17, 2009)
paragraphs: During the past year, U.N. Member States have been formally and informally negotiating the draft outcome document that will be considered at the Review Conference. On March 17, 2009, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights published a draft outcome document "rolling text" based on ongoing Member State negotiations. The 17-page document eliminates many controversial aspects of previous drafts, including specific mentions of Israel, Palestine, and "defamation of religion." Critics, however, contend that while the March 8 text might be seen as an improvement over previous drafts it does not meet the conditions for U.S. participation. Specifically, opponents point to paragraph 1 which reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA). The DDPA had expressed concern about the "plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation" and recognized "the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State." Critics hold that by reaffirming the DDPA, the Review Conference draft outcome is singling out Israel as a perpetrator of racism. 
Supporters of U.S. participation argue that the shortened March 8 text is an encouraging development and that the United States should participate in the Review Conference to influence its outcome. A representative from the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reportedly stated, "we believe this shortened text represents a solid and meaningful basis for negotiations by member states toward a positive outcome for the Conference." When advocating U.S. participation, a number of supporters emphasize the difference between early WCAR drafts in 2001 that equated Zionism with racism and the final DDPA that contained, in the view of many, relatively moderate language by comparison. 
section_title: U.S. Funding of the Review Conference
paragraphs: Bush Administration officials indicated that the United States would not fund the Review Conference or its preparatory process unless it was proven that the Conference would not become a platform for anti-Semitic behavior. The final decision regarding U.S. funding of the Conference, however, will be made by the Obama Administration or Members of the 111 th Congress. If Congress does not enact legislation prohibiting U.S. funding for the Review Conference, the Obama Administration may decide on its own to withhold the U.S. proportionate share of U.S. contributions prior to the Conference. If such a scenario occurred, it would raise the question as to whether the Administration would release funding after the Conference if the outcome was acceptable to the United States.
Specifically, some Members of the 110 th and 111 th Congresses proposed that the United States withhold a proportionate share of its U.N. assessed contributions, approximately 22%, from the U.N. regular budget, which is used to fund the Conference. Withholding funds in this manner would not affect the Conference because assessed contributions finance the U.N. regular budget in its entirety and not specific parts of it. The U.S. decision to withhold a proportionate share of funding from the U.N. Human Rights Council for FY2008 would not affect funding for the Durban Review Conference or its preparatory process because funding for both mechanisms falls under separate parts of the budget of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
As of November 17, 2008, the Secretary-General estimates that the cost of the Review Conference and its preparatory process will be $3,754,800. However, the Secretary-General will seek only $570,400 in additional funding because he anticipates that the balance of $3,184,400 will be absorbed by other related parts of the U.N. regular budget.
section_title: WCAR Outcome Documents and U.S. Participation
paragraphs: Some suggest that the United States should participate in and provide funding for the Durban Review Conference in part because the final text that addresses the situation in Israel and Palestine in the Durban Declaration and Program of Action was significantly toned down from drafts that led to the U.S. withdrawal. Some argue that the U.S. and Israeli withdrawals from WCAR were a turning point in negotiations and sent a powerful diplomatic message to Conference participants. They contend that the withdrawals pressured other governments to adopt more moderate language on the Middle East in the final outcome documents. Conversely, some contend that the language in the Declaration and Program of Action remains unacceptable to the United States. To support this view, opponents point to the Bush Administration's policy of consistently voting against resolutions supporting the Review Conference in U.N. fora. They maintain that the Declaration and Program of Action unfairly single out one regional conflict and refer to the plight of only one party—the Palestinians—with no mention of Israel.
section_title: Political and Diplomatic Impact of U.S. Engagement
paragraphs: For some, the question of U.S. participation or non-participation in the Durban Review Conference touches on the broader issue of U.S. engagement in the U.N. system. Supporters contend that U.S. participation in U.N. efforts such as the Review Conference is important to the success and credibility of the United Nations as a whole. They argue that instead of withdrawing from U.N. conferences that have processes or outcomes it opposes, the United States should fully participate and work from within to build member state coalitions in support of U.S. policies. If the United States does not fully participate in U.N. fora, some argue, U.N. member state actions might be determined by groups of member states advocating agendas that are contrary to U.S. interests. They maintain that U.S. absence from such U.N. efforts could create a vacuum in which views opposed by the United States hold supreme. Supporters contend that a piecemeal and selective approach to participation in the United Nations damages the U.S. negotiating position and its influence both within and outside of the U.N. system. Moreover, some argue that U.S. engagement in U.N. human rights efforts such as the Review Conference provides a valuable international tool for groups and individuals battling racism in countries where human rights is not a priority.
Opponents of U.S. participation in the Review Conference maintain that U.S. engagement would give undeserved legitimacy to U.N. mechanisms that provide a platform for member states to target Israel. They also argue that it would imply that the United States supports the anti-Semitism demonstrated at WCAR as well as what many perceive as unbalanced language in the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. According to some, U.S. non-participation in the Review Conference sends a clear message to U.N. member states that repeatedly targeting one country and regional conflict in U.N. fora is unacceptable to the United States. They contend that the long-term political impact of such a message outweighs the short-term diplomatic impact of U.S. non-participation or withdrawal. These opponents therefore agree with the Bush Administration's decision not to participate in the preparatory process until, as U.S. officials say, it is proven that the Review Conference will not become a platform for anti-Semitism. They argue that holding out the possibility of U.S. participation—as well as the participation of other like-minded governments who have made similar statements—may persuade U.N. member states to take a more balanced approach when drafting and negotiating Review Conference outcome documents in preparation for the April 2009 Conference.