The role of international and Palestinian nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is felt in
many ways and seen in many forums. But the interaction between
international NGOs and NGOs is crucial for effective action, and
that interaction often suffers from a north-south divide. One
notable exception was the NGO action at the World Conference
Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in August 2001, in which
southern organizations, fueled by grassroots organizations, both
set the agenda and dominated proceedings with some notable results
for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Indeed, the NGOs Forum at the Durban conference can be considered a
turning point in the history of the global human rights movement -
not because of the victory of one of the longest-suffering victims
of colonialism, nor because reparations for slavery were introduced
on the international agenda, but because the role of the southern
states at this world event eclipsed that of the northern and
international NGOs.
Nevertheless, southern NGOs should not be euphoric; their victory
was more moral than strategic. Its practical dividends are very
limited and rely upon the ability of the southern NGOs to follow up
and widen their discourse.
Inserting New Language
The importance of the final declaration adopted by the 3,750
organizations that met in Durban is that it established new
language for the victims beyond the legal-bureaucratic standard
behind which international NGOs have always hidden. Three
developments were prominent, the first of which addressed the
apartheid model of Israeli colonial politics. It is not surprising
that the South African organizations strongly supported Palestinian
claims, considering that representatives of the Network of South
African NGOs (SANGOCO) visited Palestine during the intifada and
saw first-hand how the Oslo negotiation process has created
Bantustans out of the Palestinian territories.
The conference declared that, "Israel is a racist, apartheid state
in which Israel's brand of apartheid as a crime against humanity
has been characterized by separation and segregation,
dispossession, restricted land access, denationalization,
'bantustanization' and inhumane acts." In consequence, the
conference program of action called for the launching of an
international anti-Israel apartheid movement similar to that
implemented against South African apartheid, which established a
global solidarity campaign network of international civil society,
United Nations bodies and agencies and business communities and for
the ending of the conspiracy of silence among states, particularly
the European Union and the United States.
It also called upon "the international community to impose a policy
of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state, as
in the case of South Africa, which means the imposition of
mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full
cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military
cooperation and training) between all states and Israel." It asked
that South Africa "take the lead in this policy of isolation,
bearing in mind its own historical success in countering the
undermining policy of 'constructive engagement' with its own past
Apartheid regime." It also condemned those states supporting "the
Israeli apartheid state and its perpetration of racist crimes
against humanity including ethnic cleansing and acts of
genocide."
The second development that emerged was, to my mind, a kind of
irrational revenge taken by Palestinians against the Western
media's and international NGOs' half-hearted criticism of Israeli
policies. The declaration generalized the use of "acts of genocide"
to refer to what Palestinians, as well as the Kurds, have
experienced in their colonial conflicts. It is in general
disputable whether Israeli policies can described as such, while in
particular cases such as the 1982 massacre of Palestinians in the
Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps, the United Nations General
Assembly and the High Commissioner of Human Rights did speak of
"acts of genocide."
But the point here is that the victims set out to alarm
international organizations that traditionally only use strong
language such as "war crime," "crime against humanity" and
"genocide" when Western countries or their interests are parties to
the conflict, e.g., in Bosnia, whereas events in developing
countries have usually been described by these same organizations
in banal terminology. The declaration was quite rational and even
revolutionary in that it used the words "ethnic cleansing" and
"crimes against humanity" in the Palestinian case in such an
important document.
Separating Anti-Semitism from Anti-Israeli Policies
The third development of the conference established a separation
between anti-Semitism on the one hand and anti-Zionism and
anti-Israeli policies on the other. The Palestinian and Arab
delegates insisted on their sympathy for victims of anti-Semitism
and anti-Jewish sentiment. They argued that the session should
separate Judaism as a religion from the political program of
Zionism and Israeli policies, so that it be evident that being
anti-Israeli is not conflated into anti-Jewish racism (just as
being anti-apartheid is not conflated into anti-white
racism).
The raporteur of the session on anti-Semitism, however, forced an
article onto the draft declaration that considered all critics of
Israel as de-legitimizing the State of Israel and perpetrating a
form of anti-Semitism. But when the article was proposed by the
ecumenical caucus, 37 of the 39 caucuses - all except the Jewish
caucus and the abstaining international NGOs caucus - voted to
delete this item.
In this debate, the critics of Zionism as a national ideology were
largely absent. In fact, many discussions had been held previously
in Cairo, Geneva and Durban between the Arab caucus members. Most
of these members, supported by most of the Palestinian human rights
organizations, opposed the mention of Zionism. Other organizations,
like the Arab Lawyers Union, were in favor. The compromise was that
the declaration mentioned the political practices of Zionism and
not Zionism as a national ideology and cultural and social
thought.
An Arab participant did try to contest the declaration's usage of
"Holocaust" with capital "H" on the basis that the lower case "h"
includes all communities subjected to the genocidal policies of the
Nazi occupation of Europe, notably the Roma and Sinti communities,
and to underscore that the term ought not be used to refer to the
genocide of only one ethnic group. However, the steering committee
did not accept this proposition.
It did accept the addition of a paragraph that attempted to
highlight anti-Arab sentiment and Islamophobia. The final
declaration noted that: "The Arabs as a Semitic people have also
suffered from alternative forms of anti-Semitism, manifesting
itself as anti-Arab discrimination and for those Arabs who are
Muslim, also as Islamophobia."
Voices of the South are Heard
Although many believe the intifada had a major impact on the
sympathy of world NGOs, I consider its role quite secondary. I
think three other major factors were more important: the role of
the southern organizations in setting the agenda of the conference,
the marginalization of international human rights organizations;
and finally, the importance of the voice of victims at
Durban.
The conference was unlike other world and international
conferences, such as the Social Development Summit in Copenhagen or
the World Development Network in Bonn. There, northern
organizations monopolized the preparations and setting of the
agenda, thus deciding who should talk, for how much time and when.
Subsequently, the southern voice was marginalized. (Even when
conferences have been held in a southern country, this hegemony has
not often differed. When the World Conference on Women was held in
Beijing in 1995, China was in isolation from the international
scene and took a low profile in the preparations, satisfied with
its role as host country.)
This conference against racism was held in a highly symbolic
country that suffered tremendously under apartheid. SANGOCO played
a major role in preparing the conference and in the choice of the
speakers and the steering committee for the NGO Forum. Furthermore,
SANGOCO and Islamic organizations jointly organized a demonstration
of 40,000 people, as reported by the South African newspaper
Mercure, on the third day of the conference.
Marginalization of International Organizations
The second important factor in this conference's success was the
marginalization of international organizations like Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch. While they attempted to
influence the process behind the scenes, they were grouped into the
International NGOs Caucus, which had one voice just like any of the
other caucuses.
Inside this caucus there were different positions. In this respect,
the International Federation of Human Rights was more sensitive to
the claims of Palestinians than others. Amnesty International, on
the other hand, held a very curious position. Irene Khan, its
general secretary, intervened in the last session to propose adding
to the first paragraph of the declaration the following sentences:
"As NGOs, we are a diverse group, representing different
constituencies, with varied interests, experiences and
perspectives. But we are united in our goal to denounce and combat
racism and human rights violations, in whatever form and wherever
they occur. The contentious and complex nature of some of the
problems should not obscure the broad agreement within the NGO
community on a range of issues. A global anti-racist and human
rights network is slowly emerging, and no one can afford to ignore
its voice." Her point was to say that there are different
narratives from the victims and that these narratives did not
express a kind of consensus. But when the chair of the meeting
asked the participants if they agreed to her proposal, only very
few hands were raised.
In addition, the international organizations tried to convince some
Palestinian members of the NGO delegation to compromise on the
language of the declaration in the name of practical politics and
the necessity of achieving a compromise with the Jewish caucus,
despite its small number. The position of Human Rights Watch was
clearer. Reed Brody, the organization's Advocacy Director, declared
that the use of "acts of genocide" to describe Israeli policies was
not precise and that Amnesty was not justified in abstaining in the
vote.
The third factor concerns the voice of the victim. Unlike other
world conferences, participants were not only those accredited by
the United Nations, but also grassroots voluntary organizations. At
Durban, about 3,750 organizations participated, most of them from
southern countries. These were represented in the 40,000
demonstrators on the streets of Durban that included South African
landless people, anti-privatization activists and, above all, those
against apartheid in Israel. The demonstration closed by delivering
to the South African president and the United Nations secretary
general a memorandum of claims. From discussion with the
participants, it was clear that this initiative came largely from
the grassroots organizations and not from elitist ones. It is not
anecdotal to say that only the Palestinian and Jewish caucus
included members wearing ties. Most participants wore T-shirts
inscribed with their cause.
Lessons Learned
Incontestably, this conference was a turning point in the history
of the global human rights movement. The shift is not between the
classic diplomatic actors and NGO actors, but towards actors who
are victims themselves. The victory is hence a moral victory,
something that was not reflected in the conference resolution, as
international organizations had already set out to marginalize the
NGO declaration. United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Mary
Robinson even initially refused to receive the declaration from the
NGOs, describing it as rude.
There are other lessons to be drawn, however. Palestinian
organizations should learn to show more solidarity with other
victims. For example, very few Palestinians participated in the
demonstrations and workshops for the Dalits, Kurds and Romas. The
cultural minorities and groups in the Arab world such as the
Amazigh people (often referred to as Berbers) have yet to get the
attention of Arab human rights organizations. It may be that the
problem here is that the causes are juxtaposed rather than
reinforcing thematic issues. Why, for example, is there no general
anti-colonial theme that encompasses the Palestinian, Kurdish and
Sahrawi issues? In any case, the Palestinian delegation did not
participate in the thematic caucuses, resulting in them gaining
very little influence. It would help them to adopt a more global
and humanistic approach rather than be too local and parochial in
their discourse.
Despite that criticism, one must say that the conference was good
for Palestinian NGOs, indeed for all the southern organizations;
one that emphasized their solidarity and the importance of
mobilizing the grassroots.