UNHRC approves Durban resolution, despite antisemitism concerns from 10 countries

The United Nations Human Rights Council approved a pro-Durban resolution after the United Kingdom called for a roll-call vote and prevented the text’s anticipated passage by consensus.

“Racism should be tackled in all its forms, and regrettably, for far too long, the UN has downplayed the scourge of antisemitism. This must end,” British envoy Simon Manley told the 47-member UNHRC as it wrapped up its 48th session in Geneva.

Israel had worked behind the scenes to sway UNHRC members to oppose the resolution, which is approved every two years, and to refuse to allow it to pass by consensus. Israel is not a member state and was therefore unable to call for a vote.

But initially, UNHRC nations that only last month had boycotted the UN General Assembly event in New York commemorating the 20th anniversary of the contentious World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, were reluctant to take a similar stand against that document.

However, 10 countries opposed the resolution: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Ukraine and the UK. In addition, Five countries abstained: Bulgaria, Japan, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea and Uruguay.

The UK was committed to the goals of the resolution and the Durban conference when it came to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Manley said.

“Discrimination of any kind has no place in society, and we will continue to treat all forms of discrimination with equal seriousness,” he said.

Great Britain was one of the first countries to ratify the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and has been active on issues relating to racism in the UN, Manley said.

Britain, however, is opposed to the multiple references to the original 2001 Durban conference, “given the historic concerns over antisemitism,” he said. Nor can it “accept the references to the original 2001 Durban Review Conference or the positive language welcoming the recent commemorative event in New York,” he added.

The UK, which is a UNHRC member, was one of “nearly 40 states” that had “made the decision not to take part” in the New York event, Manley said.

“We think we all need to ask ourselves why so many states stayed away and how we can move forward,” he said. “If we are to be able to forge a consensus in the future, then it is clear that we must come together to find a new approach.”

“The UK is clear that we will not attend future iterations of the Durban Conference while concerns over antisemitism remain,” Manley concluded as he called for a roll-call vote.

The initial conference produced a wide-ranging document that condemned racism, which was hailed by African countries. But it also singled out Israel, which opponents of the declaration have said links the Jewish state with racism even as the declaration condemned antisemitism.

An initial draft of the Durban conference in 2001 had initially attempted to blatantly equate Zionism with racism. Some of the NGOs present held sideline events that accused Israel of genocide and questioned whether Hitler’s murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust was justified.

None of the later documents related to Durban have repeated that kind of antisemitism, nor have they singled out Israel. The original text, however, has not been amended, and it is continuously referenced.