[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16543-16544]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  U.N. WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the U.N. World Conference Against 
Racism recently proceeding in Durban, South Africa, had the enormous 
potential to make a contribution in the historic fight against race and 
intolerance. Indeed, holding the conference itself in South Africa was 
a tribute to the people of that country and their long struggle against 
racism and apartheid. It could have been a seminal moment in the 
evolution, in our long fight for individual liberty.
  While much progress has been made, we can all attest that racism and 
discrimination continue to affect hundreds of millions of people around 
the globe.
  This conference had such potential. It could have addressed issues 
such as the rising intolerance toward refugees, intolerance towards 
asylum seekers, the unjustified denial of citizenship because of race, 
religion, or origin. The conference had the potential for the United 
States to demonstrate the great progress we have made in this country 
on issues of tolerance, of the fight against racism. In showcasing the 
American experience, nothing could have more vividly demonstrated the 
changes in the United States than the presence of Colin Powell, an 
American Secretary of State, not only of African ancestry but of 
ancestry beyond our own shores.
  Instead of realizing this potential, the conference has collapsed in 
a storm of recrimination and venomous rhetoric. The United States and 
Israel have walked out of the conference. It appears that others will 
soon follow.
  The conference, which was intended to be forward looking and to come 
up with a plan of action for fighting racism around the globe has 
instead destroyed itself because of old hatreds and the resurrection of 
discredited agendas. The insistence of Israel's enemies on using this 
conference to launch vile attacks on Israel, to attempt to equate 
Zionism with racism, has fully and completely justified the Bush 
administration's decision to withdraw from the conference.
  I take the floor today because on a bipartisan basis I believe it 
should be clear this Senate supports the Bush administration's decision 
to leave the conference, to attack its agenda, and to make clear we 
will have no part of it.
  For many years, Arab regimes have used the United States to advance 
their anti-Israel agenda. What is happening in Durban today is not new. 
The tragedy is the lesson has not been learned. In 1975, with the 
support of the so-called nonaligned nations, these regimes succeeded in 
passing the infamous ``Zionism equals racism'' resolution. After much 
work, the United States, to our considerable credit, had that odious 
resolution rescinded in 1991.
  The U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has referred to that 
resolution as the ``low point in the history of the United Nations.'' 
To his credit, Annan has acknowledged the historical U.N. bias against 
Israel and called for the normalization of Israel's status within the 
U.N. Indeed, normalization has been acquired.
  For 40 years, Arab and Muslim nations prevented Israel from becoming 
a member of any regional group. By that denial of regional status, 
Israel and Israel alone is prohibited from becoming an eligible member 
of the Security Council. This tremendous injustice was finally 
rectified only last year when Israel was able to join the Western 
European and Others Group.
  Despite the Secretary General's leadership in trying to improve U.N. 
resolutions regarding Israel, we are now forced to fight these old 
battles again, those seeking to defend not only anti-Israel but indeed 
anti-Semitism for their own political purposes. While the anti-Semitic 
rhetoric being shouted by demonstrators in the streets of Durban is 
alarming enough, it is more appalling to see the rhetoric being placed 
in official negotiated documents of a U.N. conference itself. This 
demonstrates that not only have we not made progress, but indeed this 
is as bad as any action taken in the unfortunate history of the U.N. on 
this subject.
  The declaration being produced by the conference and the program of 
action which flows from it are intended to help countries strengthen 
national mechanisms to promote the human rights of the very victims of 
racism. But including anti-Semitic language in these documents cannot 
possibly have a positive effect for the conference agenda. If the anti-
Israel language is allowed to stand in the conference declaration, it 
will have real and lasting effects. The language proposed in this 
conference will only serve to encourage virulent anti-Semitic language 
pouring forth from the Palestinian media and media of those of Israel's 
neighbors. The language of intolerance and hatred is a key factor in 
inciting the brutal acts of terrorism now being perpetrated against 
Israel's civilians.
  So an organization created and dedicated to peace is now promoting 
language, in an official conference, during a time of violence in the 
Middle East, that can only result in the loss of life and further 
hatred. American withdrawal from this conference sends an emphatic 
message to the Arab world that the United States commitment to Israel 
has not wavered and our concept of the United Nations as an 
organization dedicated to peace and resolving these very disputes has 
not changed.
  The administration's decision to abandon the racism conference once 
it was clear that Israel would continue to be singled out was not a 
partisan action; it was a principled action. I fully endorse it.
  I hope the United States will defend any nation, not just Israel, 
which is unfairly singled out for criticism.
  While I support this decision, I believe there are larger problems 
involved that deserve our attention. The forces that compelled us to 
withdraw from the conference--anti-westernism, anti-Americanism--have 
come together in the U.N. before and may represent a growing challenge 
to our country. So the decision to withdraw because of anti-Semitism 
was proper. But it may not be the only justifiable reason. There are 
others.
  Only a few months ago, in May of this year, we had another debacle 
involving the United Nations when the United States was voted out of 
the U.N. Human Rights Commission. What an unbelievable outrage. I do 
not stand in the well of the Senate believing that the United States 
has not committed historic acts worthy of criticism; clearly we have. I 
do not argue that the United States is beyond criticism for actions in 
our generation; clearly such acts have occurred. I am willing to have 
our Nation measured against the highest standard. But for the United 
States of America to be removed from the Human Rights Commission upon

[[Page 16544]]

the votes of an organization which includes Iraq, Libya, and Cuba is an 
outrage.
  So while I take the floor today in light of the current acts designed 
against Israel, I do so in the context of the actions of the United 
Nations on a continuing basis with regard to many countries, including 
our own.
  The United States has had a seat on the Human Rights Commission 
continuously since 1947. We have been a clear leader on the Commission, 
enforcing investigations of human rights abuses around the world. 
Indeed, U.N. High Commissioner Mary Robinson has said that the United 
States has made a ``historic contribution'' to the Commission. Indeed, 
I see no need to justify the actions of the United States with regard 
to human rights. Indeed, it is not because we don't defend human rights 
that we were removed from the Commission; it is because we do defend 
human rights that we were removed from the Commission. Had we not taken 
actions against Cuba, had we not spoken up against atrocities in North 
Korea and China, had we been silent about actions in Africa and Latin 
America, there is no doubt the United States would have remained on the 
Commission. We are victims because of what we have done right, not 
because of what we have done wrong.
  I have no doubt that our standing up against anti-Semitism and in 
defense of Israel will now strengthen the case against the United 
States as an advocate of human rights. So be it. Let the nations of the 
world balance the actions of the United Nations and their own regimes 
against the historic role of the United States, considering our 
historic difficulties, and let history be the judge. Which institution, 
the U.S. Government or the United Nations itself, has been the more 
consistent and dependable defender of the weak and the vulnerable, with 
a principled stand for human rights? I will accept that judgment of 
history, and there is no need to wait for the result; it is clear. The 
U.S. Government has had no peer in defending the rights of peoples 
around the globe.
  I take the floor as a partisan Democrat involved throughout my career 
in the fight for human rights and an active involvement in foreign 
policy to salute this administration. Secretary Powell did not go to 
Durban. He made the right decision. When the administration withdrew 
from the Durban conference, President Bush made the right decision. 
Durban is not our place. If we must fight the fight against racism, the 
fight against anti-Semitism, alone, without the United Nations, from 
the perch of Washington rather than the perch of the U.N. conferences 
in New York or regional conferences in Durban or Switzerland or 
anywhere else, we may fight alone but we fight in good company.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________