(CNSNews.com) – European governments are using the current session of the U.N. Human Rights Council to voice concern about next month’s international racism conference, although none has announced plans to join Israel, Canada and possibly the United States in boycotting the event.
 
Western democracies in general appear to be biding their time, in the hope it may yet be possible to change the direction of the Durban Review Conference (“Durban II”) in the coming weeks. The foreign ministries of Australia and New Zealand both said this week no decision had been made.
 
Although the conference is still seven weeks away, there are currently only two scheduled planning meetings between now and the day it opens in Geneva – an intergovernmental working group session from April 6-10 and the final session of a preparatory committee from April 15-17.
 
The State Department announced last Friday that the U.S. would not take part in further preparations or attend the conference unless the draft outcome document was radically amended. It cited references to Israel, religious “defamation” and reparations for slavery. Although it called the text “unsalvageable,” it did leave the door ajar for re-engaging in the event organizers come up with an acceptable document.
 
Preparations for Durban II are being supervised by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council. On Monday, the 47-member body kicked off a month-long session with a three-day “high-level segment,” in which government ministers make statements before the council gets down to agenda business.
 
A number of E.U. member states’ representatives used the opportunity to raise concerns about Durban II, with the most forceful statement coming Tuesday from Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen, who said he was “deeply disturbed by the turn this event is taking.”
 
The draft document was being “used by some to try to force their concept of defamation of religion and their focus on one regional conflict on all of us.”
 
Verhagen said he fully understood why some countries had decided to withdraw. The Netherlands wanted to work to achieve a useful outcome, “but not at any price.” It would not accept a text that singled out Israel, placed religion above individuals, or did not condemn discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
 
Free speech advocacy groups say the religious defamation drive, led by Islamic states, aims to shield Islam and practices associated with it from criticism or close examination.
 
Earlier, Verhagen spokesman Bart Rijs said in response to queries that the Netherlands “will withdraw if the draft resolution does not change in the shortest possible term.”
 
In his speech in Geneva, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, speaking on behalf of the E.U., said the 27-member bloc was “committed” to the conference but could not subscribe to an outcome that “would limit or undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
 
The Czech Republic holds the rotating presidency of the E.U. until June. Spokeswoman Emma Smetanova said from Prague that the Czech E.U. presidency “so far does not plan to attend the conference.”
 
‘Ideological agendas’
 
Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller said in Geneva the Durban II preparations “give rise to serious concerns” and it seemed unlikely that there could be consensus based on the draft document.
 
“We cannot accept that the conference is being diverted from combating racism and racial discrimination to restricting freedom of expression or any other human right or fundamental freedom.”
 
“We cannot allow ourselves to let this opportunity fall prey to other political or ideological agendas,” said his Italian counterpart, Vincenzo Scotti.
 
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht took issue with the question of “religious defamation,” saying it was undermining the international system for protecting human rights.
 
“Human rights must protect individuals and freedoms of individuals, and not religions as such,” he told the gathering.
 
Portuguese and Slovakian delegates both appealed to all countries to adopt a “constructive approach” in the weeks ahead, while the Cypriot representative said his country strongly believed that all countries should remain engaged, even if it was by being constructively critical.

Representatives of the countries which Durban II critics blame for the controversies – Islamic states and their allies in the developing world – in general had little to say about the conference in their speeches on Monday and Tuesday.
 
An exception was Egyptian Legal Minister Mufid Shehab, who said Durban II would act as a test to determine whether or not the international community wished to counter religious discrimination. Opinions could not be expressed freely if doing so affected the religious freedoms of others, he argued.
 
Bahraini Foreign Minister Nezar Sadeq Al Baharna made a passing reference to Durban II, encouraging the international community to participate in the conference.
 
Shehab, Al Baharna and delegates from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen and Indonesia used their speeches to attack Israel.
 
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki described the recent military operation in Gaza as “the latest round of … habitual brutalities” by “the illegitimate Zionist regime,” and called for Israeli leaders to be indicted for crimes against humanity.