THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (EAFORD)
5 route des Morillons, CP 2100.  1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Telephone & Fax: 788.62.33 

World Conference Against Racism
August 2001
 

            In this meeting, and in the presence of many nongovernmental organizations and States delegations, whereat we are discussing human rights whether for the eastern, western, northern or southern human being without distinction of race, religious or national origin, it is important for our organization to address the basic principle and standard for human rights which is to promote equality and justice for human groups worldwide.  Equality and justice cannot be applied differently in the East, West, North or South.  The application of Justice must be based on the same equal standards for everyone no matter where or whom it is being applied by or applied upon.  International laws should be applied evenhandedly throughout the world.

            If any State, inclined by its power and selfish interests as well as its arrogance and strength, carelessly tampered with this critical standard of equal justice, then the breaching of justice will not be the only outcome, but it will also result in a deviation from and an infringement upon other social, economical and ethical standards which could have very serious consequences.  The least of which are violence, terrorism, wars and other tragedies that can be inflicted upon humanity.

            Human groups that suffered from the tragedies of wars in the first half of the past century succeeded in establishing a council and assigned it the responsibility of securing peace and upholding the standards of justice in relation to international conflicts and the serious consequences these conflicts could impose on humanity at large.  This council, and we mean the Security Council, was able to arrive to the resolution of many conflicts and to end potential dangers of tragic wars.  

            Nonetheless, we have witnessed during recent years that the Security Council has fell under the hegemony of the American veto with its ambition, arrogance, and indifference to the standards of equality and justice.  This disruption has had a negative ripple effect on international affairs compounded by flagrant inequalities in the application of well-established human rights standards, leading to acts of hate, violence and terrorism and their consequences of tragedies and wars.

            The Security Council which was assigned the responsibility of securing peace and upholding the standards of equality and justice when resolving international conflicts which humanity is bound to face, issues its resolutions by the simple majority of eight over seven members except when vetoed by one of the five States with a special veto right.  This veto would be acceptable when exercised over the simple majority.  However, when there is consensus over a resolution, but it is stopped, as it has happened several times, by the American veto, it is an indication of a major disturbing factor in applying standards of justice, which must be rectified, or all other human rights standards and their positive implications in securing peace and justice would be compromised.       

            All those who are concerned about the fate of this planet feel that American foreign policy has become one of double standards, especially in relation to the highly critical region, which is the cradle of civilizations and divine prophecies.  The double standard of American foreign policy concerning what they falsely named the “Middle East” to conceal this region’s Arab identity, warns of dreadful consequences concerning the future of humanity.  We believe that there is no solution to confront the dangers American foreign policy is imposing on the world except through re-establishing the necessary balance of power in the Security Council.  In other words, we think that whenever there is consensus over a Security Council resolution, but it is vetoed, the veto should be referred to the International Court of Justice to examine the justification for the veto and to rule on whether it is acceptable or unacceptable.  The International Court of Justice can rule in favor if it found the veto to be justified or it can rule out the veto if it found it to be unjustified.

            This issue requires a firm and forceful stand especially from nongovernmental organizations.  We plead to them to join our efforts to achieve this worthwhile goal. 

 

EAFORD

August 2001