1 / 10

Key questions for the meeting

From resolution to realization: the effective implementation of resolution 16/18 on combatting religious intolerance and the Istanbul Process Taking stock after 8 years Denmark-EU-URG meeting Geneva, 2019. Key questions for the meeting

nlino
Download Presentation

Key questions for the meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From resolution to realization: the effective implementation of resolution 16/18 on combatting religious intolerance and the Istanbul Process Taking stock after 8 years Denmark-EU-URG meeting Geneva, 2019

  2. Key questions for the meeting • Why are we here talking about the implementation of a single HRC resolution? • What is the ‘Istanbul Process’ and why does it matter? • Is the 16/18 action plan and Istanbul Process working? • What needs to happen next?

  3. Why here, why now? • Because of the acute importance of the issue • Contemporary context (Christchurch attacks, attacks against Christians in the Middle East, rising anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, Danish cartoons, Charlie Hebdo, controversies around blasphemy laws, rising populism/ethnic nationalism) • Historical context - a key priority for the UN human rights system since 1947 • Because after 6 decades of debate and division, international community has finally come together to agree a common way forward – 16/18 • Because UN and HRC must necessarily play central role in global response

  4. Contemporary importance

  5. Historical priority for UN • 1946: ECOSOC identifies ‘prevention of discrimination on grounds of race, sex, language or religion’ and ‘protection of minorities’ as two of four areas of focus of the Commission on Human Rights • 1960: Krishnaswami report published • 1962: UNGA decided to split its consideration of racial discrimination and religious discrimination • 1962: UNGA resolution 1781 (XVII) calls for ‘the preparation of a draft declaration and a draft convention on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance’ • 1981: UN Declaration on Religious Intolerance and Discrimination adopted • 1986: Special Rapporteur appointed to oversee ‘the implementation of the Declaration’

  6. From division to consensus • 1999: First ‘defamation of religions” resolution at the Commission • Key issue: limitations to freedom of expression; idea that people should not ‘defame’ religions • 2001: 9/11 attacks; rising OIC concerns about Islamaphobia • Now 2 distinct political streams(WEOG, OIC): oneemphasising freedoms of religionand express.; and one emphasisinglimits to freed of expression • Establishment of HRC: increasingcriticism of ‘defamation’ approachand increasingly difficult votes

  7. Resolution 16/18: paths re-converge • Sept 2010: Sec Gen OIC speech to HRC sets out 8-point vision. • March 2011: 16/18 passes by consensus. Hailed as a “triumph of multilateralism” “ ” I take this opportunity to call upon all states to consider taking specific measures aimed at fostering a domestic environment of religious tolerance, respect and peace. -Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (then Secretary-General of the OIC)

  8. Implementation: Istanbul Process • July 2011, OIC hosts ministerial meeting on implementation in Istanbul • Co-chaired: OIC SG and US Secretary of State • Final joint statement: “all relevant stakeholders throughout the world to take serious the call for action set forth in resolution 16/18…and go beyond mere rhetoric.” Ministerial decided to convene: • ‘A process of sustained and structured engagement:’(i.e. the Istanbul Process) • 6 meetings so far: Washington, London, Geneva, Doha, Jeddah, Singapore • Where next?

  9. The international community has a framework for combatting religious intolerance: let’s use it • “With 16/18 we must always remember that the glass is also half full” • If 2011 was a “triumph of multilateralism,” the years since have been impressive exercise in dogged, committed and bipartisan diplomacy • Consensus maintained, in parallel with FORB resolutions (Geneva and New York), annually from 2011 to 2019 • And States have established dedicated implementation process: the Istanbul Process (unique). • Further complemented by Rabat Plan of Action • UN, HRC, 16/18 policy framework and IP, must necessarily play leading role in long-term global fight against intolerance, discrimination, hate and – ultimately – violent extremism based on religion or belief • For the first time in history of UN, we have a practical, consensual, framework and implementation process. Let’s value, nurture and use it!

  10. Thank you

More Related