The United Nations has once again turned its attention to racial discrimination with the launch of its 116th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in Geneva. This gathering, which began in mid-November and will continue through early December, focuses on evaluating the racial policies of six nations, alongside individual complaints. This important work occurs amid financial cuts at the UN, raising concerns about the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission.
During this session, the Committee will formally review countries including Burundi, Guatemala, Maldives, New Zealand, Sweden, and Tunisia to assess their compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the convention, making the evaluations particularly significant. Additionally, follow-up reports from Bolivia, Mexico, Moldova, San Marino, and Viet Nam will be discussed. Contributions from NGOs and national human rights organizations will also inform the Committee’s discussions.
This review process prompts scrutiny regarding the effectiveness and priorities of the UN. A recent tweet captured this sentiment succinctly, stating, “Blah blah blah race blah blah blah black blah blah blah racism blah blah blah.” It highlights a growing frustration that discussions often linger on repetitive jargon instead of addressing pressing governance issues, especially in the face of global economic inflation and ongoing armed conflicts.
UN officials describe the current era as a “crisis” for the human rights treaty body system. Michal Balcerzak, Chairperson of CERD, remarked, “These were difficult times for the international human rights system… the treaty body system was in a crisis, and states needed to act on this situation without delay.” Ironically, rather than narrowing its focus, the Committee is expanding its agenda to include new recommendations on xenophobia and reparations while also preparing for the Second International Decade for People of African Descent set for 2025–2034.
Mahamane Cisse Gouro, the UN’s Human Rights Council director for the Geneva session, pointed out that racial injustice and hate speech are “alarmingly on the rise.” He emphasized the importance of states upholding anti-racism laws, asserting, “When states ignored violations of the law, they became normalized.” His comments underscore a critical concern that when governments fail to apply the law consistently, it undermines the legal framework globally.
The Committee comprises 18 independent experts who analyze state-submitted reports alongside evidence from civil society. Meetings scheduled from November 19 to November 27 will see these submissions scrutinized publicly at Palais Wilson in Geneva. Following the meetings, a commemorative event will take place on December 4, culminating in a press conference on December 5 to summarize the Committee’s findings. This level of public accessibility aims to project transparency in the Committee’s work.
Despite this openness, skepticism lingers regarding the effectiveness of such meetings. Critics worry that the focus on racial issues might lead to bureaucratic redundancy rather than meaningful action. Tenured efforts have not substantially altered racial disparities in many countries, including those routinely subjected to UN scrutiny. The Committee’s lack of enforcement power complicates matters further; its findings serve as recommendations rather than binding mandates, raising doubts about the true impact of these sessions.
For instance, past sessions have included critiques of Sweden and New Zealand. Despite their historical cooperation with human rights initiatives, both nations found themselves under the Committee’s spotlight for existing racial issues. Sweden has faced criticism for its treatment of the Roma population and the issues of racial profiling, while New Zealand’s government has been questioned over health and education disparities affecting Māori communities. Yet, tangible shifts in legislation or policy resulting from these critiques remain elusive.
Additionally, some member states show signs of growing disinterest in the UN’s review mechanisms. As crises proliferate globally, nations may reconsider the value of significant involvement in these international treaties. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights warns that ongoing financial constraints could paralyze the UN’s ability to carry out its critical work. Gouro emphasized the importance of sustaining this initiative, despite acknowledging the challenges posed by reduced session times and cancellations.
Ultimately, the significance of this session may not hinge solely on its proceedings in Geneva but how it resonates with governments and taxpayers. As resources tighten and security issues escalate, both developing and developed nations are paying close attention to the prioritization of funding within international institutions. The sentiment expressed in that pointed tweet reflects a broader public perception: concerns about racism can sometimes overshadow practical governance challenges.
Yet, the Committee is working to adapt. Its anticipated recommendations on reparations might offer fresh frameworks for states to consider, shifting focus toward actionable policy rather than mere condemnation. The discussions around the upcoming 2025–2034 initiative for individuals of African descent may also help set benchmarks for international development priorities.
In the short term, however, the Committee’s limitations remain evident. Advocacy efforts may be robust, but the capacity to enforce decisions is weak. Countries may express support for the proceedings while increasingly seeking other forms of guidance, or worse, ignoring the Committee’s findings altogether. The real test of influence will come with the implementation, or lack thereof, of any applied recommendations.
As Chairperson Balcerzak stated, “The Committee would not give up.” Whether the global audience, ranging from policymakers to everyday citizens, recognizes worth in these often-repetitive and symbolic efforts is still an open question.
"*" indicates required fields
