Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley was openly critical on Tuesday of the United Nations Conference Against Racism taking place in Durban, just a day after the United States withdrew from the talks.

The U.S. said the conference had become a vehicle for anti-Israeli sentiment.

John Manley
John Manley

"I think the departure of the United States could be a bit of a wake-up call to some of the countries that would prefer to see the conference succeed with a consensus statement rather than see it dissolve into disarray," said Manley.

"Our principles haven't changed. We will not accept a statement that singles out Israel for criticism. We will accept a statement that tries to establish principles upon which countries can measure themselves in trying to eradicate racism," the minister said.

Speaking in London at a meeting of Commonwealth foreign ministers, Manley said Canada's delegation would remain at the talks as there was still hope for a consensus. But he was also highly critical of the talks.

Mary Robinson
Mary Robinson

"I think there's a more fundamental question here. Why are we having a conference in which on one hand we're either engaging in platitudes that everybody agrees with, or on the other hand we're engaging in vitriol and criticism against different groups? This is just not helpful. It hasn't been a good experience for the world community. It is not a good experience for the United Nations and I hope we don't have to see this again."

Meanwhile in Durban, the conference struggled to get back on track after the walkout by delegates from the United States and Israel.

Language offensive to Israel sparked the departures, and delegates were forced to consider the strength of the diplomatic language they would fight for.

New alliances have been formed among non-governmental groups at this extraordinary gathering. And the government level representatives have been challenged to confront the results of racism in blunt and often uncompromising language.

The fights are over words in the text being drafted by the official government delegates. Many delegates are evaluating the language which the Americans and Israelis find unacceptable: the use of genocide when describing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Ameer Makhoul, director of a network of Palestinian organizations in Israel, makes no apology for the word genocide. He says it's useful in bringing international focus to the Palestinian cause.

"We're looking for long-term struggle for liberation. How to liberate ourselves. We need new tools, international tools," said Makhoul.

Sasha Evans works for a Palestinian human rights organization in Jerusalem. She insists on the strongest words possible, regardless of their diplomatic impact.

"I don't think the implications of these words is something we have to worry about when we're describing what's happening. I don't think the backlash is something we have to worry about."

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, was struggling to pick up the pieces after the departures.

She told a briefing session the conference is back on course. Then she admitted she would not be able to recommend to the official government delegates that they accept the declaration made by the non-governmental organizations.

"I will say to them there are good things in the NGO (non-governmental organizations) declaration. But I cannot recommend it because I can't accept the language, especially the references to genocide, which is unacceptable and hurtful and should never have come out of Durban," she said.

With the conference more than half over, nations are under growing pressure to decide how to confront racism and intolerance.

The mood has become brittle at times, as NGOs fight for the strongest language to describe their struggle.