BRAZIL'S Jose Augusto Lindgren Alves is well acquainted with the dynamics of multilateral politics and the workings of the United Nations.
Moreover, he is a man who understands when history presents opportunities to further the cause of human rights and to move against scourges such as racism.
His career as a diplomat has ensured his presence at such moments, and bestowed on him the chance to help put the struggle against racism on the world agenda.
Alves traces the story back to 1993, the time of the UN Vienna conference on human rights.
It was an epoch when there was a new faith in the possibilities of multilateral action, with the world having changed after the end of the Cold War. This had been evidenced by the previous year's Rio Earth Summit, which marked a turning point in history by elevating the place of environmentalism on the global agenda.
Before then, the UN had been stalled by the bipolar conflict and what was termed the "crisis of multilateralism" had made little progress possible.
"The result of Vienna was a document called the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights," he said.
Brazil was in charge of the drafting committee that prepared the declaration, meaning that Alves's post at the time, as head of the department dealing with the UN in the Brazilian ministry of foreign affairs, put him close to the centre of the action.
Subsequently, he was elected to the UN sub-committee on the prevention of discrimination and the protection of minority rights, a signal honour because members are elected as individuals rather than as representatives of their countries.
At the time, the UN was mapping out its plans for global conferences to be held up to 1996, tackling global themes such as population, social development, gender, and the environment.
Alves said that the world of 1994 was one which saw diametrically different developments regarding racism.
That year, the end of apartheid in South Africa and the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as the country's first democratically-elected president was an inspiration to those in the UN which had campaigned for decades against the country's former racist regime.
"On the other hand, war was raging in the former Yugoslavia, obviously inspired by intolerance, fully fitting into the definition of racial discrimination in the international convention," observed Alves.
"The case of Bosnia was one of the most evident that the international situation was deteriorating in the area of racism. In Europe, aggression against immigrants had become commonplace, desecration of the cemeteries of Jewish people was a regular occurrence, and foreigners were being threatened in almost every country on the continent."
At the same time, in the US organisations like the militantly racist Ku Klux Klan, thought dormant, were on the rise again, burning churches used by African-Americans.
Worried by the trend, Alves put it to the sub-committee that the time was ripe for a global conference about modern manifestations of racism.
Such conferences had been held before, in the 1970s and 1980s, but had been preoccupied by the situations in apartheid South Africa and in Israel, and had been boycotted by those and most Western states.
Alves's proposal earned the overwhelming support of the majority of the sub-committee, and the idea began making its way through the labyrinthine approval processes of the UN.
It was when it reached the UN General Assembly that the original hope of holding a World Racism Conference in 1997 began to fade, with Western countries mounting delaying manoeuvres, apparently concerned that blame for the global phenomenon would be laid at their door.
Those pushing for the conference conceptualised it as a forum to discuss racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.
Alves emphasised that those behind the idea conceived it as addressing the problem in contemporary terms: "We didn't want to discuss the past, we wanted solutions for the present."
But vested interests diverted the concept, as some in the Arab bloc sought to use the conference to resuscitate their attempts to equate Zionism with racism, African countries envisaged the event as a way to get debt relief and other economic assistance, and in the Americas black communities saw it as a means to prise out of former colonial powers compensation for slavery and colonialism.
"Essential elements like xenophobia and the rise of the radical right in the West, these ideas disappeared," Alves said.
"The ideal of the conference started to be manipulated in the process leading to Durban in a way contrary to the original proposal. As a result of these trends, when the conference started, humours were bad."
Western countries were not well disposed to demands that they apologise for colonialism, and less so to demands that they pay compensation for colonialism and slavery.
As the conference, held in Durban, South Africa in September last year, became overwhelmed by the Middle East and reparations issues, the US and Israel withdrew a few days after it started, a move which Alves believes was a mistake.
"If they had stayed, they would have made the Western group stronger."
However, in the light of the US's stance on other multilateral issues like the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and small arms, he does not find the US withdrawal surprising.
Whatever the controversies, for Alves the final Durban declaration and programme of action represents a milestone, particularly because they include the first international declaration on racism adopted without a vote.
"This is something which gives much more legitimacy to the document. Nobody voted against it, so with the exception of those who walked out, the rest of the world is supposed to abide by the recommendations."
Alves, who earlier this year was appointed Brazil's ambassador to Bulgaria, also still serves on the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimi-nation.
The committee requires countries to report to it about the measures they have taken to implement the steps agreed to in Durban.
The Durban documents are explicit that those of African descent in the Americas deserve measures to elevate their status to that of the rest of society.
"It is the first time a UN document refers to people of African and Asian descent as victims of racism.
"It is the first time the international community recognises in an international document that, although not a crime against humanity at the time, slavery was the origin of some of the worst manifestations of racism. It is the first time European countries have recognised that colonialism was bad."
But it was just a few days after the conference that the September 11 terrorist attacks against the US happened, with consequences including an upsurge in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment, a problem already referred to in its documents.
Nonetheless, Alves believes, the Durban documents empower NGOs and civil society to use their clauses in their campaigns.
In his own country, the conference bore fruit, thanks in part to the Brazilian government having worked closely with interest groups ahead of the conference so that the delegation was of one mind in its engagement with the conference.
Since Durban, the government has introduced "affirmative action" measures including quotas of 20 per cent for appointments to ministries, including education and justice, for people of African and Indian descent. Training has also been provided to empower candidates from these communities to compete for diplomatic posts.
"Now they sit for exams, and pass, showing they are as good as any others."
But although the world community may, and is expected to, draw from the Durban conference to take on the scourge of racism, it is also doing so in the tense and uncertain post-September 11 era, a time with little evidence of tolerance.
The question arises when the next World Racism Conference should be held.
"First, we will have to let things mature. Second, to wait for a new situation in which multilateral diplomacy is again considered appropriate - and this is not the case now."
Such a conference would be viable again only when people believed something could be achieved by an attempt to bring together people with dramatically different perspectives and try to bring them to a common position.
"This will take some decades."
In the meantime, said Alves, "we now have a semi-juridical document which can be used. It is not a perfect document, but it has very particular things in it which can be used. It is just a question of goodwill to use what is good in it."
Moreover, he is a man who understands when history presents opportunities to further the cause of human rights and to move against scourges such as racism.
His career as a diplomat has ensured his presence at such moments, and bestowed on him the chance to help put the struggle against racism on the world agenda.
Alves traces the story back to 1993, the time of the UN Vienna conference on human rights.
It was an epoch when there was a new faith in the possibilities of multilateral action, with the world having changed after the end of the Cold War. This had been evidenced by the previous year's Rio Earth Summit, which marked a turning point in history by elevating the place of environmentalism on the global agenda.
Before then, the UN had been stalled by the bipolar conflict and what was termed the "crisis of multilateralism" had made little progress possible.
"The result of Vienna was a document called the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights," he said.
Brazil was in charge of the drafting committee that prepared the declaration, meaning that Alves's post at the time, as head of the department dealing with the UN in the Brazilian ministry of foreign affairs, put him close to the centre of the action.
Subsequently, he was elected to the UN sub-committee on the prevention of discrimination and the protection of minority rights, a signal honour because members are elected as individuals rather than as representatives of their countries.
At the time, the UN was mapping out its plans for global conferences to be held up to 1996, tackling global themes such as population, social development, gender, and the environment.
Alves said that the world of 1994 was one which saw diametrically different developments regarding racism.
That year, the end of apartheid in South Africa and the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as the country's first democratically-elected president was an inspiration to those in the UN which had campaigned for decades against the country's former racist regime.
"On the other hand, war was raging in the former Yugoslavia, obviously inspired by intolerance, fully fitting into the definition of racial discrimination in the international convention," observed Alves.
"The case of Bosnia was one of the most evident that the international situation was deteriorating in the area of racism. In Europe, aggression against immigrants had become commonplace, desecration of the cemeteries of Jewish people was a regular occurrence, and foreigners were being threatened in almost every country on the continent."
At the same time, in the US organisations like the militantly racist Ku Klux Klan, thought dormant, were on the rise again, burning churches used by African-Americans.
Worried by the trend, Alves put it to the sub-committee that the time was ripe for a global conference about modern manifestations of racism.
Such conferences had been held before, in the 1970s and 1980s, but had been preoccupied by the situations in apartheid South Africa and in Israel, and had been boycotted by those and most Western states.
Alves's proposal earned the overwhelming support of the majority of the sub-committee, and the idea began making its way through the labyrinthine approval processes of the UN.
It was when it reached the UN General Assembly that the original hope of holding a World Racism Conference in 1997 began to fade, with Western countries mounting delaying manoeuvres, apparently concerned that blame for the global phenomenon would be laid at their door.
Those pushing for the conference conceptualised it as a forum to discuss racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.
Alves emphasised that those behind the idea conceived it as addressing the problem in contemporary terms: "We didn't want to discuss the past, we wanted solutions for the present."
But vested interests diverted the concept, as some in the Arab bloc sought to use the conference to resuscitate their attempts to equate Zionism with racism, African countries envisaged the event as a way to get debt relief and other economic assistance, and in the Americas black communities saw it as a means to prise out of former colonial powers compensation for slavery and colonialism.
"Essential elements like xenophobia and the rise of the radical right in the West, these ideas disappeared," Alves said.
"The ideal of the conference started to be manipulated in the process leading to Durban in a way contrary to the original proposal. As a result of these trends, when the conference started, humours were bad."
Western countries were not well disposed to demands that they apologise for colonialism, and less so to demands that they pay compensation for colonialism and slavery.
As the conference, held in Durban, South Africa in September last year, became overwhelmed by the Middle East and reparations issues, the US and Israel withdrew a few days after it started, a move which Alves believes was a mistake.
"If they had stayed, they would have made the Western group stronger."
However, in the light of the US's stance on other multilateral issues like the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and small arms, he does not find the US withdrawal surprising.
Whatever the controversies, for Alves the final Durban declaration and programme of action represents a milestone, particularly because they include the first international declaration on racism adopted without a vote.
"This is something which gives much more legitimacy to the document. Nobody voted against it, so with the exception of those who walked out, the rest of the world is supposed to abide by the recommendations."
Alves, who earlier this year was appointed Brazil's ambassador to Bulgaria, also still serves on the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimi-nation.
The committee requires countries to report to it about the measures they have taken to implement the steps agreed to in Durban.
The Durban documents are explicit that those of African descent in the Americas deserve measures to elevate their status to that of the rest of society.
"It is the first time a UN document refers to people of African and Asian descent as victims of racism.
"It is the first time the international community recognises in an international document that, although not a crime against humanity at the time, slavery was the origin of some of the worst manifestations of racism. It is the first time European countries have recognised that colonialism was bad."
But it was just a few days after the conference that the September 11 terrorist attacks against the US happened, with consequences including an upsurge in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment, a problem already referred to in its documents.
Nonetheless, Alves believes, the Durban documents empower NGOs and civil society to use their clauses in their campaigns.
In his own country, the conference bore fruit, thanks in part to the Brazilian government having worked closely with interest groups ahead of the conference so that the delegation was of one mind in its engagement with the conference.
Since Durban, the government has introduced "affirmative action" measures including quotas of 20 per cent for appointments to ministries, including education and justice, for people of African and Indian descent. Training has also been provided to empower candidates from these communities to compete for diplomatic posts.
"Now they sit for exams, and pass, showing they are as good as any others."
But although the world community may, and is expected to, draw from the Durban conference to take on the scourge of racism, it is also doing so in the tense and uncertain post-September 11 era, a time with little evidence of tolerance.
The question arises when the next World Racism Conference should be held.
"First, we will have to let things mature. Second, to wait for a new situation in which multilateral diplomacy is again considered appropriate - and this is not the case now."
Such a conference would be viable again only when people believed something could be achieved by an attempt to bring together people with dramatically different perspectives and try to bring them to a common position.
"This will take some decades."
In the meantime, said Alves, "we now have a semi-juridical document which can be used. It is not a perfect document, but it has very particular things in it which can be used. It is just a question of goodwill to use what is good in it."
