NEW YORK�The United Nations will hold a "World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Intolerance" in South Africa in the summer of 2001.

But human rights groups accuse the U.S. Government of ignoring human rights violations in this country and that the Clinton administration does not plan to fully participate in the preparatory agenda for the conference.

"It is very difficult to know if things are getting better or worse because of the way the federal government politicizes statistics," said Allyson Collins, government specialist for the Human Rights Watch organization. "We don�t know what is happening. That is why we need the World Conference, to force the government to admit to the fact that there are real problems still to discuss in this country."

A case in point is the "Genocide Petition" signed by 157,000 people and presented to the State Department in May 1997. "We have a receipt from the State Department that they have our petition," said Dr. Conrad Worrill, chairman of the Chicago-based National Black United Front (NBUF). The "Genocide" document charged the United States government with acts of destruction of Africans in the Americas. NBUF filed the document under Article 1503 of the UN Genocide Convention.

What angers activists like Dr. Worrill and Roger Wareham, whose December 12th Movement has held several information sessions in recent months about the conference and the issue of genocide, is that, "The United States is opposed to this conference and wants it to fail."

Compounding the frustration is that, historically, the U.S. government is slow to implement any ratification of previously signed treaties. For example, it took two years for the United States to issue a compliance report after ratifying the 1992 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

A follow-up compliance report is due every five years, however, there is no indication from the State Department when it will release its findings, activists say.

Concern about the U.S. commitment to the World Conference does not rest solely with the activist community. There is also concern in academia. "The United States is clearly against a conference of this magnitude," said Professor Manning Marable, director of the Institute of Research in the African American Studies Department at Columbia University. "To understand why the U.S. would be resistant to such a conference you have to understand the proper definition of racism. Racism is an unequal division of resources and power."

Racism, according to Dr. Marable, is a concept of what he calls the "three Ps"�prejudice, power and privilege. "Race is historically a new concept, about 500 years old, introduced by the expansion of Europe into the Western world," he said, adding that because of the benefits accrued by "white privilege" there is a danger in what the United States and the European nations see coming out of a World Conference Against Racism.

There is little mention in the media that this is the third decade of such global efforts to combat racism and racial discrimination, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly, after which two follow-up conferences were held in 1978 and 1983. The call for a 2001 conference hopefully reflects a continuing process, a shift in emphasis and change in attitude, activists say.

Theodore van Boven, a member of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, said certain European groups and nations hope to map out their own path without being bothered by pressures from a world organization.

"A World Conference will give African Americans a great opportunity to finally become part of a broad-based united front. We will see that there is no difference in what we face with police brutality and what two million Turks face in Germany; what Blacks face in the United Kingdom; or what Africans in Brazil face in those poverty-stricken cities. The Conference provides an avenue for African Americans to identify clearly with the struggles of others."

According to Minister Benjamin F. Muhammad, "South African apartheid and American apartheid are twin evils ... from the mother of European apartheid." The Muslim minister, who is the East Coast regional representative of Minister Louis Farrakhan, said, "The conference being planned for South Africa will be one of the international items within the National Agenda 2000 which will be presented at the Million Family March, October 16, 2000."

The heat of change is being felt in the host country, South Africa, as the new government has proposed a bill outlawing all forms of discrimination, saying racism is still rife in their country.

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill declares apartheid and similar forms of racism a crime against humanity. If adopted it would ban all forms of prejudice based on race, gender, sexual persuasion, disability and other grounds.

"We must not forget the role we played in forcing the compromise that ushered in the government of Nelson Mandela," said Dr. Worrill. "It is up to a worldwide African movement to go into the World Conference with a global agenda. This can not be another feel good conference."

Mr. Worrill noted that men like Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Dubois called the question a long time ago concerning the global impact of racism. "These are leaders who have gone beyond the borders of the U.S. This World Conference on Racism ... this discussion of racial discrimination was forced to the forefront over a long period of time. We must understand that because of mobilization, Blacks in South Africa can take a bolder stand on the same issues. We must use the World Conference as a tool to forge ahead."

Allyson Collins told The Final Call, "If our government does not have to do anything at this conference, it won�t. � It is up to people who care about the issues of human and civil rights not to allow the United States to just attend."

According to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, states and regional organizations are to set up national and regional level coordination structures to launch and promote preparations for the World Conference and especially to raise public awareness about the gravity of the problem and the objectives of the conference.

The UN General Assembly designated the Commission of Human Rights to serve as the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference. The Commission met in Geneva, Switzerland, from March 24-26, 1999. Representatives of the following countries took the floor: India, Turkey, Egypt, Germany, Tunisia, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Australia, China, Switzerland, France, Pakistan, the United States, Finland, Iran, Norway, Cuba, South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Senegal and Mexico.

The following non-governmental organizations participated in the debate: Women�s International League for Peace and Freedom, the International Association Against Torture and the Minority Rights Group. Also speaking were officials of the World Federation of the United Nations Associations and the Holy See.

Plans are underway throughout the world to hold world group sessions. The Inter-American Institute of Human Rights will host the regional preparatory committee for the Western Hemisphere in San Jose, Costa Rica, in the year 2000.

However, Mr. Wareham told The Final Call that it is his understanding that the United States plans no regional meetings.

"Any statement that would infer that the State Department will not hold preparatory meetings is untrue," said Allyson Grunder, press spokesman for the U.S. Missions at the United Nations.

"The U.S. is very supportive of the process. We just don�t know what kind of preparatory things will be done," she added.