A/HRC/21/59 Annex II [English only] Summary of the expert presentations and initial discussions on the topics of “Xenophobia” and “Establishment, designation or maintaining of national mechanisms with competences to protect against and prevent all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” I. Expert presentations and initial discussion on “Xenophobia” 1. At the 2nd meeting, on 10 April, the Chairperson-Rapporteur welcomed H.E. Nozipho January-Bardill to make a presentation on South Africa‘s recent experiences with xenophobia and its institutional responses. 2. She explained how specific national historical, political economic and social circumstances in South Africa have developed into a situation where violent xenophobia is integral to the nation building project that South Africa embarked on in 1994, ironically to transform the nation and advance the African Renaissance. 3. Xenophobic tendencies against foreign nationals and more specifically African migrants had been documented only since 1994 and the trend is that there has been a steady increase of migrants over the years. She added that the violence which had characterised South African xenophobia was peculiar in that it had been aimed at other African nationals and not against foreigners in general. The violence has been confined to the urban informal settlements in South Africa‘s major cities characterised by high levels poverty, relative deprivation, and unemployment and housing shortages. 4. She went on to explain briefly that the possible reasons and explanations were rooted in the past and in the present, including apartheid‘s ―foreign natives‖ and inferior aliens policies; negative and exclusionary social attitudes; historically discriminatory immigration policies; and poor service delivery. The rapid rate at which xenophobia has spread among South Africans in the past decade as well as its violent expression against the African population has much to do with aspects of the nation building project and the limitations of the new state in fulfilling the promises made to its struggling citizens. 5. A number of institutional responses to xenophobia were outlined during Ms. January-Bardill‘s presentation. The role of the local media in using stereotypes of migrants and foreign nationals as inferior and inherently criminal was presented. Criminalization and discrimination against foreign nationals by political, immigration and law enforcement agencies; the need for government interventions, especially those which condemned all threats of xenophobia at the highest level were explored. Other responses included awareness-raising and education, prevention strategies, crisis management, conflict resolution and prevention strategies, access to justice for victims of xenophobic violence, disaster management during humanitarian crisis and internal displacement; Recourse to justice in the form of more robust laws to promote and protect the rights of migrants was imperative; as well as robust regional development and reparations for past suffering. 6. Ms. January-Bardill concluded that non-citizens enjoyed relatively extensive formal rights under the 1996 Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Only the Government could 24