For example, Opposition justice and border security spokesman Christopher Pyne has called on the Australian Government to stay away from the potential ''hatefest''. This is a troubling charge and it is important to examine the evidence proffered to support it.

The original Durban conference, held in September 2001, adopted a lengthy declaration on the elimination of racism. It is fair to say that the politics of the conference were fraught, with the situation in the Middle East attracting much attention.

All significant UN conferences are accompanied by parallel conferences of non-governmental organisations and the Durban event was blighted by some appalling anti-Semitic statements from irresponsible non-governmental organisations.

For example, some distributed pamphlets supporting Hitler's Holocaust on the Jewish people.

The Durban Declaration adopted by the official conference condemned anti-Semitism, as well as Islamophobia. It recalled the Holocaust as an event never to be forgotten and referred specifically both to Israel's right to security and to the plight of the Palestinian people.

This was controversial, however, and several countries, including Israel, the United States, Canada and Australia, objected to any specific references to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians on the grounds that the declaration did not refer to any other examples of racism.

Critics regard the Durban Declaration as fundamentally flawed for this reason and they view the preparations for the Geneva Review Conference as deeply biased against Israel.

But the evidence provided for this fear is partial. It is true that Libya is chairing the conference and that Cuba, Iran, Russia and Pakistan are among the 20 vice-chairs. But other vice-chairs include Belgium, Greece, Norway, Croatia, South Africa, India, and Argentina, elected on the basis of regional groupings.

The chair and vice-chairs form a bureau for the conference, monitoring reports produced by UN officials.

So far, this disparate group of countries has been able to achieve consensus on procedural issues but would act as a check if extreme positions were proposed.

Racism is a major cause of conflict and violence across the world today and it is tragic that the Geneva Review Conference may be undermined on the basis of a single situation in which racism plays a complex, but not a defining, role.

We should take a larger and longer-term view of the value of the Geneva Review Conference. The 2001 Durban Declaration contains detailed analysis of racism against classes of people such as refugees, migrants, indigenous peoples and against specific peoples such as the Roma, Jews and Muslims. It called for strong anti-discrimination legislation, improved education about racism and better remedies and resources for victims of racism.

There have been some important advances since Durban, for example the creation of national institutes to combat racism in some countries and constitutional and legislative changes to outlaw racism in others. The election of an African-American as US president is a great symbol of progress. And Prime Minister Rudd's 2008 apology to the Stolen Generations is a local example of a creative and positive response to racism. But many racist practices continue to exist across the globe.

At the Geneva Review Conference, governments will report on their implementation of the commitments they made eight years ago at Durban. The conference will allow both the progress made in combating racism and the many remaining problems to be assessed, national experience to be shared and attempts made to devise better solutions.

Racism is not easy to acknowledge. UN conferences among its 192 member states will inevitably involve politics and compromise. This can be frustrating but it is also a chance to work creatively across cultural and religious divides. The preparatory documents available for the Geneva Review Conference are not perfect and require much more work. For example, proposals for elimination of the ''defamation of religions'' being aired in background documents are worrying; they seem aimed at preventing criticism of religions in a blanket manner and are an attack on freedom of speech.

But such issues surely indicate the value of engagement and debate in Geneva rather than a boycott: Australia should attend the Geneva Conference this April and help to steer it in a productive direction.

Hilary Charlesworth is an ARC Federation Fellow and Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the Australian National University. She is currently visiting professor at UCLA School of Law in Los Angeles.