Still reading and surveying but one conclusion by so far. ]Belgium, etc 'We accept demand for apology from Africa. So We apologize.' ------------------(equals or means)------------------------------ 1: We don't want to pay reparation. 2: We don't want to face legal lawsuits. 3: But we promise our aid programs will continue. 4: Still, we don't want to be looked like we are aiding Africa because we once colonised there and so it's damaged. Our aid programs are irrelevant from our past deeds. ]UK, US etc: We don't wanna even apologize. And we don't wanna talk about the rest of the issues. So Belgium tries to persuade 'IF we apologize now, we won't face lawsuits and reparation!' The problem is 'wording' (what's written and read) will remain, Europeans apologized! then so, it could be seen as a kind of showing of conscience (esp in the realm of international liberalism, international ethics and international law and organisation) - Otherwise whole UN thing would crambled down to nothing, or worse, would merely be 'evil' party of colonial powers - and we all has to be old school type anarchist or communist, a bunch of cynics. Thing is I don't know how much this kind of 'O beautiful wording' patterns could be repeated in the international politics of 21st century. I thought there would be bunch of 'intercultural communication' practicioners and could be more 'middle level' expert based conference. It was a meeting of 'too high' professional diplomats and international bureaucrats, seems. Still I will keep survey on this Durban conference thing. A.