A/HRC/4/19 page 7 Multicultural dynamics are upsetting old identity constructs by introducing the fight against racism and the notion of coexistence to the traditional markers of racism - social, economic and political - and, increasingly, to the more sensitive ground of the value system, memory and, therefore, national identity. This identity backlash on the part of elites - by its repercussions at the regional and international levels and its “cold war rhetoric” of cultural and ethical polarization and “defence of our values” - encourages racist and xenophobic platforms and strengthens the ideological and political initiative of nationalist or extreme right-wing parties and movements that promote and form part of a dangerous drift towards a clash of civilizations and religions. II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR A. Visits by the Special Rapporteur 7. The Special Rapporteur visited Switzerland from 9 to 13 January 2006 in order to assess the situation of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, as well as policies and measures adopted by the Government to combat these phenomena. The Special Rapporteur’s observations and recommendations are contained in his mission report (A/HRC/4/19/Add.2). 8. The Special Rapporteur visited the Russian Federation from 12 to 17 June 2006 with the principal objective of analysing the situation of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia in the Russian Federation, particularly in light of the many incidents of racial and xenophobic violence reported by human rights organizations and by the national and international press. The Special Rapporteur’s findings and recommendations are contained in his mission report (A/HRC/4/19/Add.3). 9. The Special Rapporteur also went to Italy from 9 to 13 October 2006 with the aim of assessing the situation of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, particularly in the light of the current strong migratory pressure and the legislative legacy and xenophobic policy inherited from the racist and xenophobic political platforms that marked the previous Government. During his mission, he visited transit and reception camps for immigrants and asylum-seekers. An exhaustive assessment of the situation, as well as the Special Rapporteur’s findings and recommendations appear in his mission report (A/HRC/4/19/Add.4). 10. The Special Rapporteur would also like to inform the Human Rights Council of the positive responses that he received from the Governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to his request to conduct a regional visit during the second half of 2007, as well as the positive oral response from Mauritania. The Special Rapporteur considers it necessary to recall that the Governments of India, Pakistan and Nepal have not yet responded to his requests for invitations, sent for the first time in 2004 and again in 2006. The Dominican Republic has also not responded, despite several reminders, to the request for the joint visit by the Special Rapporteur and the Independent Expert on minority issues. Consequently, in light of these recurring situations, where no response is received for several months or even years, the Special Rapporteur, in his statement during the November 2006 session of the working group on the review of mandates of the special procedures, proposed that the Human Rights Council consider imposing time limits on States’ negative or positive responses to requests for special procedure visits.