Why we must boycott this racist hatefest
By Christopher Pyne
September 14, 2008 
News.com.au
Original source: – HYPERLINK https://mail.hudsonny.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24343221-5006301,00.html \t _blank http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24343221-5006301,00.html

The Federal Labor Government's approach to foreign policy so far has been a mishmash of errors, overreaching, diplomatic insults and unilateral actions that betray a new Government with little cohesion in its approach to Australia's relationship with the rest of the world.
In the next few months it will need to make a decision that will have far-reaching consequences as to how it is viewed among our traditional allies and friends. That decision is whether or not Australia attends the Durban II conference in April 2009.
Durban II is shorthand for the Durban Review Conference, the follow-up meeting of the UN World Conference Against Racism, which was held in Durban in August/September 2001.
For those not familiar with this conference, a brief history: The Durban conference in 2001 was supposed to be a meeting about combating racism throughout the world, bringing together countries from across the globe. The only problem is, it turned into a hatefest.
The precursor meeting of non-government organisations (which flowed into the general meeting) degenerated into a vicious attack on the state of Israel.
The language of the statements from the meeting was regarded as blatantly anti-Semitic. A session on Holocaust denial was cancelled as the police couldn't guarantee the safety of participants. Pamphlets were distributed by non-government organisations that depicted Israelis as Nazis with fangs and claws dripping blood. A leaflet was distributed arguing it was a pity Hitler didn't win!
The meeting was hijacked by anti-West propaganda and anti-Israeli emotion that prompted Colin Powell, the then US Secretary of State, to walk out. It was so disjointed even Mary Robinson, the former Labor Party President of Ireland, and the then UN Human Rights Commissioner, refused to be party to the ceremony where the conference findings were tabled.
The Australian Government and Australian non-government organisations were dismayed by the appalling racism of the conference, and in the years since our UN delegates have had to fight hard to ensure history is not rewritten to give undue credibility to Durban I or its findings.
Many fair-minded countries and non-government organisations rightly expressed dismay at the way the conference evolved and are warily approaching a re-run of the event in 2009.
Australia needs to seriously consider whether it adds its not inconsiderable international prestige to this event. Our long-time friend, Canada, has already indicated it won't attend. The current President of the European Union and French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has said the Europeans will not tolerate a re-run of the hatefest that passed for an anti-racism conference in Durban. Israel has refused to attend. The US will need to await the election of its new president before finally deciding what it will do.
The 2009 conference is being organised by the UN's Human Rights Council. Readers might be surprised to know the UN's highest level human rights body is chaired by that paragon of respect for freedom – Libya. Iran is a participating country. Iran's stated objective is to wipe Israel from the map. The portents for a fair approach to Israel aren't good.
The UN is our best hope for a world at peace, but it needs to be viewed through the lens of reality and not fantasy – the UN isn't always free from criticism. Pretending otherwise hinders reform of the UN, not vice versa.
The question of boycotting or not boycotting such a conference is a vexed one for countries such as Australia.
One school of thought is that by participating, we can temper the worst excesses of those contributors who are hell-bent on excluding Israel and engaging in anti-Semitism and race-hate. This school of thought says that if we are there we can steer the conference to a more moderate position.
The other school of thought is that by participating Australia (being a well-respected liberal democracy) lends weight to the conference and its findings – that we cloak it with a veneer of respectability.
Extremists crave the respectability of a country like ours being involved – when they are criticised for the outcomes of conferences like Durban I they can say Look: Australia was involved, and Australia would never be party to extremism.
Canada has taken the latter view. They are making a stand.
Often, it's not only what you say or write that counts, it's what you don't say or write. In other words, even if Australia attends and manages (with other moderate countries) to temper the language of any statements from the Durban II meeting in 2009, what will we have achieved if the meeting also fails to include a denunciation of anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism in order not to offend countries diametrically opposed to the existence of Israel? Precisely nothing.
In my view, by attending, we tacitly sign up to a warped view of racism. We should lead with Canada and make a stand against extreme, unacceptable attitudes to any country in the world, whether it be the target for anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, and not go.
Our jet-setting PM, Kevin Rudd, is travelling to the UN, New York, in two weeks' time – a perfect opportunity to make clear the Government's opposition to the racism and anti-Semitism inherent in the Durban conference.
Christopher Pyne is the federal MP (Liberal) for Sturt and Opposition spokesman on justice and border security