For Obama, Defending America’s Interests Means Beware of Durban II
By Lawrence J. Haas
December 16, 2008
North Star Writers Group
Original Source: https://mail.hudsonny.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.northstarwriters.com/lh011.htm \t _blank http://www.northstarwriters.com/lh011.htm
 President-elect Obama will soon find himself between a diplomatic rock and a hard place – between his desire to reassert U.S. cooperation on the world stage and his obligation to defend American interests and values in the face of almost certain and baseless attacks.
 In late April, scores of nations will gather in Geneva for the 2009 Durban Review Conference, commonly known as “Durban II” and designed as a followup to the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
That notorious 2001 conference, in Durban, South Africa, had noble goals but – hijacked by certain nations and non-governmental organizations – it descended into a cesspool of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, prompting Secretary of State Colin Powell to order the U.S. delegation to leave.
The 2009 gathering is taking shape as Durban II in more than name, with the same Jew-hating, the same singular focus on Israel as a human rights violator and the same attacks on the United States for supposedly bringing only conquest and misery to people the world over.
 Obama’s desire to improve America’s image abroad is laudable. But U.S. engagement in global ventures must not become the be-all, end-all of foreign policy. America’s leader must uphold the values of freedom and tolerance that make the United States a beacon of hope around the world.
 In this case, Obama’s obligation is clear. The United States must not attend any global gathering that, like Durban and with Orwellian logic, will target the United States and Israel for attack while ignoring the far more serious repression that hundreds of billions of people face in China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, across Africa and throughout the Middle East.
 Lest you have forgotten, Durban was among history’s most disgusting spectacles, with posters caricaturing Jews and offering words of regret that Hitler’s “final solution” did not succeed. Israel was labeled an apartheid state that should disappear, with its leaders brought before an international tribunal similar to the post-World War II Nuremberg trials.
The West in general and the United States in particular were blamed for the world’s worst ills, from colonialism to oppression to genocide. Western colonial forces, the hate mongers suggested, should beg forgiveness for their crimes and pay financial reparations to their victims.
 
By all indications, Durban II will be no better. Not surprisingly, Israel has announced it won’t attend. But so, too, has Canada. The United States, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union have expressed concern, with some European nations warning that they will boycott Durban II unless they are certain it won’t be a repeat of Durban I.
 They will not likely be reassured. For starters, consider the cast of characters that are bringing Durban II to life.
 Durban II is operating under the auspices of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, which replaced the U.N.’s Israel-obsessed Human Rights Commission two years ago and has become an even more farcical advocate for human rights.
 The 20-member Preparatory Committee for Durban II is chaired by Libya’s Ambassador, Najat Al-Hajjaji. Among vice chairs are officials from Iran, Russia, Cameroon, Cuba and Pakistan, each of which practices a repression that mocks the very notion of tolerance.
Iran hangs homosexuals, even those in their teens, while sentencing adulterers to death by stoning. Russia practices an authoritarianism that increasingly resembles Soviet-era rule. And Cameroon, as journalist Claudia Rosett reminds us, even tolerates slavery within its borders.
 And what has this cast of characters wrought to date? A promise of another Durban-like spectacle, with a renewed focus on Israel, a related emphasis on America’s “crimes,” and little if any attention to the world’s most despicable human rights violators (including Durban II’s planners).
 “Hot off the presses,” the Hudson Institute’s Anne Bayefsky, who is closely tracking Durban II, writes in describing the working plan for Durban II. “The latest effort in fomenting anti-Semitism, delegitimizing the Jewish state, defeating the effort to end terrorism, destroying free speech and manufacturing Muslim victims of Western human rights atrocities.”
 Specifically, the “Durban II Outcome Document” lambasts Israel by focusing almost exclusively on the Palestinian people, proposes a code of conduct for journalists and ways to regulate speech to prevent criticism of Islam, and equates the war on terror with a war on Islam.
 The signs are not good. The Geneva of 2009 could easily morph into the Durban of 2001, mocking the values that America holds dear. The United States should steer clear of such ugliness.