Still No Word From Administration on Durban II

By Patrick Goodenough 
January 29, 2009
CNS News
Original Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42707


The Obama administration has not said if it will send representatives to a controversial U.N. conference on racism.
(CNSNews.com) – A major United Nations conference on racism is less than three months away, but amid continuing debate over whether the U.S. and other democracies should take part in an event already mired in controversy, the Obama administration has yet to announce its plans.
 
Despite critics’ calls for a boycott, Canada and Israel remain the only countries so far pledging to stay away from the conference, to be hold in Geneva from April 20-24. Several European governments have voiced concern, but without announcing a final position on attendance.
 
Dubbed “Durban II,” the conference aims to review and follow-up the U.N.’s first such gathering, the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. Citing a strong anti-Israel focus, the Bush administration withdrew its delegation from the original gathering in protest, and subsequently declined to participate in preparations for the 2009 event.
 
Few dispute that President Obama’s decision, either way, will have a major impact. A decision by the United States’ first African-American president to stay away from a conference on racism would ease the way for other governments, especially those wavering in Europe, to follow suit; a decision to attend would likely have the opposite effect, and significantly weaken the boycott drive.
 
Asked whether a decision had been taken, State Department spokesman Robert Wood told a briefing this week, “I don’t think the new administration has spoken to that issue yet, but I’ll take a look and see if we have any more we want to say on that.”
 
While campaigning, Obama undertook to improve U.S. relations with the U.N.  But he also sought, and won, strong support from Jewish voters. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, pledged to “lead a boycott of the [Durban II] conference should current efforts to rein in the forces of hatred fail.”
 
Last June, one day after Obama claimed victory in the primary race, Clinton said the conference would be “a test of resolve” for the next president.
 
“We should take very strong action to ensure anti-Semitism is kept off the agenda at Durban II,” she told a pro-Israel meeting. “And if those efforts should fail, I believe that the United States should boycott that conference.”
 
Over the months since then, preparations for the conference have accelerated, and a clearer picture of the agenda and themes for the April event has emerged. The most recent planning session was held in Geneva last week.
 
‘Human rights fraud’
 
The latest version of the draft “outcome document,” compiled from proposals arising from earlier regional meetings and dated January 28, includes a number of issues of concern to critics of the process.
 
Among them is the focus, once again, on Israel – the only country to be singled out and condemned for allegedly racist policies and practices.
 
A close observer of the process, Prof. Anne Bayefsky, also pointed to other controversial areas in the draft, including attempts to link counter-terrorism efforts with racial discrimination; and the question of the “defamation of religion.”
 
Arguing that “Islamophobia” is a contemporary form of racism, Islamic states are pushing to have religious “defamation” outlawed – a move critics say aims to protect Islam from legitimate scrutiny and threatens freedom of expression.
 
Bayefsky, editor of the Hudson Institute’s “Eye on the U.N.” project, noted Wednesday that during last week’s preparatory session, the Syrian delegate pushed for the removal of a phrase relating to Jewish victims of the Holocaust, questioning whether there was consensus on the number of Jews killed.
 
Iran’s envoy then objected to a European Union proposal to insert a clause condemning Holocaust denial. (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 called the Holocaust a “myth,” and on Tuesday – Holocaust Memorial Day – he sent a supportive message to a Tehran conference called “Holocaust: the West’s sacred lie.”)
 
Bayefsky said that for democracies, especially the U.S., “the stakes have never been clearer.”
 
She said democratic states were in a quandary: Adopting the Durban II outcome would “undoubtedly be a major setback for the international protection of human rights,” but withdrawing would subject those nations to developing countries’ accusations of “racism, colonialism and insensitivity to cultural differences.”
 
“But these labels should not easily stick to President Obama,” Bayefsky argued.
 
If Obama does decide to go, she said, “he will legitimize a human rights fraud.”
 
‘Real test’
 
The Anti-Defamation League this week added its voice to boycott calls, urging “responsible nations” to withdraw.
 
“The latest round of negotiations have proven that the so-called ‘Durban II’ Conference will inevitably promote the agenda of those governments who want to single out Israel for condemnation, prevent Holocaust remembrance, and establish a global blasphemy code for Islam,” it said.
 
Similar language came earlier this month from U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
 
“The U.S. and other responsible nations must stand up to the dictatorships that have hijacked much of the U.N. in general and Durban II in particular,” she said. “We should, like Canada and Israel, refuse to fund or participate in that hate-fest.”
 
Others are urging Obama to attend the conference, however.
 
“The U.S. must return not only symbolically, but meaningfully to the table of world leaders supporting Durban II,” said Dowoti Desir, executive director of The Shabazz Center in New York City, a facility dedicated to Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz.
 
“This will be a real test for the Obama administration and the country in determining our true commitment to fighting racism, discrimination and other forms of intolerance,” Desir said.
 
The Shabazz Center on Thursday will host a panel of African-American figures “to address the issues of racism in a historical and projective manner in anticipation of [Durban II].”
 
Numerical disadvantage
 
Some human rights groups say a boycott would “the wrong decision at this time,” but want the U.S. government to try to reshape the event.
 
“The Obama administration should lead an international effort to put the conference back on track,” Human Rights First, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the American Jewish Committee’s Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights said in a recent letter to Clinton.
 
The three organizations said the conference “will be seen by other governments and nongovernmental organizations as an early indicator of the new administration’s desire to engage with the U.N.”
 
“If the U.S. government boycotts the review conference entirely, as the Bush administration has essentially done so far, it loses the ability to influence the direction of this conference.”
 
They recommended discussions with representatives from “key countries” during which the administration proposes agenda priorities that the U.S. is ready to support and work to implement.
 
But Bayefsky pointed out Wednesday that the latest Durban II draft text includes references to “apartheid Israel” and “a racially-based law of return” – which she said was “none other than a reemergence” of the U.N.’s erstwhile “Zionism equals racism” resolution. 
  
“Why on earth would any civil rights organization call for legitimizing a dialogue for and against anti-semitism, and for and against the legitimacy of a Jewish state - masquerading as ‘human rights?’”
  
She also voiced skepticism about the ability of democracies to influence the process. 
  
“The key point is that this is not a dialogue from which democratic states and values can emerge triumphant,” Bayefsky said.
 
“At the United Nations they do not have the numbers to prevail. This puts them at a tremendous disadvantage at the negotiating table.”
 
The 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which describes itself as the biggest bloc at the U.N., controls one-third of the seats on its Human Rights Council, the body overseeing preparations for Durban II.
 
Because of the U.N. principle of ensuring equitable geographic distribution, developing nations outnumber Western democracies in bodies like the council.