U.S. Backs Away from Durban II, Shifting Focus to Other Democracies 

By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
March 02, 2009
CNS News
Original Source: 
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44288 http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44288


(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration’s decision to disengage from a major United Nations’ racism conference in Geneva moves the spotlight onto other democracies that have been troubled about the event but have not yet withdrawn.
 
Opponents of the Durban Review Conference (“Durban II”) are hoping the U.S. move will prompt others – including European Union countries and Australia – to withdraw, further delegitimizing an event that has stoked controversy for attacking Israel as racist.
 
“The Netherlands will withdraw if the draft resolution does not change in the shortest possible term,” Bart Rijs, spokesman for Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen, said Sunday in response to queries.
 
Despite the Netherlands’ efforts to make the conference a success, he said, “a number of states, whose own human rights record can be greatly improved, are trying to misuse the U.N. for an anti-Semitic witch hunt.”
 
“This is not a decision the Netherlands will take lightly, because we are dedicated to the fight against racism and discrimination, but we refuse to be part of a propaganda circus.”
 
A spokeswoman for Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said Monday the government had not yet committed to attending the conference and would make a decision “in due course.”
 
Countries that have voiced concern over the past year include Britain, France, Italy and Denmark. E.U. member states may decide on an individual basis about whether to participate, or could move for a decision by the 27-member bloc.
 
Attempts to get comment from the Czech E.U. presidency and the E.U. external relations and foreign and security offices were unsuccessful.
 
The event scheduled for April 20-24 is intended to review progress made in achieving the Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA), the outcome document adopted at the U.N.’s first world racism conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001.
 
The Bush administration walked out of that event, citing a disproportionate focus on Israel and other concerns. It also refused to attend DDPA follow-up meetings or to join planning sessions for the second conference.
 
A draft outcome document for Durban II, hammered out during a lengthy preparatory process, has drawn fire primarily because of language singling out Israel for condemnation and accusing it of racism. Critics blame members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – Libya is chairing the planning body, and Iran and Pakistan have also played key roles – and their allies.
 
Canada and Israel announced early on that they would boycott the conference, but no other country formally joined them – although some indicated that they might, unless problematic content was removed from the text.
 
In the U.S., critics of the process urged the new administration to withdraw, while organizations advocating greater engagement with the U.N. argued that the U.S. could achieve more by taking part.
 
Last month the U.S. decided for the first time to http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43556 \t _blank send a delegation to take part in Durban II preparatory discussions, held over four days in Geneva.
 
On Friday, however, State Department spokesman Robert Wood announced that, having now determined that the draft text was “not salvageable,” the U.S. would not take part in any further negotiations, or “participate in a conference based on this text.”
 
Wood’s statement did leave a window open, however, saying the U.S. “would be prepared to re-engage” if deliberations were based on a text that met various criteria, including not singling out “any one country or conflict.”
 
‘End this mindless march’
 
Reaction, overwhelmingly positive, poured in over the weekend, with the Israeli government, Jewish organizations, conservative commentators and lawmakers praising the decision to withdraw, with urging others to follow.
 
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni expressed the hope that other countries sharing “the values held by the leader of the free world” would follow Washington’s example.
 
U.S. Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he hoped the U.S. stance would “galvanize like-minded countries and those who have been sitting on the sidelines to end this mindless march toward an outcome that serves none of the victims of racism, xenophobia and intolerance.”
 
Dan Kosky, communications director for the Jerusalem-based organization NGO Monitor – a close observer of the Durban process – said Monday the U. S. decision could be a catalyst.
 
“Leaders in the U.K., France, Italy and Holland in particular have in the past indicated that if red lines are irreversibly crossed, they too will conclude that the conference has nothing positive to offer and decide not to attend,” he said.
 
“The decision by the U.S. is further evidence that the Durban II process cannot be salvaged and increases the chances that other Western democracies will stay away.”
 
‘Defamation’ of religion, slavery reparations
 
The singling out of Israel for condemnation is not the only issue in the draft Durban II text that has sparked controversy.
 
Others include the assertion that “Islamophobia” is a contemporary form of racism and calls for action against “religious defamation.”
 
States are urged “to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.” Governments are called upon “to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation.”
 
Critics say this is part of an OIC-led drive to protect Islam from critical scrutiny, and to impose in Western countries restrictions similar to blasphemy laws in place in many Islamic states.
 
The document also draws links between counter-terror measures adopted by Western states and “the rise of racism.” And it calls on countries “that have not yet condemned, apologized and paid reparations for” violations including slavery “to do so at the earliest.”
 
In his statement announcing the withdrawal, Wood listed criteria for a conference outcome document that would have to be met for the U.S. to attend Durban II:
 
-- it must be shortened (the current draft is 45 pages long).
-- it must not reaffirm the “flawed” DDPA in its entirety.
-- “it must not single out any one country or conflict, nor embrace the troubling concept of ‘defamation of religion.”
-- it “should not go further than the DDPA on the issue of reparations for slavery.”
 
Slavery reparations were a contentious issue in Durban. In the end, the DDPA noted that some states had “paid reparation, where appropriate,” and called on “all those who have not yet contributed to restoring the dignity of the victims to find appropriate ways to do so.”