U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference

[Grimm]

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/27/1003341/us-pulling-out-of-durban

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism.

Multiple sources on a conference call with the White House on Friday told JTA that the Obama administration had opted not to attend any further preparatory meetings ahead of the planned U.N. conference against racism in Geneva in April.

The conference reprises the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa that devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all. Canada and Israel have opted not to attend the conference, and some U.S. Jewish groups had been pressing the United States to do the same.

Preparations for a draft document so far have seen Iran leading a coterie of nations blocking inclusion of anything that might guarantee Jewish protections – including mention of the Holocaust – while inserting draconian language guarding Islam against "insult."

The State Department sent a delegation, including a senior staffer from the American Jewish Committee, to this month's preparatory talks. The delegation's conclusions were that the anti-Israel and anti-Western tendencies were too deeply entrenched to excise.

Now that the United States is withdrawing from the conference, European nations are expected to follow.

Speaking for the White House on Friday's call were Samantha Power and James Warlick, who handle international organizations for, respectively, the national security council and the State Department; and Jennifer Simon, an adviser to Susan Rice, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations.

-----

Well, it was interesting for a short while at least.

[geek tragedy]

1. Eh. Durban is a carnival sideshow.

I'm more interested in how the US pressures Israel. Hillary is certainly pissing off all of the right people.

[Swede]

2. Good news again.

Not at all surprising.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. Will Obama ever grow a pair? nt

[bemildred]

4. I think it's kind of a gimmee.

First you posture about going, then you "concede" the point and try to get something you want for the "concession". You ought to recognize the method, you are just not accustomed to seeing it used in this way.

[azurnoir]

5. Just what are they trying to get?

But there does seem to "celebration" about this JTA, Atlas Shrugs, LGF, GayPatriot, HotAir. are all rejoicing

[oberliner]

6. DailyKos as well

Most people in both parties agree that this conference is not something the US should be a part of.

Nice to see some occasional common ground.

Against the wishes of many center and right-wing folks, Obama's administration made an attempt to engage in the planning of this conference.

Once his team discovered for themselves the true nature of what this conference was about they wisely pulled out.

Kudos to the President.

[bemildred]

7. Lot's of possibilities, but one can only speculate, as the idea itself is only speculation.

But aid into Gaza, support for Palestinian unity, opening the crossings, etc. come to mind. It's sure not business as usual, and I don't see why one would "intend" to go and then back off so easily, making demands, so it seems reasonable to think some deal is at issue, but one can only guess. There is a lot going on. It could be that this is the promised ploy to get the resolution produced by the Racism conference changed: "change it this way or we won't come."

[oberliner]

8. They never intended to go

They only said they would go to the planning meetings.

They always remarked that this did not indicate that they would attend the conference itself.

[Jefferson23]

9. Very disappointing decision to not attend.

From Durbin 1, another POV.

Durban 1: What really happened at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

By Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom on March 3, 2008 - Speaking as the RHR representative who actually witnessed what went on in Durban first hand, and wasn’t spoon fed by reports in the western media, I am happy to have this opportunity to tell everyone here that the 2001 conference was not “hijacked by anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli parties.” True, among the many thousands of activists, there were some rather off-color expressions of anger against Israel, Zionism and the West in general, but nothing that justified the walk-out initiated by the U.S. and joined by American Jewish establishment organizations (or vis versa).

The general feeling there was that the U.S. and pro-Israeli government bodies, realizing that this would be forum that would demand reparations for the exploitation of Africa (centuries of slavery, etc.) and the Palestinian loss of homeland, decided out of naked self-interest to blacken the name of the entire enterprise and muffle opposition, in the name of fairness, as if this were the UN Security Council where the U.S. can cast yet one more veto; no, this was more like the UN General Assembly, where on these issues, the vote is 125-3 (U.S., Israel and Micronesia).

I hope very much that by the time this second follow-up conference comes around, the coalition between a right-wing American administration that hasn’t the slightest commitment to human rights, and right-wing American Jewish organizations whose concern about human rights in the Middle East only reaches as far as Darfur will be a painful but faint memory, and that RHR will rejoin the global human rights community, and clearly state its loyalty to the human family and not to ANY government.

http://rhr.israel.net/durban-1-what-really-happened-at-...

[Grimm]

10. Compare the final Durban 1 statement to the current Durban 2 draft

Durban 1:

63. We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion;

64. We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights, and security;

65. We recognize the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge all States to facilitate such return;

151. As for the situation in the Middle East, calls for the end of violence and the swift resumption of negotiations, respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, respect for the principle of self-determination and the end of all suffering, thus allowing Israel and the Palestinians to resume the peace process, and to develop and prosper in security and freedom;

Nothing horrifically objectionable, except possibly Paragraph 65 since the right of return for Palestinian refugees was and is a heated controversial issue. It even goes to recognize Israel's right to security and doesn't explicitly single out Israel for criticism.

Durban 2:

31. Reiterates that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to self determination and that, in order to consolidate the Israeli occupation, they have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture, economic blockade, severe restriction of movement and arbitrary closure of their territories. Also notes with concern that illegal settlements continue to be built in the occupied Arab territories since 1967;

32. Expresses deep concern at the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories as well as displaced persons who were forced to leave their homes because of war and racial policies of the occupying power and who are prevented from returning to their homes and properties because of a racially-based law of return. It recognizes the right of return of Palestinian refugees as established by the General Assembly in its resolutions, particularly resolution 194 of 11 December 1948, and calls for the return to their homeland in accordance with and in implementation of this right;

33. Reiterates deep concern about the plight of the Palestinian people as well as inhabitants of the other occupied territories under foreign occupation, including the obstruction of the return of refugees and displaced persons, and the construction of the segregation wall, and urges respect for international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, and calls for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region;

34. Re-emphasizes the responsibility of the international community to provide international protection, in particular from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, for Palestinian civilian populations under occupation in conformity with international human rights law and international humanitarian law;

Proposal to include reference to Gaza situation – language to be provided

No more mention of Israel's right to security. No mention of need to get back to the peace process (instead using a more generic and even less defined "call for peace"). Use of loaded words like "segregation wall". Deems Israel's right of return law to be racist. Personally, I'm also bothered that they've decided to characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a racially based conflict rather than one based on both sides' needs for prosperity, security and access to resources.

And just to point out this draft was from January 28th. That was well before Obama's team joined in and when they did join they said the draft has gotten even worse. I'm kind of afraid to see what the current version looks like after the most recent round. There are a worrying number of references towards limits on what the media can say, multiple attempts to limit discrimination based on sexual orientation and according to some sources they're "haggling" over whether to mention the Holocaust this draft (basically if the Holocaust is mentioned, Israel should be singled out for criticism).

Also, as a sidenote, the US does have a reason to consider leaving even if Jews and Israel aren't mentioned. One of the other big themes of the WCAR is compensation for victims of racism. Basically, the proposal is getting to the point of saying that the US has to pay out to numerous countries because of their role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. While that's not necessarily objectionable to most here, I doubt Obama is willing to risk thee support of the American public by and large by agreeing to pay large sums of money to a number of countries for events that occurred centuries ago, particularly during these tough economic times. But maybe I'm just a cynic.

Oh, and lastly there's a fight over whether the final WCAR proposal should be made international law or not. The EU (and I imagine the US, Canada and Israel) want the 1965 Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to remain the law, but other countries are pushing for this to be the new norm.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Do you have the link to those drafts? n/t

[oberliner]

13. Here is the UN link

http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/sessions.shtml

[Grimm]

15. The Durban 2 draft is in oberliner's link...

...Under "Revised version of CRP.2 on 23-1-2009 at 6:00 pm"

Durban 1 is found here: http://www.un.org./WCAR/durban.pdf

Both are PDF files

[bemildred]

11. UN human rights chief presses for U.S., Israeli presence at anti-racism conference

---

“A persuasive outcome of the review conference and beyond hinges upon the genuine commitment of all States to seek consensus,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told the UN Human Rights Council as it began its 10th session in Geneva.

“Narrow, parochial interests and reflexive partisanship must be cast aside in the interest of a greater common good,” she added.

Ms. Pillay underscored that a failure to seek consensus and ensure a successful outcome may reverberate negatively on the full spectrum of human rights work and mechanisms for years to come.

“We need to prevent the acrimony of the past from encumbering the fight against intolerance which is – and I am sure we all agree – both of urgent concern and in the best interest of everyone.”


http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/45d771c7290844e9/id/472765/cs/1/

[azurnoir]

14. Well it would make sense for the US and Israel to participate

if they want they want the conference to change but the word here is if, and it seems that some of Israels supporters and some in Israel get so much mileage of out the conference being just the way it was or was reputed to be in 2001

[bemildred]

16. I think it makes them look weak.

If your case is so great, why not show up and make your case? Like the endless empty posturing about various other things, it shows a lack of confidence in ones ability to win an argument on its merits in a fair debate.

[oberliner]

18. Attending the conference would bring legitimacy to something that is illegitimate

Respected historians and scholars did not attend the Iranian Holocaust conference even though they would have been able to present a very strong case.

Similarly most scientists avoid debating "intelligent design" advocates because they do not wish to confer any legitimacy on these folks.

[bemildred]

19. It seems a bit arrogant to think you can bring legitimacy to something just by showing up.

I would submit that the legitimacy of the conference does not depend much on whether the US or Israel shows up. I think its fear that keeps them from going.

[cali]

20. I doubt it's fear

and it's likely to be quite a few more countries than just the U.S., Israel and Canada.

[bemildred]

21. So why not go? If there is nothing to be afraid of?

You are not going to sell me on noble adherence to lofty principles of this or that. It's the same reason Turkey doesn't want to have an open discussion about Armenians 100 years ago, or US politicians about slavery and native Americans, or the Russians about Stalin, and the list goes on and on ...

[aranthus]

22. Because our attendance legitimizes a fraud.

As you may know I have been asking everyone who posts on this issue why they think that this conference is a good thing. More specifically what it is expected to contribute to the fight against racism? Thus far, I have not received an answer, which suggests that there is no good answer. I don't believe that the Durban Conference contributed to that fight against racism and discrimination in any meaningful way, nor was it intended to. That makes calling it a world conference against racism an exercise in fraud. I don't think that this conference is going to be any different. We may not be able to stop others from perpetrating the deception, but we have a duty to not be an enabler of it. That means not going, and proclaiming for all to hear that this particular emperor has no clothes.

[bemildred]

25. Please see post #19.

What it suggests to me is that you don't want to hear an answer, rather than that nobody has attempted to answer you. But rhetorical questions are like that.

[aranthus]

29. Still not an answer.

Anyone can look at the various threads on which I have asked about this and see that no one has yet answered the pertinent questions. The closest that anyone has come is when you posted on another thread that you believe that conferences against racism are a good idea. In that very general sense, I agree with you. However, that isn't my question. I'm asking why people think that the prior Durban conference did anything to fight racism and why this conference will help fight racism. To those questions I have yet to receive an answer. If there is a reason that the Durban conference or the current one will actually fight racism, someone should be able to articulate it.

As for your post 19, I suppose that there is some arrogance in thinking that Western Democracies are in some way "better" than the run of the mill dictatorships which comprise most of the world's governments. There is also a huge dose of truth in the idea, and I think that the world knows it. So yes, the attendance of the US and other Western countries would increase the perceived legitimacy of the conference.

More importantly, attending the conference makes us perpetrators of the sham. Suppose we go to the conference and announce that it is a fraud. doesn't the fact that we have attended undercut that statement? Besides, in the countries where people should hear such statements from us, the government will insure that people don't hear it, and instead only hear that we attended, were criticized, and had nothing to say in our defense (since the governments involved won't broadcast our defense). You are assuming a fair fight and an honest debate. Where the UN is concerned there ain't no such animal.

[bemildred]

30. Indeed, obviously, nobody is able to answer your question.

You must be some sort of hyper-wizard genius sort of person to come up with such a good, unanswerable question.

[cali]

24. well, you're not going to sell me on fear? fear of what, precisely?

look, Durban was obscene. I watched it closely, and it was not only a complete sham, but the NGO orgy of anti-Israel and anti-semitism, was truly nothing anyone should have engaged in. And that's a poor comparison to Turkey etc. As I said in my other post, if the UN wants to hold a conference on Israeli racism then go for it, but this is purportedly about worldwide racism, and again the agenda is being diverted off course.

[bemildred]

26. So why leave them to it?

Why not show up and put a fight? Who handed them ownership of the UN conference on Racism? If your case is so good, why not show up and defend it? What have you got to lose?

[cali]

27. being involved in an ugly brawl hardly advances the agenda of working against

racism and discrimination.

[bemildred]

28. And calling it an "ugly brawl" does not make it an ugly brawl.

It just looks like you are afraid of honest debate.

[backwoodsbob]

31. I think the point is

this won't be *honest debate*

[Shaktimaan]

32. It's sort of like the intelligent design debate.

Remember when Bush said that he thought that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught, ie: the debate should be taught as a part of science lessons? (I think he said "both sides of the argument should be heard.") That tact angered many scientists because to even give something as absurd as ID a podium implies that there actually IS a debate to be had. It actually legitimizes the argument as though it is a debate that occurs within the scientific community when in reality no such thing exists.

There's an old political saw that goes something like... One politician tells his aides to leak a rumor to the press that his opponent has sex with sheep. His aides exclaim, "why? what's the point, no one would believe that he actually has sex with sheep." "I know." said the politician. "But our goal isn't to get people to believe it, but to merely get him to deny it."

Even showing up to debate these issues imbues them with a greater sense of legitimacy than they deserve. None of the issues are the kind of thing that could ever get resolved there. No one will be pronounced the winner; it will just be a series of endless arguments about whether or not Israel is the worst state ever or whether or not Jews really control world finance and the global media.

To even have an argument like that is to lose it.

It is like asking why no one attended Iran's Holocaust Symposium to refute their arguments denying that the holocaust actually occurred. Was it because they were all afraid of honest debate? No, of course not. It was because once you even begin arguing a side, (no matter how absurd the debate's premise might be), you essentially admit that there are, in fact, two sides to the story. It legitimizes your opponent's argument as a possibility and reduces factual issues to a mere argument where one can choose which side to support.

[cali]

17. If the U.N wants to hold a conference on Israeli racism, fine. hold it, but

Durban didn't address worldwide racism to any appreciable degree. And Geneva looks to be following in the footsteps of Durban.

[aranthus]

23. You can't have a world conference against racism.

Racism is a moral issue. In the international world, goodness and universality are mutually exclusive in all but the most general circumstances. So you can have a conference that will meaningfully address racism, but it won't include all the countries of the world. Or you can have a conference that is universal, but it won't do any good. The UN suffers from the same problem. It's not as big an issue, as long as the UN sticks to political issues. But on issues such as human rights or racism, the UN is unable to achieve positive results because its so politicized.

"If God is God he is not good. If God is good he is not God. Take the even. The the odd."