America's UN Boycott Backfires

[Better Believe It]

America's UN Boycott Backfires
By Barbara Crossette
Barbara Crossette is The Nation's United Nations correspondent. A former foreign correspondent for the New York Times, she is the author of several books on Asia, including So Close to Heaven: The Vanishing Buddhist Kingdoms of the Himalayas, published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1995 and in paperback by Random House/Vintage Destinations in 1996, and a collection of travel essays about colonial resort towns that are still attracting visitors more than a century after their creation, The Great Hill Stations of Asia, published by Westview Press in 1998 and in paperback by Basic Books in 1999. In 2000, she wrote a survey of India and Indian-American relations, India: Old Civilization in a New World, for the Foreign Policy Association in New York. She is also the author of India Facing the 21st Century, published by Indiana University Press in 1993.

--------------------

The Obama administration and the United States as a whole will be haunted for a long time by the decision to boycott a United Nations international conference on racism and intolerance starting today in Geneva.

For the review that runs all this week, many nations have worked for months in bare-knuckle negotiations to create a report erasing offensive provisions, a report that the United States--a hoped for shining star with its first African-American president--could live with.

Instead, the United States turned its back on a chance to do more to enhance its image across the developing world than any grand tour of Europe could ever accomplish. Washington ran away from a confrontation that many struggling human rights activists in the poorest and often most repressed countries would have welcomed. A lot of nations could do with a stern lecture on tolerance and the treatment of minorities from President Obama. Now the brazen troublemakers have been ceded the floor. This "triumph" will embolden them and color other UN forums to come.

In the United States the reaction from human rights organizations and other interested groups was immediate. In a statement given to CNN, the Congressional Black Caucus said it was "deeply dismayed" by the decision. "Had the United States sent a high-level delegation reflecting the richness and diversity of our country, it would have sent a powerful message to the world that we're ready to lead by example," the caucus said. "Instead, the administration opted to boycott the conference, a decision that does not advance the cause of combating racism and intolerance but rather sets the cause back."

Juliette de Rivero, advocacy director in Geneva for Human Rights Watch, said: "The boycott plays into the hands of those who want the conference to fail. The only ones celebrating will be those who want to undermine efforts to defeat racism and protect rights."

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090504/crossette?rel=hp_picks

---------------------------------------------------

U.S. will boycott U.N. conference on racism
By Laura MacInnis and Sue Pleming

GENEVA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States will boycott a United Nations conference on racism next week, the U.S. State Department said on Saturday, citing objectionable language in the meeting's draft declaration.

The Obama administration, which kept its distance from preparations for the "Durban II" meeting, has come under strong pressure from Israel not to attend.

A draft declaration prepared for the conference removed all references to Israel, the Middle East conflict and a call to bar "defamation of religion" -- an Arab-backed response to a 2006 controversy over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that Western states see as a way to quash free expression.

Wood conceded there had been improvements to the document, but he said it was not enough.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090418/pl_nm/us_rights_un_7

- The declaration did not meet Israel's requirements which wants the UN's efforts to combat racism to fail. -

It appears that Israel has a great deal more influence and pull in the Obama administration than the Congressional Black Caucus and leading Black organizations such as the NAACP.

[CJCRANE]

1. Obama made the right decision.

All those other nations' diplomats looked like idiots in comparison - turning up just to walk out again.

[AtomicKitten]

2. I agree. It was the right call. n/t

[Better Believe It]

7. They returned to the conference. Israel's sabotage has failed.

The Israeli/US boycott only benefits the racists and racist regimes.

I'm sorry you support Israel's attempt to sabotage the UN's world-wide campaign to fight racism.

Well, we do know that Israel opposed the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela and supported the old apartheid regime in South Africa in the 70's and 80's so this should come as no surprise to any informed person. But perhaps you're unaware of this history.

---------------------

After most African countries broke relations with Israel in 1973, Israel developed close ties with South Africa throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The relationship changed so profoundly that, in 1976, Israel invited the South African prime minister, John Vorster - a former Nazi sympathiser and a commander of the fascist Ossewabrandwag that sided with Hitler - for a state visit.<1>

Leaving unmentioned Vorster's wartime internment for supporting Germany, Israel's prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, hailed the South African premier as a force for freedom and made no mention of Vorster's past as he toured the Jerusalem memorial to the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis. At a state banquet, Rabin toasted "the ideals shared by Israel and South Africa: the hopes for justice and peaceful coexistence". Both countries, he said, faced "foreign-inspired instability and recklessness". Vorster, whose army was then overrunning Angola, told his hosts that South Africa and Israel were victims of the enemies of western civilisation. A few months later, the South African government's yearbook characterised the two countries as confronting a single problem: "Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-South_Africa_relations

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. *Israel's* attempt at sabotage? I think the conference did a good job of sabotaging itself by

giving Ahmadinejad the floor.

[Better Believe It]

22. President Obama could have addresed the conference if he had not caved-in to the right-wing ....

extremists running Israel.

[cali]

29. oh for the love of reason- not that you have any affinity for it.

it's ludicrous to believe that the reason the U.S. didn't attend is because Obama caved to Israel. Seek help.

[jefferson_dem]

13. It's amazing how folks who claim to be so "progressive" can be so judgmental and divisive.

Shall we begin the necklacing?

[Better Believe It]

23. Sure. So what if Israel supported the South African aparthied regime and who cares if today Israel

is ruled by right-wing extremists that almost make George W. Bush look like some sort of left-wing liberal.

Let's ignore reality and not be so judgmental and divisive like the Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP.

[cali]

25. lol. your true colors are shining through

"israel's attempt to sabotage"? you're obsessed, dear. There are other human rights abuses in the world. This isn't a conference on Israel. It's supposed to address global issues.

To your ilk, it's all about israel and nothing but israel. pathetic.

[democrattotheend]

44. I agree

This conference has a nice name, but sadly, it has become little more than an Israel-bashing fest.

[GarbagemanLB]

3. I'm glad we boycotted it. After the Iran thing, it was clearly the right decision.

[msongs]

4. Americans must never surrender the right to criticize religon, despite muslim bullies nt

[Better Believe It]

9. Read the post before you comment on it. OK?

"A draft declaration prepared for the conference removed all references to Israel, the Middle East conflict and a call to bar "defamation of religion" -- an Arab-backed response to a 2006 controversy over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that Western states see as a way to quash free expression."

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Do you notice that they wish to discuss

religion under the umbrella of race? That in itself is disturbing. How is criticizing a religion that is comprised of every race on Earth an issue of racism, as opposed to an issue about religion?
Putting the religious elements into a discussion about racism is in itself a vicious ploy. A trick. This conference was not about racism, but about religionism, and the desire of some to oppress the freedoms of others. Calling it a conference on racism was a disingenous fraud.

[Better Believe It]

27. I didn't notice that. Nor did you!

If you're not just making this stuff up as you go please provide some credible links to back up your assertion.

Oh those "left-wing" anti-racist delegates are such tricksters!

Don't pay attention to what the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus have to say about the conference.

They also are "tricking" us". How clever they are.

Pay attention to what the world leader in the fight against all forms of discrimination and racism does.

Israel.

Just ignore the fact they politically and militarily supported the South African aparthied regime.

Just a little tiny mistake that any progressive nation can make.

I mean, nobodys perfect.

And one should point out that the progressive leaders of Israel just love Black people and Arabs. They have a special fondness for Palestinians.

Some of their best friends are Palestinians.

Really.

Just ask them.

They tell ya!

[mkultra]

16. your ill informed and bashing as usual

The last verbiage not removed was the statements fully endorsing last years conference which also devolved into a anti-Israeli screed.

He made the right call again.

[cali]

30. the declaration explicitly states that it endorses everything that

came out of Durban. Bit disingenuous to leave that out.

[Raineyb]

18. Apparently, the US must never let other countries call them out on their hypocrisy

But reserves the right to point out the flaws of others.

Well it looks like those who weren't really interested in having this conference succeed have won. I hope they're happy.

Regards

[jefferson_dem]

5. These articles were written before Ahmadinejad's disgusting rant.

Turns out, the US was perfectly justified in boycotting this sham of a "conference". It's a shame the UN has allowed itself to be used and its reputation soiled by some of the world's sleaziest figures.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. No, she mentions Ahmadinejad's rant in the article.

"But what the posse of hatemongers who deny their own abuses, led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Group of 77 (Pakistan included), do not seem to realize as they pursue in every possible venue their vendetta against Israel is the damage they do to the United Nations, most of all in the United States. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only head of a major government present, made a keynote speech today, he did not disappoint.

He proclaimed that Europe and the United States had sent Jews to Israel to colonize Palestinian lands and establish a "racist" government." A flock of diplomats walked out of the hall, adding to the public relations disaster this conference has become. "

[jefferson_dem]

11. You're right.

My bad.

Then she's a fool. Why would anyone suggest this forum should have been dignified by Obama's presence, given the outcome? Why was that racist fuck Ahmadinejad given a forum in the first place?

[ClarkUSA]

10. lol! Ahmedinajad's soapbox rant ruined your latest poutrage meme while Pres. Obama looks brilliant.

In addition, Pres. Obama's wisdom and prescience also saved the U.S. taxpayer millions in wasted travel, security and hotel fees.
Well-played, indeed.

[Raineyb]

19. I don't suppose it occurred to you that if we hadn't boycotted the conference

Ahmedinajad wouldn't have the keynote address in the first place?

[ClarkUSA]

20. And you know this how? Are you implying it's all Pres. Obama's fault somehow?

Spare me your bitter BS masquerading as tortured illogic, okay?

[Raineyb]

26. WTF? Did you fucking read what I said?

I'm saying that this conference becoming a circus is a self fulfilling prophecy. It's a circus because there's no counterbalance to Ahmedinajad and there's no counterbalance because there's no one else of high enough standing to bump him from keynote position. Obama deciding to boycott gave several other countries the cover to not show up either. All of these countries could damn sure use some work on their race relations as it so happens. I'm not saying it's Obama's fault. If I meant that I would have said it flat out but Obama is not getting a pass for boycotting this conference from me. The fact that Ahmedinajad has blown up the conference cannot be used as the reason why boycotting was a good idea. That is the very definition of the twisted illogic you accuse me of.

And I don't appreciate the use of the word bitter. I've been arguing for Obama's election for months because I thought he was the with whom we had the best chance of being able to petition for the change we actually want. But I'm not a fucking cheerleader and if I don't like something he does it doesn't make me bitter.

This is a poor excuse for actual discussion which I thought was the purpose of this board. I didn't join a fan club and I don't expect to be treated as if I had.

[ClarkUSA]

36. Yes, I did. And I don't deal in self-serving hypotheticals.

I'm glad we boycotted the conference for the reasons I gave. It was a complete waste of UN time.

[Raineyb]

37. I don't find self serving after the fact rationalizations for actions very useful.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Not at all. I felt the same way prior to Ahmedinajad's predictable soapbox rant.

These kind of obligatory UN conferences are always a waste of time. It's much better to spend taxpayer millions on inner-city schools
and the teachers that work there than squander it on this kind of useless display.

[Raineyb]

40. Then I apologize. It wouldn't pertain to you.

It does stand however for the large number of people congratulating Obama for the boycott based on Ahmedinajad's rant.

Regards

[cali]

33. yes he would have. Obama wouldn't have attended

he's a bit busy. It's not like a president's schedule is just fly by the seat of the pants. And it is very, very unusual for a head of state to attend; Ahmadinejad was the ONLY one who did. U.N. protocol would have been just the same whether the U.S. attended or not. Wrong again.

[Better Believe It]

32. Really? And what did President Obama say at the conference in response to Ahmedinajad?

Oh .... I'm sorry he wasn't in attendance!

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!

Or was President Obama just caving in once again to the demands of the right-wing extremists who run Israel? The Israeli extremists seem to have much more influence in the Obama admininstration than the Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP.

But we are all really happy that President Obama saved some taxpayer money by not attending.

Now he has even more of our money he can give to the banksters and other Wall Street crooks!

[ClarkUSA]

39. Give it up. I'm inured to your nonsense.

[dionysus]

12. you bitter believe it!

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Obama was right not to go

And Israel has very little to do with that. I fuly support his choice to avoid that mislabled event in spite of the way it might look to uninformed people.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Are you kidding me?

That conference was a train wreck. Obama was wise to keep the US away.

[Jennicut]

21. I really really try to read your posts and take them reasonably

But give me a break. Israel and Iran have leaders who are both idiots. That is all that is needed to be said about that. Extremism only leads to ridiculous ideas. This conference was not about human rights, it was about who could put on a show. It was crap.

[Canuckistanian]

24. This conference has been an Israel bashfest for years

Canada boycotted it, too. So did Germany, Poland, Australia, New Zealand and The Netherlands.

When you have Iran's Ahmedinajad as your first speaker, spouting utterly predictable insults of Israel and Judaism, you know nothing's going to get accomplished.

[Better Believe It]

34. You might want to follow what is actually happening at the conference before you comment

I take it you support the right-wing extremists that currently run Israel.

Is that right?

[cali]

35. you might want to fix your mask. it's slipping.

[Canuckistanian]

41. No, I don't

But I certainly wouldn't tolerate the rantings of a Holocaust-denying, Jew-baiting Ahmedinajad in a conference on racism.

Tell me, do you expect any progress at all on the problems of racism with such a one-sided POV? I don't.

And for the record, I support the Palestinian right to a sovereign homeland - but to abandon reasonable discourse is madness.

[cali]

28. yeah, genius, Israel has so much influence on Obama's administration

that the President issued a big fat snub to Netanyahu and made it clear he wouldn't meet with him when he comes to D.C. for the AIPAC meeting. Wow. that's a lot of influence, isn't it?

Your innuendo and smears are disgusting. You really need to clean up your act.

And sorry, I doubt very, very much that Crossman is correct.

[PBS Poll-435]

31. You are trying too hard

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

42. kick

[DevonRex]

43. Kick to expose the trend.