Will Obama Be a No-Go to Racism Conference?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Will Obama be a no-go to racism conference?
By Marlene Nadle
April 13, 2009

THERE IS A bitter irony in America's first black president continuing to boycott the UN's international conference on racism scheduled for this month.

President Barack Obama's position on attending the conference translates roughly into: Do it our way or we won't play. He has already gotten all references to Israel, to reparations for slavery, and to a proposed ban on speech defaming any religion dropped from the conference's draft document. Yet, he is still unwilling to have the United States attend. Even if the administration bullies its way into getting its final points, it is not really a win for the United States.

Obama's foot dragging and threat of a boycott will begin to deplete whatever goodwill he has created for himself and America in the nations of color. People in those countries, like many Americans, hoped he would head up the fight for racial justice, not become one of the obstacles to it.

<snip>

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/13/will_obama_be_a_no_go_to_racism_conference/

[vadawg]

1. im willing to bet that if he attends, he will regret it politically

if the usual anti racist stuff that comes from this conference is anything to go by, then i can bet most of america apart from a few outliers will be highly offended in one way or another. I sure as hell think its a bad idea to even attend.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

2. I've heard

that what is being considered is sending a low-level delegation.

[GoesTo11]

3. Obama = Racist? Just one more way he has failed us.

Thank you Boston Globe for your concern.

[cali]

4. I don't know what the administration will do. I can see the arguments

on both sides. The UNHRC is one of the most grotesquely Orwellian institutions around. Many of its memebers are some of the worst human rights abusers in the world who focus almost solely on Israel and collectively block any discussion of such places as Darfur or Saudi Arabia. Sadly, it's no different than it predecesor which the U.N. dissolved and then reconstituted.

The problem with the current draft is that it endorses absolutely the 2001 conference findings which the U.S. found unacceptable, so it's dishonest to say that the U.S. has gotten everything its asked for.

The 2001 conference devolved into some real ugliness with NCOs who attended expressing very real anti-semitism. And the shunning of issues of racism, sexism and the persecution of GLBT people in certain countries was shameful.

On the other hand, the U.S. could go and stand firm on some of these issues.

[tritsofme]

5. What a steaming load of shit. That "conference" is a joke

that is below the dignity of our participation.

[cali]

6. not that I wholly disagree with you but is it possible that

our attending could change the course of the event, or if not, draw attention to what's wrong with it?

[tritsofme]

7. As you noted above, they still endorse Durban I.

A document which is as just as ridiculous now as it was 8 years ago.

By sitting on the sidelines we are drawing more attention to the issue than would ever be accomplished by attending.

[DevonRex]

8. I normally don't respond to you, but I'm curious about something.

Have you ever written one good thing about President Obama?

[cali]

9. I don't think it matters if the OP has ever written positively about President

Obama. It's not a bad thing to challenge people here. And I disagree with most of what the OP posts- not reflexively, but critically.

[DevonRex]

10. As I said, I'm curious. Nothing wrong with that, either.