US boycotts UN conference on racism

[hongi]

as well as a few other countries.

GENEVA – The United Nations' global conference on racism opens Monday without the U.S. or at least seven other countries who have boycotted the event out of concern that Islamic countries will demand that it denounce Israel and ban criticism of Islam.

The administration of President Barack Obama, America's first black head of state, announced Saturday that it would boycott "with regret" the weeklong meeting in Geneva, which already is experiencing much of the bickering and political infighting that marred the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa.

The Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand announced their boycotts Sunday, while Australia, Canada, Israel and Italy already had said they would not attend.

The French foreign minister said his country's ambassador to Geneva would attend, but would walk out "immediately" if the conference turned into a platform for racist comments against Israel. Britain had earlier said it would attend.

Obama, speaking in Trinidad on Sunday after attending the Summit of the Americas, said: "I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe."

But he said the language of the U.N.'s draft declaration risked a reprise of Durban, during which "folks expressed antagonism toward Israel in ways that were often times completely hypocritical and counterproductive."

"We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that's not something we can sign up for," Obama said.

"Hopefully some concrete steps come out of the conference that we can partner with other countries on to actually reduce discrimination around the globe, but this wasn't an opportunity to do it," he said.

At the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI said the conference is needed to eliminate racial intolerance around the world. Asia News, a Catholic news agency that is part of the missionary arm of the Vatican, said of the pope's comment: "The Holy See is distancing itself from the criticisms of some Western countries."

U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay, who is hosting the conference, said she was "shocked and deeply disappointed" by the U.S. decision not to attend.

She conceded some countries were focusing solely on one or two issues to the detriment of the fight against intolerance, but said it is essential that the issue of racism be tackled globally.

The major sticking points regarding the proposed final U.N. declaration are its implied criticism of Israel and an attempt by Muslim governments to ban all criticism of Islam, Sharia law, the prophet Muhammad and other tenets of their faith.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who repeatedly has called for the destruction of Israel and denied the Holocaust — is slated to speak on the first day.

He arrived in Geneva on Sunday evening and met privately with President Hans-Rudolf Merz of Switzerland, the country that represents the diplomatic interests of the United States in the Islamic republic.

The pullout of Germany is significant since it has played a leading role in U.N. anti-racism efforts as a result of its troubled historical legacy. In recent meetings, it has expressed dismay about some governments' attempts to downplay the significance of the Holocaust.

Germany said Sunday that it made its boycott decision after consulting with other European Union nations.

"This decision was not easy," said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. "As in Durban in 2001, this conference could be abused by others as a platform for their interests. We cannot accept that," he said.

The bland U.N. draft statement does not mention Israel by name, but it reaffirms the Durban statement and its reference to the plight of Palestinians. That document was agreed after the United States and Israel walked out over attempts to liken Zionism — the movement to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land — to racism.

Israel and Jewish groups have lobbied hard against Western participation in the meeting, arguing that the presence alone of American and European negotiators would give legitimacy to what they fear could become an anti-Semitic gathering.

On Sunday, Israel's Foreign Ministry thanked the boycotters and predicted the conference would "once again serve as a platform to denigrate Israel and single it out for criticism."

Still, after years of preparations there appears little evidence to validate these fears. The statement of 2001 that is so contentious now was cheered in Israel at the time, as it recognized the Jewish state's right to security.

Regarding its boycott, the Obama administration said it could not endorse any statement that singled out Israel or included passages demanding a ban on language considered an "incitement" of religious hatred. Such calls "run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech," said State Department spokesman Robert Wood.

Many Muslim nations want curbs to free speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. They cite the 2005 cartoons of Muhammad published by a Danish newspaper that sparked riots in the Muslim world.

European countries also have criticized the meeting for focusing heavily on the West and ignoring problems of racism and intolerance in the developing world.

First, the Muslim nations can go eat a shit concerning freedom of speech. Second, Ahmadinejad is speaking? Ahmadinejad? I forsee bad things happening.

[Guardsman Bass]

Aside from the whole Israel issue, the US should boycott this conference simply because of this bullshit attempt by the muslim nations to get a declaration calling for a ban on all criticism of Islam (Christ, I am so fucking sick of this Danish cartoon bullshit from the leadership in the Arab World). Of course, it would be hilarious to go, then repeatedly ask Saudi Arabia if they'd be willing to go quid-pro-quo and allow for full, uncriticized Christian religious speech in their country, or even just non-Wahabist Islamic speech. Or ask Iran if they'll allow full free speech and "protected from criticism" Baha'i speech in their country.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, it's totally ridiculous to call for a ban on all criticism of Islam. Totally unlike the western countries' longstanding and completely reasonable call for a ban on criticism of Israel, right? Right?

After all, Israel was a large part of the reason the previous Durban conference fell apart. All of the Israel backers stormed out when it became clear that Israel's policies were going to be declared racist.

http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20010904/17592_story.asp

Frankly, Israel is most likely a far bigger reason for these boycotts than Islam. People are focusing on the Islam angle because it distracts from the Israel angle.

[Guardsman Bass]

Yeah, it's totally ridiculous to call for a ban on all criticism of Islam. Totally unlike the western countries' longstanding and completely reasonable call for a ban on criticism of Israel, right? Right?

The US has only been pulling this Israel-ass-covering bullshit in the UN, and primarily in a "negative" way (they just don't participate or approve any resolutions that criticize Israel); they haven't come and demanded a UN resolution calling for all countries to repress any speech that might be critical of Israel.

For that matter, I didn't even offer an opinion on the Israel issue (mostly because I consider the US's covering of Israel to be idiotic) in my original.

[The Romulan Republic]

Aside from the whole Israel issue, the US should boycott this conference simply because of this bullshit attempt by the muslim nations to get a declaration calling for a ban on all criticism of Islam. Of course, it would be hilarious to go, then repeatedly ask Saudi Arabia if they'd be willing to go quid-pro-quo and allow for full, uncriticized Christian religious speech in their country, or even just non-Wahabist Islamic speech.

Which is probably what the US should do. Sure, refusing to show up can be used to make a statement, but it can also be played up as a refusal on the part of the evil Americans to oppose racism. And by refusing to attend, the US denies itself an opportunity to take the stage themselves and argue against the views that it finds objectionable.

Granted, I'm no expert on the UN, but what does America or Canada or any other nation gain by not attending, as opposed to attending and using the conference as a forum to confront their opponents?

[Guardsman Bass]

Aside from the whole Israel issue, the US should boycott this conference simply because of this bullshit attempt by the muslim nations to get a declaration calling for a ban on all criticism of Islam. Of course, it would be hilarious to go, then repeatedly ask Saudi Arabia if they'd be willing to go quid-pro-quo and allow for full, uncriticized Christian religious speech in their country, or even just non-Wahabist Islamic speech.

Granted, I'm no expert on the UN, but what does America or Canada or any other nation gain by not attending, as opposed to attending and using the conference as a forum to confront their opponents?

Depends on how much actual speaking time the US and Canadian representatives would get.

I'll admit it is a bit of a cowardly way of dealing with it, one that they probably took because the US is reluctant to openly criticize some of the backers of this bullshit (particularly Saudi Arabia, even though they richly deserve criticism).

[Prannon]

The whole idea behind so many countries boycotting this conference is to steal its legitimacy. If the US did go to this conference along with all the others, they would be, in fact, conferring legitimacy upon it. It's kind of like a famous celebrity in a commercial for any old consumer product. They lend legitimacy and prestige to that product just by the virtue of appearing on that commercial, not necessarily for the things they say.

Now, here's a scenario. Imagine if the US and all the wealthy, western countries sent delegations to this conference. Ok, they've lent their "celebrity legitimacy" already, and are symbolically saying that they will honor the proceedings and the end product, whether their input comes to much or not. Now, keep in mind that developing countries represent far greater voting power in the UN and in similar international bodies than the US and its allies (one country, one vote). If Islamic nations were able to rally all of those countries to their agenda, which wouldn't be too hard since the third world will often rally just to spite the first world (think the Venezuela/Iran diplomatic "alliance"), then they would be able to dominate the proceedings. There is a chance that the end result would be something that the US wouldn't like. But you see, they've already lent their legitimacy to the proceedings, and would find it difficult to discount the result since others would say "Ahh...but you went to the conference! You had just as much input as we did, and now you're backing out?" Then the H-word would fly, hypocrite... and egg would be all over the Western face. It's not like any third world country could strong arm the West into doing anything, but it would be egg nonetheless, and we've seen what that has done to the US diplomatic image in regards to Iraq and elsewhere.

So, if the US and others just boycott the proceedings, they not only steal its legitimacy, but they can also say "the end result means nothing!" with a clearer conscience because they had no input in it. And the Islamic states still wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Muslims will be bitter about it, but it's not like they aren't bitter already, and they wouldn't have any diplomatic egg to exploit.

That's my take on it anyway.

[Pelranius]

Far as I'm concerned, both Israel and its friends can eat the turds with the Islamic countries. Two same sides of the coin.

[hongi]

As expected, Ahmadinejad speaks about Israel and there are mass walkouts. The whole thing is a sham. I don't have anything against criticising Israel per se, but it's done at the expense of other, dare I say it, equally important issues. It's staggering to consider the UNHRC hasn't touched on Darfur. It's all Israel, Israel, Israel. I tend to think certain countries are targetting Israel so that the talk doesn't drift to their own screwed up internal affairs.

Racism is a global issue, so lets talk about racism around the world and not just one location!

[eyl]

Yeah, it's totally ridiculous to call for a ban on all criticism of Islam. Totally unlike the western countries' longstanding and completely reasonable call for a ban on criticism of Israel, right? Right?

I wasn't aware the Western nations ever called for a blanket ban on criticism of Israel (or, for that matter, refrained to do so themselves). Care to offer a link to the proposed resolution?

[Guardsman Bass]

As expected, Ahmadinejad speaks about Israel and there are mass walkouts. The whole thing is a sham. I don't have anything against criticising Israel per se, but it's done at the expense of other, dare I say it, equally important issues. It's staggering to consider the UNHRC hasn't touched on Darfur. It's all Israel, Israel, Israel. I tend to think certain countries are targetting Israel so that the talk doesn't drift to their own screwed up internal affairs.

Racism is a global issue, so lets talk about racism around the world and not just one location!

They can't really ignore it, seeing as how there are major human rights violations in the West Bank - but this is a good point. Then again, the UN Human Rights Committee has been more or less a joke for years, when you consider that they allow states that more or less repress anything resembling the rights listed in the UN Declaration on Human Rights on the Committee.

[CJvR]

Unfortunately the UN have little credibility in HR issues anymore. A result of letting some of the worst scum on the planet into the UN and into the UNHRC.

[open_sketchbook]

The problem with criticism of Israel, Palestine or anyone in that general area is the last 80 years or so of history in the region is so muddled up and so completely not simple that the generalizations made by any lobbying group is going to come off as racist towards somebody somewhere. Israel constantly pulls dick moves but is also constantly under attack, and is a liberal democracy besides with a substantial diversity of population; a far cry from the strawman state most critics paint them as. On the other side, the Palestinians are hideously oppressed by Israel and most of them just want to get on with their lives without worrying about getting blown up by Israeli bombs, but at the same time they elect terrorist groups that fire never-ending streams of missiles into Israel. Pile this atop all sorts of racism, an extremely complex history, betrayals, an unstable region, neighboring countries harboring militant groups, media censorship on both sides and important support or lack thereof from countries around the world, it's one of those situations you need to have several degrees to hold a valid opinion on.

[Posner]

Unfortunately the UN have little credibility in HR issues anymore. A result of letting some of the worst scum on the planet into the UN and into the UNHRC.

I agree with your point that the UNHRC membership is a joke. But there's really no upside to kicking someone out of the UN. The UN is good at noisily complaining about abuses, but if a country is not even a member they have even less reason to listen. Maybe I am overlooking a good reason why a human rights abusing dictator would want be afraid of getting kicked out and be motivated to rejoin if kicked out.

[CJvR]

Well Amadjihadii did live up to the expectations and managed to provoke a walkout during his speach.

[Julhelm]

And that's some hypocrisy criticising Israel when their own buddies in Hamas are busy rounding up regime critics to torture and summarily execute. What the hell is Ahmadinejad holding the opening speech for anyway? Is it just because Kim Il Jong was busy?

[Thanas]

Because it is his turn and arab countries/african dictatorships overwhelmingly vote countries with a bad record into that country so that they themselves can either point to their citizenship and go "See, we are doing something against those evil Jews" or "See? The west is hypocritical".

Seriously, this is not rocket science to figure out.

[Darth Wong]

it's one of those situations you need to have several degrees to hold a valid opinion on.

Hardly. You just need to be willing to admit that both sides are bad, instead of acting like the Americans and pretending that the magic word "democracy" automatically makes up for everything the "One shot, two kills" preggo-killer IDF does.

Really, it's only difficult to reconcile your position with facts in the Middle East if you insist that your position must include characterizing one of the parties as "the good guys". Once you drop that conceit, it's actually quite easy.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, it's totally ridiculous to call for a ban on all criticism of Islam. Totally unlike the western countries' longstanding and completely reasonable call for a ban on criticism of Israel, right? Right?

I wasn't aware the Western nations ever called for a blanket ban on criticism of Israel (or, for that matter, refrained to do so themselves). Care to offer a link to the proposed resolution?

Western nations are good at politics so they don't come right out and propose an actual resolution. They simply automatically veto anything that is critical of Israel.

They're obviously taking sides and acting as if Israel is "the good guys" here, and I quite frankly don't see it. Yes, the other side does some terrible things. So does Israel. They're both assholes.

[Sea Skimmer]

Western nations are good at politics so they don't come right out and propose an actual resolution. They simply automatically veto anything that is critical of Israel.

Vetoes count only on the Security Council, nowhere else, and don’t stop people from speaking. Certain Muslim nations meanwhile want an international treaty which would make ‘defamation’ of Islam a criminal offense for private citizens of every nation on earth. Not the fucking same thing at all.

[Darth Wong]

Western nations are good at politics so they don't come right out and propose an actual resolution. They simply automatically veto anything that is critical of Israel.

Vetoes count only on the Security Council, nowhere else, and don’t stop people from speaking. Certain Muslim nations meanwhile want an international treaty which would make ‘defamation’ of Islam a criminal offense for private citizens of every nation on earth. Not the fucking same thing at all.

As I said, western nations knows their politics better. Muslims often ask for really stupid things that have zero chance of passing. It's the mentality that's the same. You don't think western nations would like to forcibly silence anti-Israel rhetoric? They routinely use it in political discussions as justification of the way Israel treats Palestinians, remember? It's quite obviously OK in their minds to retaliate to anti-Israel propaganda with violence, just so long as you don't come right out and pass a law saying that.

[Sea Skimmer]

As I said, western nations knows their politics better. Muslims often ask for really stupid things that have zero chance of passing. It's the mentality that's the same. You don't think western nations would like to forcibly silence anti-Israel rhetoric?

Certain people might, but whole nations? I don’t think the vast majority of westerners give a fuck one way or another at this point, so no, amending national constitutions with a UN treaty to accomplish that would not be a popular idea. We can’t even get people to agree to such things on a lesser scale to save the entire planet from its own stupidity. Most people just tune out of the news whenever the topic is broached, confident that if they start paying attention again in five years nothing will have changed.

They routinely use it in political discussions as justification of the way Israel treats Palestinians, remember?

What? People tend to use the suicidal resistance of the Palestinians as justification for the way Israel treats them, along with the obvious economic superiority of Israel. I tend to hang out with a right wing crowd, and I don’t see many if any of them using what third party Muslim nations say as justification for anything. The weapons shipments are another story. Those sort of people could not give a fuck less about what the likes of Syria or Saudi Arabia have to say on anything. Iran is paid attention because Iran will soon have atomic bombs, and thus its rhetoric might mean something one day, but that’s just seen as reason to use violence on Iran. Ideally at least forty megatons worth since any rational assessment would show nothing else would do anything.

It's quite obviously OK in their minds to retaliate to anti-Israel propaganda with violence, just so long as you don't come right out and pass a law saying that.

You’re going to have to cite some specific examples of this claim, because I sure don’t see it. Certainly not on a scale at which it could be seriously proposed as policy not once at the end of a random interview, but more then a half a dozen times by dozens of nations in the most public forum possible.

[Darth Wong]

I tend to hang out with a right wing crowd, and I don’t see many if any of them using what third party Muslim nations say as justification for anything.

Oh yeah, sure. You've never seen someone use that "push Israel into the sea" quote in order to prove that Israel's actions are all justified, right? I've seen that quote more often than I can count. I think some people have a keyboard macro for it.

[Sea Skimmer]

You mean that quote from Hamas, which consistently backs up its words with military action? That’s not what I thought we were talking about which is international influence on the matter. Hamas is at war with Israel, it exists for no other purpose, so of course its damn well going to be attacked, that is exactly what it wants.

That is not damn well the same as throwing people in jail in America for saying Islam sucks on a blog, or Syria declaring that Israel should not exist, but then turning right around and suggesting that it’s open to negotiating permanent territorial boundaries with the Jews while barely even reacting to overt Israeli military provocations.

[Qwerty 42]

I tend to hang out with a right wing crowd, and I don’t see many if any of them using what third party Muslim nations say as justification for anything.

Oh yeah, sure. You've never seen someone use that "push Israel into the sea" quote in order to prove that Israel's actions are all justified, right? I've seen that quote more often than I can count. I think some people have a keyboard macro for it.

I actually think I may have only seen that quote once, in a textbook, but the mentality the quote suggests is much more pervasive: that the rest of the Middle East wants nothing but death to Israel.