Obama says US will help plan anti-racism Conference – despite Israeli pressure

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israeli officials have opposed the anti-racism conference when it was held in the past, because Israeli policies that discriminate based on race were addressed in the conference. The 2001 World Conference Against Racism was held in Durban, South Africa, and was boycotted by both Israel and the US because Israeli policies were discussed at the conference.

In South Africa, many anti-apartheid activists have looked at parallels between the race-based system of apartheid that was imposed by white colonists on the indigenous African population, and the Israeli law system that differentiates people by race and ethnicity, and maintains different penal systems and rights based on that differentiation.

But while the agenda and focus for the next World Conference on Racism has not yet been set, and it is unknown whether Israeli policies will be among those addressed, Israeli officials have already announced that they plan to boycott the conference, and have tried to get the U.S. to boycott it as well. An unnamed Israeli diplomat told the Israeli daily Ha'aretz that US participation in the conference “will pull the rug from under us and will lead to the participation of many more countries in the conference.”

Barack Obama, as the first black President of the US, has not made his race a focus for his campaign or administration. But he has made it clear that he is opposed to racism, and acknowledges the US history of racism. His administration is moving forward with plans to assist the United Nations in planning the next World Conference Against Racism, which is likely to be held in South Africa again."

http://www.imemc.org/article/58893

[ensho]

1. good, may the conference be a success

nt

[aranthus]

39. What would you consider a success? n/t

[Grimm]

2. It was pretty unlikely the US wouldn't attend a conference on racism...

...given the new President is African-American. However, I'm still remaining skeptical as to whether Durban 2 will actually be on the level this time around. Looking at the planning sessions up until this point, I'm thinking the U.S. may have jumped into this too late to help steer the course away from Middle East politics and into worldwide social justice.

[Scurrilous]

3. Boycott UN forum, says Israeli ex-envoy

<snip>

"A FORMER senior Israeli diplomat, Dan Gillerman, has urged Kevin Rudd to cancel Australia's attendance at a United Nations forum on racism, saying it will be used as a platform to bash Israel.

In an interview with the Herald, Mr Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the UN from 2003 until last September, also strongly rejected calls for war crimes investigations against Israeli commanders involved in the recent war in Gaza.

Speaking from Tel Aviv before a visit to Australia late this month, Mr Gillerman said this year's UN World Conference Against Racism, also known as Durban II, to be held in Geneva in April, was a charade.

"Keep away from Durban," Mr Gillerman said.

"Countries like Australia who, to my mind, represent the best of what democracy and civilisation can be, shouldn't take part in this charade."

<snip>

"Mr Gillerman also lashed out at critics of the war in Gaza who wanted to prosecute Israeli commanders for alleged war crimes.

The International Criminal Court has signalled it is exploring ways to prosecute Israeli commanders over the use of white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas.

"I think the Israeli troops should get a medal for the way they conducted themselves in that war," Mr Gillerman said."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/boycott-un-forum-says-israeli-exenvoy-20090215-884f.html?page=1

[aranthus]

6. He's right.

Leaving aside the issue of whether Israel will be overly criticized, the conference is a fraud. Always has been.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. No, he's not. ...

"I think the Israeli troops should get a medal for the way they conducted themselves in that war," Mr Gillerman said."

Yeah, what a legend with a foothold in reality...not....

I hope Ruddy told the idiot to fuck off and confine himself to justifying war crimes instead of pressuring Australia not to attend a conference on racism...

[oberliner]

9. I think the US will end up not attending in the end

Not so confident that Australia will do the same.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. I hope the US does attend, Oberliner...

And I'm extremely confident that Gillerman will be told very diplomatically to bugger off by our govt, who I also hope would attend. Racism's too important an issue to turn our backs on...

[oberliner]

11. I hope the Obama team can be influencial in shaping the conference's agenda

My prediction is that those efforts will be frustrated but I certainly hope that is not the case.

Worldwide racism is an issue that needs attention, that is for sure.

[aranthus]

14. If it could be, I would say go.

Unfortunately, that isn't the reality. I strongly suspect that if the Libya's of the world couldn't have this conference their way (like the last one), then there wouldn't be one at all.

[aranthus]

13. How about dealing with the real issue

instead of playing credibility games? Why do you think that the conference is worthwhile? I've already explained why I don't. It's a political whitewash. The worst offenders get a pass because they are running it.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Isn't the whole thing about credibility games?

And for the record, I don't think pointing out that someone who thinks troops deserved medals for what they did in Gaza is a complete wanker is playing credibility games. But when it boils down to it, the whole argument about a racism conference is nothing but a credibility game. We're told that some countries have no right to complain about other countries racism due to their own, while the countries that's being said about are saying the same about the countries saying it...

Here's a foolproof way of the conference working. Ban mentioning specific countries when it comes to talking about racism. Just talk about the racism itself. And if there's to be no mention of specific countries to do away with the accusation of 'singling out', then there should be no mention of specific events. It'll make things much shorter, but there'll be less whinging, well except from those who it suddenly dawns on that the removal of mentions of specific events mightn't have the same effect they thought it would...

[aranthus]

34. Not in the way that you say it.

Of course the credibility of the conference is the issue. However, the claim is not merely that countries have no right to complain about other's racism when they have race problems (it's that they have far worse problems). The main issue is that the fight against racism shouldn't be a political football, which is what the Durban conference makes of it. The UN isn't about morality or legality, it's about politics. We're not talking about countries with comparable race problems attacking the US or Israel. The countries that are in charge of this conference have far worse records, and they are using the conference as a weapon against their perceived enemies. I think that sets back the fight against racism.

Banning the mention of specific countries won't solve the problem, because the problem is not the format of the conference, it's who's running it (governments under the UN banner). In fact, individual countries should be named, including the US and Israel. There should be some kind of yearly status report on how all countries are doing vis a vis race. It's just that the UN shouldn't be running it, because that allows partisan politics to dominate. How about keeping the UN out of it, and instead having a group of NGO's not supported by their home governments have control of the conference? Then you will have a flawed meeting instead of a fraudulent meeting.

[azurnoir]

4. Good simply "putting hands over ears and saying lalalal"

is not going to change anything or begin to remedy some of the complaints about the conference.

[aranthus]

5. I don't think that there is any way to "remedy" the conference.

Or the UN for that matter. Neither is about morality or truth. They are about international politics. There isn't any way to "fix" that without driving governments out of the organization. The only reason that there is a "Conference Against Racism" is because governments want to put on a show of fighting racism without actually fighting racism. It's all about politics. That's why there's so much in the conference about protecting religions from persecution (read Islam), and nothing about the Arab slave trade. The Arab/Muslim and third world countries dominate by sheer numbers, and they form the conference to serve their interests, rather than morality or truth. If you change the rules so that those countries who run the conference have to actually do something positive against racism (including the terrible actions of which they are guilty), then why would they want to have it? As long as the UN is a one government-one vote system, and as long as there are many more governments in it like Libya than Belgium, then change can not come.

[iconicgnom]

7. People of good will do what they can,

and likewise those who support racist states and racist policies do what they can.

I totally support those who point fingers, even tho' I don't support an all too common underlying purpose of promoting an "everybody does it" or "the other side does it" message, so a message that undermines every attempt to change or examine the status quo, whether here, or there, or anywhere.

I support the finger pointing because I believe it's a good thing that the truth about institutional programs, whether "ours" or "theirs", should be examined, and finger pointing is usually necessary. I just don't agree with a procedure where a finger is pointed at some "other" policy, some "other" gov't, in order to cover for examining the issue at hand.

Myself, I don't like either Islamism or Zionism. For the same reasons.

[aranthus]

12. People of good will are not in control of this thing. n/t

[azurnoir]

15. Perhaps the US attending will help change that

but for some reason I get the feeling that "some" here want this conference just the way it is.

[Grimm]

16. The current draft of the Durban 2 plan (PDF)

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7376_Durban_doc_1-28-09.pdf

This PDF file is the result of the last planning session in late January. Looking through it, particularly at the areas where the changes were proposed, I see way too many spectres of the first Durban lurking. Most noticeably, there being 5 paragraphs singling out Israel and 0 singling out any other country.

The website I linked also includes snippets of the debates regarding all the changes, but given it's very strong pro-Israel, anti-UN bias, take everything you read with a grain of salt. I don't doubt all the statements quoted from the UN to be true, but there is a certain lack of context for a number of things (particularly debate transcripts).

[azurnoir]

17. the US is planning on improving the conference

The State Department said the U.S. team would work on improving the final document, but the United States would not necessarily attend the April conference.

"If you are not engaged, you don't have a voice," State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said on Tuesday.

"We wanted to put forward our view and see if there is some way we can make the document a better document than it appears it is going to be," he said. "That does not mean, however, that we will take part in future meetings or indeed in the conference itself."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE51G5RN20090217

[aranthus]

18. That's different than going to the conference.

I suppose it's worth a try to attempt to change the nature of the conference. I Obama will be frustrated in the effort, but props to him if he can pull it off.

[aranthus]

19. A few questions

1. Was Durban I worth having and why?

2. If you think that Durban I was not worth having, then why do you think that Durban II can be made any different, if at all?

3. If you think that Durban I was worth having, do you want to see any changes made to Durban II, and why?

Thanks for your answers.

[bemildred]

20. U.S. Holds Firm on Reparations, Israel in U.N. Racism Talks

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 19 -- The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, pressing foreign governments to drop reparation demands for slavery and to desist from singling out Israel for criticism in a draft declaration to be presented at a U.N. conference in April.

The United States is exploring whether it will participate in the conference, which will review progress on a declaration from the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. The United States and Israel walked out of that meeting, held in Durban, South Africa.

U.N. officials have urged the Obama administration to participate in the review conference, saying that the election of the first African American president presents the United States with an opportunity to inspire other minorities around the world and to highlight U.S. progress in the years since slavery was abolished and blacks were granted civil rights.

Although a decision has not been made on whether to attend, Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, dispatched two envoys, Felice D. Gaer, a human rights advocate, and Betty King, a former U.S. diplomat, to Geneva to make the U.S. case in discussions on the draft declaration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021903027.html

[azurnoir]

22. This line struck me in particular

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said the "people who want to boycott Durban are shooting themselves in the foot. I think it is important to remember the Durban process is one of consensus; those present can block any inappropriate statement. If the United States isn't there, it can't block consensus." The meeting is known as the Durban Review Conference.

This is the truth and IMO there are those on both sides that want the conference just as it was in 2001

[bemildred]

23. Well, it's a trade off.

If you stay away, you can attack its legitimacy. If you show up, you can try to shape the result. Past practice is the former. This time we will see what the latter produces.

[aranthus]

43. It struck me too, because I think that he's lying.

Lie number one. He said, "those present can block any inappropriate statement." Where in any of the language of Durban does it say that votes must be unanimous? If it doesn't (and I don't believe that there is a requirement for unanimity), then how can one country (or group of countries) block an inappropriate statement? They can't, can they?

Lie number two. He also states, "If the United States isn't there, it can't block consensus." His statement assumes that if the US attends that it can block consensus. Again, bullshit. The meaning of consensus is general agreement. It is understood to mean the assent of most of those concerned. If the US is there it can block unanimity (which it can do just as well by not attending). It can't block consensus unless it has a veto, which it doesn't have. So if it shows up and votes against, there's still consensus if everybody else votes for. What's the point of Israel and the US showing up to be the only countries that vote no?

[bemildred]

21. Durban II drafts: Israel is racist, occupying state

Draft resolutions for the United Nations Durban II summit on racism brand Israel as an occupying state that carries out racist policies, Haaretz has learned.

The resolutions appear to confirm concerns that the second World Conference Against Racism will be used by Arab nations and others to criticize Israel. Despite those concerns, the United States said last week it would participate in planning the summit.

United Nations sources relayed on Friday that the resolutions, which will be voted upon at the summit, were formulated at a planning session held by a number of nations in Geneva last week.

They refer to "the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories," apparently meaning Israel itself.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1065845.html

[shira]

25. why not just rename this the conference against Israel, not racism in general?

Can anyone here see the good in this conference if it is used exclusively to bash Israel and ignore true racism everywhere else around the world?

[bemildred]

26. Dang! This is what the "reclaiming anti-racism from the left" piece you put up is about.

I just realized that. I was wondering what prompted that guy to write that with the tortured language he used.

As for your question, I don't think that's really up to me, but people that run international conferences generally are pretty mush mouthed about their purpose, and whether this particular conference will do any good or not remains to be seen.

I think global conferences to combat racism are generally a good idea, so I'm not really ready to dismiss this one, whatever flaws it may prove to have.

[shira]

27. do you believe Durban 1 was worthwhile?

And if Durban 2 is like Durban 1, you think such a conference on racism could be deemed a success?

[bemildred]

29. Can you read?

"I think global conferences to combat racism are generally a good idea"

It may be that the results of a particular instance do not please you, or me, that the subjects are not congenial, but the general view stands. In any case, whether something is worthwhile or a success is an opinion. One may safely infer that somebody finds it worthwhile to do these things, and that other people, like racists, disagree.

[azurnoir]

28. Well thats a possibility

but we're told here that the governments in question or the ones that racism needs to be "reclaimed" from are right wing except for when there is a need to say left wing

[bemildred]

30. Well, I find the whole right-left thing to be a misdirection here.

The correct distinction is between authoritarians and populists. Anybody that wants to put anybody in jail for an indeterminate term without recourse to an independent judicial process, for example, favors dictatorship, the big man theory of government. Their economic views are not the issue.

[iconicgnom]

32. You're right.

There's nothing quite so unsatisfying as some screed vaguely pointing fingers as some unnamed "leftists" here vs. some unnamed "rightists" there, all served up in an state of high dudgeon. Like madmen on streetcorners, threatening knife fights with post boxes.

[aranthus]

33. Can you please explain this?

You say, "I think global conferences to combat racism are generally a good idea, so I'm not really ready to dismiss this one, whatever flaws it may prove to have." The problem I have is that it's so general, that I don't understand what you mean. The point people have been asking you to address is whether this conference, or any conference, actually combats racism, or whether they are just political scams. The charge is that Durban I didn't do anything about racism (or at least nothing worth the political attacks on Israel, the US and the West), nor will Durban II. Are you saying that it's important to have a conference titled a "Global Conference to Combat Racism," even if it doesn't actually do anything to combat racism? If so why? If you think that Durban I actually fought racism, then I would very much like to know what it did and how. As far as I have been able to discern, Durban I and II exist only to utilize the banner of anti-racism as a weapon for the enemies of Israel, the US and the West in general.

It's not a good idea to have a conference on racism that doesn't actually fight racism and instead is used as a weapon against the least racist countries on the planet. That just sets back the fight against hatred.

[bemildred]

35. You appear to have your mind made up, why are you annoying me about it?

I see no need for me to attempt to correct your feigned incomprehension.

[aranthus]

37. Not so.

I'm trying to understand why you think that having conferences on racism is a good thing. I think fighting racism is important, I just don't understand why merely having a conference on it does anything to fight racism. That's why I asked the questions. Either you think that Durban I actually did something to fight racism other than merely being a conference (in which case, I would like to know what it was), or you think that having conferences does something to fight racism even if a specific conference does little or nothing (in which case, I'd like to understand what that is).

[bemildred]

40. And I still see no need for me to attempt to correct your feigned incomprehension.

Do you feel all conferences are useless, or is it just this one that you find useless?

[aranthus]

41. Ducking the question by attributing false motives to me

does not become you. It's just ducking. If you don't want to explain yourself (or can't), that's fine. But don't accuse me of gamesmanship when all I've done is ask a simple question.

[bemildred]

44. You claim not to understand why conferences against racism are generally a good idea.

And you assert that I have some obligation to explain that to you. The first I don't believe, I don't believe you're that stupid, hence your ignorance is feigned, and the second is an unwarranted assumption, I have no such obligation. If you want to understand what conferences are for, you don't need me to find out.

[aranthus]

45. That's not quite it.

You seem to assume that the Durban Conference on Racism is really about fighting racism. I don't. It's not self evident that a conference titled a conference against racism is actually about fighting racism. I don't think there is anything in the name alone. I want such conferences to actually be about fighting racism, and I don't think that Durban I was about that at all, nor is Durban II. A conference where the attendees twiddle their thumbs and spit doesn't help just because it's called a conference against racism. To the contrary. It makes the fight against racism look like a lie. You have stated your opinion that conferences against racism are a good idea. In general, I agree with you, but that's not the point. Just calling it a conference against racism isn't enough. If you think that it is, then you need to support that opinion.

[bemildred]

46. Yes, that is quite it.

I see you are at least admitting that it is this particular conference against racism that you dislike. I suppose that is progress of a sort. And you admit that in general you agree with me about the merits of conferences against bad things and in favor of good things. That's all good. So the dispute boils down to whether one thinks this particular conference can serve any useful purpose or not. And it seems clear that you and I disagree. But I don't see why you think I have to defend my position to you. The fact is I don't. If you came to me and said: "I don't understand calculus, you have to explain it to me!", would that claim have any merit? No, it would not. You are free to disagree, but you are not free to make demands, and I have made no offer to defend Durban II to anybody that doesn't like it.

[aranthus]

47. No. We really haven't gotten anywhere.

You say, "I see you are at least admitting that it is this particular conference against racism that you dislike." Well, welcome to the conversation. Of course that's what I've been saying. This thread isn't about racism in general of conferences in general. It's about this conference. That's what I've been asking about. Why is this conference worthwhile? I haven't gotten a straight answer from anyone yet, and it doesn't look like I'm going to. So be it.

You also say, "And it seems clear that you and I disagree. But I don't see why you think I have to defend my position to you." You're correct on both counts. We do disagree, and no, there is no requirement that you defend your position to me or anyone else. But you seem to support this conference, and you imply that the only ones who might object to it are racists. (See your post #29, "One may safely infer that somebody finds it worthwhile to do these things, and that other people, like racists, disagree." If you don't want to defend that, so be it. I think it's a particularly thoughtless and foolish position for reasons that I've given elsewhere on this thread. We don't have to talk about it any further.

[bemildred]

49. Have a nice day.. nt

[bemildred]

36. Here, you should like this:

The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel

The Obama administration's decision to join the planning of the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference has just taken a new twist: cover-up. On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The trouble is that they didn't.

The Feb. 20 State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva "outline our concerns with the current outcome document" and in particular "our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism." One member of the delegation told The Washington Post: "The administration is pushing back against efforts to brand Israel as racist in this conference." In fact, tucked away in a Geneva hall with few observers, the U.S. had done just the opposite. The U.S. delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.

---

But you can be sure that the State Department report now on Obama's desk reads "can't tell yet, don't know, maybe, too early to tell." Why?

If the Obama administration does not immediately announce that its foray into the morass of Durban II has led it to decide this is no place for genuine believers in human rights and freedoms, there is only one conclusion possible. His foreign policy of engagement amounts to a new willingness to sacrifice Israel and an indeterminate number of American values for the sake of a warm welcome from the enemies of freedom.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/22/obama-israel-holocaust-durban-opinions-contributors_united_nations.html

[aranthus]

38. Not my point at all.

Assume for a minute that Israel doesn't exist, and that nothing in the conference mentions Israel. Now, what good does the conference do? How does it fight racism?

[iconicgnom]

31. Is racism OK because it happens "everywhere" (as you say)?

Of course it does exist "everywhere". E.g. Canada's (my country) racist treatment of its native peoples is horrendous - and lemme tell you, the generational damage it has inflicted on its victims still exists in spades and isn't easily rectified, or treated, or even acknowledged. Once institutional racism has sunk in its roots, those roots go deep into the soul of a culture. It's such a loss! So many lost lives, so much misery, so much beauty snuffed out before it even has a chance to spark.

[aranthus]

42. Why do people support this conference?

I can think of several reasons.

1. They believe that this conference will achieve some positive results in the fight against racism. However, I and several others have asked what that positive good is and how this conference (or the prior Durban I) did or will achieve them, and we have not gotten an answer.

2. They believe that having conferences against racism is a good thing in itself. However, no one has explained why this is true.

Now, if there was a cognizable positive achievement to Durban I or if conferences on racism were inherently good to have (irrespective of the good that any one conference did), someone would by now have posted it. I'm willing to be shown where I'm wrong. But I am led to conclude that there are two other reasons why people support this conference.

1. It attacks the US and Israel, and any international organization that does that can't be all bad.

2. It is called a conference on racism, and people haven't looked further than the name.

If anyone has seriously thought through why this conference is helpful in fighting racism, then I really would appreciate hearing the reason. So far, no one has risen to the challenge.

[Grimm]

48. Potential reasons

Well, reason. International law. Generally it's based on both treaties signed by countries and customary law. If all or at least enough countries around the world agree to the final proposal reached at Durban 2, then it can be considered good customary international law over time simply on the basis of so many countries accepting it. That means it would be illegal for countries to allow for any and all racist policies that are explicitly, and possibly implicitly, recognized in the proposal. And that's why countries are fighting so hard for certain proposals - Muslim countries fighting for recognition that media can't defame a religion (i.e. Danish cartoons), European countries fighting to recognize that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a crime, etc.

It's also important to note that to be considered good customary law, countries all over the world must accept it. If only the African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries accept it and Europe and North America reject it, then it can't be considered good law and Durban 2 is officially another waste of time and money.

Obviously because of the push to focus only on the crimes of the West and Israel, the proposal will never be accepted, but that's an issue of international law and international politics of a whole. Due to the need for consensus and the limit of a country's power at the bargaining table, smaller countries with large blocs have more power to set the agenda on any issue, be it racism or the colour of the sky. If the Obama administration could help negotiate a document that recognizes everyone's interests and doesn't result in a lowest common denominator result (i.e. a document that says "Racism is bad" and that's all) then we may actually have the start of a good customary law that recognizes universal human rights. Sadly, I and many others think this will never happen due to some countries refusing to allow for any acknowledgment of their misdeeds and thereby blocking the conference with the "Evil Israel" mantra.

[bemildred]

50. Durban II draft document 'getting worse'

The draft document for the United Nations anti-racism conference, dubbed Durban II, is problematic both for Israel and western democracies in general, Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva Roni Leshno Yaar told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Besides issues relating to Israel, the draft has problematic paragraphs regarding free speech, defamation of religion and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, he said.

"At this stage it is not possible to say what in the text would improve, if at all. In fact I expect the text to get only worse on all issues which are important for western democracy," Leshno Yaar said in a telephone interview from Geneva.

He spoke as representatives from 190 nations have been meeting in Geneva to debate the language for a document in which Israel is alluded to as a "racist" and "apartheid" power.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304850865&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[oberliner]

51. Have you seen this document?

Is it available to the general public?

[bemildred]

52. I believe the implication is that Roni Leshno Yaar has seen it.

Since it is a draft, I would not expect it to be available to the public, unless someone were to leak it. That's what a draft is after all. But to answer your question, no I have not even looked for it.

[oberliner]

53. All of the earlier draft documents have been published on their web site

I'm not sure if the version in question is the most recent one posted there or not.

Here's the site:

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

[bemildred]

54. Well, I hope you find out. nt

[oberliner]

55. Thanks - I'll keep you posted

Let me know if you find any more info as well.