US and Israel Choose to Boycott the Durban Review Conference 2009
Real University News did some homework on why the US and Israel is boycotting the Durban Review Conference [to be held in Geneva 2009] after receiving a forwarded article in response to our previous Blipvert. It seems that there are some untruths or underexposed agendas in the official statements of the US and European Union. Our inquiry also made us aware of a number of issues surrounding the choice venue, which we found to be a less than kosher process.
We hope you find this edifying. Please send us your thoughts, information, and most importantly your corrections.
---> Firstly, a forwarded article that seems to state the US perception/position.
U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference
By Ron Kampeas · February 27, 2009
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.
---> Next is an excerpt from a statement from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the Director of the European Union's Fundamental Rights Agency, which is dated December 4, 2008.
Joint Statement: Do not miss the opportunity to step up the global fight against racism and discrimination!
by Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and Morten Kjaerum, Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights and the Director of the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency jointly call on European governments to remain engaged and involved in the preparations for a UN review conference against racism in April 2009.
“Racism is a global phenomenon. No country, no region, is free of this social ill - including the European countries”, say Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, and Morten Kjaerum, Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).
Respect for equality in diversity is a central premise for building democratic and inclusive societies. The Durban agenda against racism and discrimination must be matched with concrete action and endure vigilance at local, national and European levels. This follow-up conference provides an opportunity to illustrate and review many of the concrete and important steps taken in European countries to realise the goals proclaimed at the World Conference. We can take pride in the advancements that European countries have made, but much remains to be done to fight racism globally and regionally.
---> In a Cynthia McKinney Blipvert, she informed us that the US was represented in the 2001 Durban Conference. She led a delegation to Durban to honestly discuss the issues of the Black American experience. But we understand that representing the Congressional Black Caucus is different from being empowered to fully represent the country as a whole.
Cynthia McKinney: Ruminations on President Obama's Tenure Thus Far and “Acceptable Punditry”
March 2, 2009
Well, in 2001, upon hearing this line of reasoning, I went to then-Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Chairwoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and asked if I could be appointed as the CBC Task Force Chair on Durban. The non-participation argument was also a handy "peg on the track" with the potential of derailing many conversations, including a real discussion about the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the issue of reparations. Respectful of the excellent preparatory work that had been done, I wanted to avoid that outcome.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson made the appointment and I led a delegation of 5 Members of Congress to Durban.
The current Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee, was a member of my delegation to Durban. From my position on the International Relations Committee, we successfully argued for U.S. participation in that Conference at a Hearing designed to quash our effort. We not only met with then-United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, we also presented her with the untold story of COINTELPRO and the remaining unsolved deaths of its Black Panther Party member victims, commissioned by me and written by Kathleen Cleaver and Paul Wolf.
---> Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post, February 20, 2009. Wow! This starts to put some skin on why the US really wants to back out of the Conference...again.
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 20, 2009; Page A10
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.
---> This is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Post. It takes the line of the original forwarded article we presented. The clauses Naomi Chazan takes issue with are another point of interest. One more surprise was finding out that she used to be a member of the now defunct Meretz Party, which is considered to be formed by "a few left-wing parties."
"Meretz was formed in 1992 prior to the elections by an alliance of three left-wing parties; Ratz, Mapam and Shinui, and was initially led by Ratz's chairwoman and long-time Knesset member Shulamit Aloni. The name 'Meretz' (מרצ) was chosen as an acronym for Mapam (מפ"ם) and Ratz (רצ). The third party of the alliance wasn't reflected in its name, but was instead mentioned in the party's campaign slogan: 'ממשלה עם מרצ, הכוח לעשות את השינוי' (A government with vigor [Meretz], the strength to make the change [Shinui])." - Wikopedia
Critical Currents: Engage or boycott?
By NAOMI CHAZAN
Feb 19, 2009
Updated Feb 23, 2009
TWO CLAUSES relate directly to Israel. The first, paragraph 63, states that: "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". The subsequent paragraph (64) contains a standard plea for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict ("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"). Nowhere else in the document is Israel mentioned, let alone singled out.
Admittedly, it is difficult to separate the spirit and the content of the official document from the language and the atmosphere which enveloped the deliberations in Durban. For this reason, Israel's reluctance to take part in any repeat performance is, regardless of one's perspective, understandable.
---> As one reads farther into the same article, something really interesting jumps off the page.
Major foundations have cut all funding for potential participants and indicated in no uncertain terms that they will not countenance any repetition of the Durban fiasco. The official conference is slated to meticulously review the implementation of the DDPA according to stringent guidelines painstakingly created to promote this goal.
---> This is an excerpt from an article posted by Global Research out of Canada.
No anti-Semitism at Durban II
Canada should end its boycott of Durban II
by Diana Ralph
Global Research, November 7, 2008
The Bullet - 2008-11-06
In October, I attended the U.N. Second Substantive Session of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, a Preparatory Committee for the Review of the UN World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), popularly called "Durban II", scheduled for April 2009 in Geneva. As a Jew, I went to assess the validity of the Canadian government's charges that Durban II is anti-Semitic. I found it was not. Instead, I witnessed delegates of the world's nations hammering out an inspiring call to end racism worldwide and implement the Durban agreements.
---> Further into the article
In the aftermath of Durban 2001, well-funded Israel Lobby groups have mobilized to discredit and derail the upcoming Durban Review Conference. They include the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, UN Watch, ICARE-Magenta Foundation, the American Jewish Committee and the World Jewish Diplomatic Corps of the World Jewish Congress. They characterize WCAR as an "anti-Semitic hate fest" and label any attention to the valid concerns of Palestinians as "anti-Semitic". They defend Israeli discriminatory practices, and condemn the "use of human rights language to discredit a state" (i.e. Israel). They argue for "freedom of expression," that is, the "freedom" of media to attack Muslims and Islam. They object to the term "Islamophobia," because, they say, religions aren't protected, as though targeting Muslims for being Muslims is less offensive than attacking Jews for being Jewish. And they support anti-Arab racial profiling in the name of fighting "terrorism."
---> A bit further...Behind the scenes, Europe acted against the conference while publicly acting, or allowing people to make official statements to the conference, as if they wanted it to continue and be successful.
Israel Lobby groups deluged foundations and the UN which had funded Durban 2001 NGO participants with threats to denounce them as anti-Semitic and jeopardize their charitable status if they funded NGOs to go to the Durban Review Conference and its preparatory process. As a result, funding for NGOs has almost evaporated. The Secretariat for the Durban Review Conference didn't even inform many NGOs about the Preparatory Committee meetings or the regional Review process. Some E.U. delegates boasted to me that they had managed to get the Review conference moved from South Africa to Geneva in order to reduce the number of NGOs participating. As a result, only about 35 NGOs (including many Israel Lobby groups) observed the Second substantive session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2009 Durban Review Conference (6 to 17 October 2008). At the Preparatory Conference, I saw over 20 pro-Israel groups lobbying. The Eye on the UN website posted denunciations of mild diplomatic concerns about Palestinians and racial profiling, accusing them of demonizing Israel and limiting freedom of expression.
---> This is interesting. We found this article on the Israel-Jerusalem Post website. Seemingly without fear or concern, the Ambassador to the UN in Geneva tells the reporter how "we [they] were working very hard behind the scenes on this." We could guess that the US and Israel, in collusion with other other countries, were part of the "we" the ambassador was talking about without running the risk of seeming too conspiratorial. Although, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "conspiring" as; "1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> 2: to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>."
Definition number 2 would certainly apply. Now, if you believe trying to change the venue of the conference as to disable its efforts because of the interests of a few country's concerns about having to be criticized for their global actions, you may believe definition number 1 applies ethically, even if not in a legal sense.
May 1, 2008 23:26 | Updated May 2, 2008 0:49
South Africa pulls 'Durban II' bid
By TOVAH LAZAROFF AND JTA
As the United Nations prepared Friday to choose a venue for next year's controversial "Durban II" anti-racism conference, Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Yitzhak Levanon told The Jerusalem Post he was relieved that South Africa had withdrawn its offer to host the event.
"I am happy with this [turn of events]," Levanon said by telephone from Geneva on Thursday. "We were working very hard behind the scenes on this."
Israel, he said, had been concerned when South African President Thabo Mbeki told his parliament in February that his country wanted to host the follow-up to the 2001 conference, which took place in Durban and was dominated by denunciations of Israel and Jews.
[In conclusion] It is obvious that we still have plenty of work to do when it comes to honestly and openly discussing global and/or local issues around ethnicity. Since the United States, and many other countries, are what Martin Luther King Jr. referred to as being "on the wrong side of history," one can quickly understand their reluctance. Yet, we must remember what we tell children when they need to do something they don't want to do. We need an old fashioned parent to make these countries sit down and eat their broccoli & green beans.
We're also providing you with a link to NGO
Monitor's Durban Conference archive. They have a wonderfully robust
archive of documents and articles to gain a more broad understanding of
the events' issues. http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/durban_conference_0#obama
Email to a Friend
