Durban II: Boycotts and Politics Take over Conference against Racism

Related Post: Extract from Ahmadinejad Speech, Delegate Walkout at Durban Conference

The Second United Nations World Conference against Racism opened on Monday. Even before the first session was called to order, it was the politics surrounding the conference, rather than the proceedings, that were generating headlines.

United Nations General Secretary Ban-Ki moon opened the conference with a general statement of objectives:

The document before us is carefully balanced. It addresses key issues. It sets the stage for concrete action in a global campaign for justice for victims of racism worldwide.

However, the Secretary-General immediately shifted to the issue of the boycott declared by the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Israel on the eve of the conference: "I deeply regret that some have chosen to stand aside. I hope they will not do so for long.”

Ban Ki-Moon's message was clearly for Washington. The previous day, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay was even more explicit, "I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States decision not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide."

Amnesty International also expressed its regrets :

The withdrawal of Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland and the refusal of Italy and the USA to join the Conference is very disappointing in light of the long and difficult negotiations and the acceptance of the revised Outcome Document on Friday. True conviction in combating racism requires governments to be there to stand up for what is right and to reject forcefully what is objectionable. While Amnesty International appreciates these countries’ reaffirmation of their commitment to continue to combat racism and other forms of discrimination, their continuing engagement on the side of the victims of racism and related forms of discrimination at the Review Conference would have made that reaffirmation much more convincing.

And thousands of miles away, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum added his criticism: "Those countries were quick to respond to the Zionist and American pressure and extortion against their leaders.”

By this afternoon, all of the political fuss over the boycott had been complemented, possibly superseded by the furour over the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Geneva. As he started to speak, coincidentally on Holocaust Memorial Day, two men in multi-coloured clown wigs tried to reach the podium. One of the men threw a soft red object at Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad began his speech (see the video extract in a separate blog) by accusing Western powers of building a "unilateral and unequal" United Nations after the end of World War II, contributing to a violence of "racist Zionism" which continues to this day:

Following the World War II, they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under pretext of Jewish sufferings and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and from other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in convincation, for the dual consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine. The Security Council helped to stabilize this occupying regime and supported it in the past 60 years, given them the free hand to continue their crimes. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defend those racist perpetrators of genocide, whilst the awakened conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggressions, brutalities and bombardments of civilians in Gaza.

In the middle of the speech, many delegates including those from France and Britain left the hall while others supported Ahmadinejad with their applause.

Israelis arefurious because of the language of the draft resolution before the conference and Ahmadinejad’s speech, and they have also been disappointed with the offer of leaders like Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz to meet his Iranian counterpart. After Israel recalled its ambassador to Switzerland in protest, Merz defended the meeting with the assertion that Switzerland was a neutral country which was not a part of any alliance.

Amidst all this diplomatic posturing, the foundation of the conference has been lost. The latest draft on World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance is still the one being circulated around tables in Geneva. There has been no change yet. There is no language accusing Israel of racism. There is no reference to the recent Gaza War. There is still the attempt at neutrality in the treatment of the State of Israel and the Arab world.

Which raises the question: is any of the politics surrounding this conference connected in any way with a meaningful discussion of the draft text and racism?