Durban II: The Conference Against Racism Gives Way to Israel Against Iran

At the end of the Second United Nations World Conference Against Racism, here is one near-certain outcome: there will be no third conference.

Racism may be a subject which demands sincere and strong steps from every country in the UN, but once again it has been used primarily for realpolitik. This conference has been hijacked both by Iran or Israel with their stubborn and boundary-producing discourses, shaped by  their policies of "security".

This conference again demonstrates that we still have not learned how to put the common humanitarian values of the UN Charter into practice. While mistreated millions have been looking for a solution against racism and discrimination, leaders of these people are merely bringing the effects of that racism to a climax.

Let’s start from the Israeli side. After the delegates of 23 Europeans walked out during Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s speech, Israel wasted no time in framing the threat from Tehran. The Jerusalem Post reported that German soldiers, for the first time, took part in the March of the Living on Tuesday at the former Nazi death camp of Auschwitz. So while Iranians have been 'sharpening their swords’, the West (of which a redeemed Germany is a part) has already showed "the main difference" between Western and Iranian mentalities by walking out of the conference hall. Iranians are the ones living on ‘the wrong side’ of the history.

The message was clear: even as German soldiers can walk with Israelis to show their sensitivity to the seriousness of the subject (Holocaust), it is certain that there are still some people (Iranians) who have not understood what Israelis feel and who are posing the greatest threat against Israel’s existence. Therefore, with the possibility of a new Holocaust, Israelis must do whatever is needed. After Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva proving how Tehran is full of hatred against Israel, it is Iran and not Israel constructing the ‘legitimacy’ of an Israeli pre-emptive strike against the source of the danger. ‘

Speaking at the March of the Living, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom framed the response of Israeli security, “Sadly, today we are again facing an existential threat just like that of sixty-four years ago, and I wonder if we have learned anything since then?” The Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, Reuven Rivlin sent an impassioned letter to parliamentary counterparts abroad on Tuesday: "This time, Hitler has a beard and speaks Persian."

Indeed, for Vice President Shalom, Ahmadinejad is worse than Hitler:

Can there be anything more terrible than the methodical annihilation of a whole nation, burning their holy books, stealing their dignity as human beings, their hair and even their teeth, turning them into numbers, into soap, into ashes and dust at Treblinka and at Dachau? The answer is yes! There is something more terrible. It is even worse to do all those terrible things and then to deny them. Denial of the Holocaust not only desecrates the memory of the victims and wounds the survivors, it also denies the world the opportunity to learn the lesson of those events - a lesson we must learn again today, just as we had to sixty four years ago.

Shalom continued, “Iran represents a threat to the very existence of Israel, but not only of Israel! Iran represents a threat to the existence of the entire free world, and it is vitally important that we realize this soon.”

Thus, Tel Aviv is standing up for all "free" peoples against the greatest menace in modern history, “Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas - all these have become Iranian agents. Today, it is still Israel that is fighting the war against terrorism for the whole world, but today more than ever, the world must understand that these agents of Iran can reach them too.”

Here is the most subtly-designed paragraph of Shalom's speech:

The March of the Living is not only about the importance of paying our respect to the millions who were murdered and to show all those who seek to destroy us that we are stronger than any evil - it is also about lighting a beacon of warning for every person wherever he or she lives. This beacon of warning will ensure that the memory of what happened here will remain alive and that through that memory, the words 'Never Again' will truly be realized.

That "beacon of light” was an important symbol for the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption of imminent threats. As George W. Bush put it,   “America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” Moreover, the statement has deep roots in Jewish culture with the belief that the Jew would become a “light unto the nations” (la’goyim) or a beacon to the world.

Thus the UN conference is merely the backdrop for Israel to link both the hope of the "beacon of light" and the prospective doom in the "beacon of warning" to past horrors which are now imminent. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed, "We will not let the Holocaust deniers perpetrate another holocaust on the Jewish people. This is the highest responsibility of the State of Israel and of myself as prime minister."

Beyond this construction of the Iranian threat, however, there was an equally important --- if destructive --- process coming out of the UN conference. Put bluntly, President Ahmedinejad was setting out the exact same "security" framework as his Israeli counterparts.

Ahmadinejad succeeding in giving the "necessary" message to his countrymen. Iranians stood up against the European and American supporters of Israel in Geneva. Iranians have no fear of criticizing the ‘occupying’ Israel, ‘the real threat’ to the world. Thus, they are on ‘the correct side of the history’ and they must continue to be ‘the proud side of humanity’ against ‘ignorants.’

The Iranian President first set out the background of the Israeli threat:

Over the last centuries, humanity has gone through great sufferings and pains. In the Medieval Ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade. Innocent people were taken captive in their millions and separated from their families and loved ones to be taken to Europe and America under the worst conditions. A dark period that also experienced occupation, lootings and massacres of innocent people.

Then Ahmadinejad brought this background into the post-1945 tragedy of Palestine:

Following World War II, they (Western powers) resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

And the Iranian President Ahmadinejad then took the short step to the present day:

It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza.

So, "racist" Israel, which has been "backed up" by Western countries, is the "threat’"against freedom and innocence. Israel is the country that has been "committing genocide". Ahmadinejad argued, “World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face.”

Who is going to act against this ‘racist regime’? Ahmadinejad continued:

Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.

For Ahmadinejad, Iran is not the threat to the international community but its prospective leader, standing up against racism: "It is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.”

In coming days and weeks, there will be much more in the international press on the prospect of Israel vs. Iran. Each side has stoked up the "threat" of the other, and each is vying for support in its just and right cause.

Yet, even if this confrontation does not end in military action, there is an even greater political cost that is emerging. The collapse of the UN Conference is only symptomatic of a wider collapse that leaves a vacuum. Tel Aviv and Tehran step up to "lead" because other countries and leaders, caught up in their political calculations, fail to do so. At Geneva and beyond, no one stepped up to restore the common cause for humanitarian values and against racism to the top of the agenda.

The criticism, in the end, is not that Israel and Iran have seized the "beacon of light" to control the "beacon of warning". It is that we let them.

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?

Somalia: Toxic Waste and Piracy

Last week, in a series of stories we featured on Somalia, the issue of dumping of toxic waste off the Somalian coast emerged. I have just discovered this story in Al Jazeera from 11 October 2008:

'Toxic waste' behind Somali piracy

By Najad Abdullahi

Somali pirates have accused European firms of dumping toxic waste off the Somali coast and are demanding an $8m ransom for the return of a Ukranian ship they captured, saying the money will go towards cleaning up the waste.

The ransom demand is a means of "reacting to the toxic waste that has been continually dumped on the shores of our country for nearly 20 years", Januna Ali Jama, a spokesman for the pirates, based in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, said.

"The Somali coastline has been destroyed, and we believe this money is nothing compared to the devastation that we have seen on the seas."

The pirates are holding the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying tanks and military hardware, off Somalia's northern coast.

According to the International Maritime Bureau, 61 attacks by pirates have been reported since the start of the year.

While money is the primary objective of the hijackings, claims of the continued environmental destruction off Somalia's coast have been largely ignored by the regions's maritime authorities.

Dumping allegations

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy for Somalia confirmed to Al Jazeera the world body has "reliable information" that European and Asian companies are dumping toxic waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coastline.

"I must stress however, that no government has endorsed this act, and that private companies and individuals acting alone are responsible," he said.

Allegations of the dumping of toxic waste, as well as illegal fishing, have circulated since the early 1990s.

But evidence of such practices literally appeared on the beaches of northern Somalia when the tsunami of 2004 hit the country.

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) reported the tsunami had washed up rusting containers of toxic waste on the shores of Puntland.

Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a "frightening activity" that has been going on for more than decade.

"Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there," he said.

"European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a tonne, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a tonne.

"And the waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes – you name it."

Nuttall also said that since the containers came ashore, hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments.

"We [the UNEP] had planned to do a proper, in-depth scientific assessment on the magnitude of the problem. But because of the high levels of insecurity onshore and off the Somali coast, we are unable to carry out an accurate assessment of the extent of the problem," he said.

However, Ould-Abdallah claims the practice still continues.

"What is most alarming here is that nuclear waste is being dumped. Radioactive uranium waste that is potentially killing Somalis and completely destroying the ocean," he said.

Toxic waste

Ould-Abdallah declined to name which companies are involved in waste dumping, citing legal reasons.

But he did say the practice helps fuel the 18-year-old civil war in Somalia as companies are paying Somali government ministers to dump their waste, or to secure licences and contracts.

"There is no government control ... and there are few people with high moral ground ... [and] yes, people in high positions are being paid off, but because of the fragility of the TFG [Transitional Federal Government], some of these companies now no longer ask the authorities – they simply dump their waste and leave."

Ould-Abdallah said there are ethical questions to be considered because the companies are negotiating contracts with a government that is largely divided along tribal lines.

"How can you negotiate these dealings with a country at war and with a government struggling to remain relevant?"

"It was very shady, and quite underground, and I would agree with Ould-Abdallah’s claims that it is still going on... Unfortunately the war has not allowed environmental groups to investigate this fully."

The Italian mafia controls an estimated 30 per cent of Italy's waste disposal companies, including those that deal with toxic waste.

In 1998, Famiglia Cristiana, an Italian weekly magazine, claimed that although most of the waste-dumping took place after the start of the civil war in 1991, the activity actually began as early as 1989 under the Barre government.

Beyond the ethical question of trying to secure a hazardous waste agreement in an unstable country like Somalia, the alleged attempt by Swiss and Italian firms to dump waste in Somalia would violate international treaties to which both countries are signatories.

Legal ramifications

Switzerland and Italy signed and ratified the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which came into force in 1992.

EU member states, as well as 168 other countries have also signed the agreement.

The convention prohibits waste trade between countries that have signed the convention, as well as countries that have not signed the accord unless a bilateral agreement had been negotiated.

It is also prohibits the shipping of hazardous waste to a war zone.

Abdi Ismail Samatar, professor of Geography at the University of Minnesota, told Al Jazeera that because an international coalition of warships has been deployed to the Gulf of Aden, the alleged dumping of waste must have been observed.

Environmental damage

"If these acts are continuing, then surely they must have been seen by someone involved in maritime operations," he said.

"Is the cargo aimed at a certain destination more important than monitoring illegal activities in the region? Piracy is not the only problem for Somalia, and I think it's irresponsible on the part of the authorities to overlook this issue."

Mohammed Gure, chairman of the Somalia Concern Group, said that the social and environmental consequences will be felt for decades.

"The Somali coastline used to sustain hundreds of thousands of people, as a source of food and livelihoods. Now much of it is almost destroyed, primarily at the hands of these so-called ministers that have sold their nation to fill their own pockets."

Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping.

"The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said.

"What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs."

In 1992, a contract to secure the dumping of toxic waste was made by Swiss and Italian shipping firms Achair Partners and Progresso, with Nur Elmi Osman, a former official appointed to the government of Ali Mahdi Mohamed, one of many militia leaders involved in the ousting of Mohamed Siad Barre, Somalia's former president.

At the request of the Swiss and Italian governments, UNEP investigated the matter.

Both firms had denied entering into any agreement with militia leaders at the beginning of the Somali civil war.

Osman also denied signing any contract.

'Mafia involvement'

However, Mustafa Tolba, the former UNEP executive director, told Al Jazeera that he discovered the firms were set up as fictitious companies by larger industrial firms to dispose of hazardous waste.

"At the time, it felt like we were dealing with the Mafia, or some sort of organised crime group, possibly working with these industrial firms," he said.

Somalia: From Pirate War to Land War?

Related Post: “Why We Don’t Condemn Our Pirates”
Related Post: After the Rescue - What Now with Somalia?
Related Post: Combating Somali Piracy - How Many People Can We Afford To Kill?

Amidst general statements about the response to piracy off the Somalian coast, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's four-point plan announced earlier this week, Teri Schultz of Global Post assesses the possibility of the fight being taken into Somalia:

Leaders to discuss taking pirate fight to land

BRUSSELS — The dramatic tale of the Capt. Richard Phillips’ rescue in the Gulf of Aden earlier this week captured the attention of the world and trained unprecedented attention on the increasing problem of Somali piracy.

Now U.S. and European officials are increasingly discussing the possibility of bringing the fight on land to address the roots of the problem in Somalia.

A high-level meeting here next week, officially billed as a Somalia donors’ conference, now will focus on the piracy problem.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana is hosting the meeting and the guest list is packed with VIPs, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and stakeholders as crucial as Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed. The United States will be represented by Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Philip Carter and an official from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

“We are going to look at what can be done on land,” Solana’s spokeswoman Cristina Gallach said bluntly.

Read rest of article....

Playing for Time: Clinton-Obama and the Hague Conference on Afghanistan

Related Post: Text of Clinton Remarks to Hague Conference on Afghanistan

Lots of sound and not much substance (yet). That's the quick summary of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's address to the international conference on Afghanistan at The Hague yesterday.

First and very much foremost, the American priority was tipped off in the final paragraphs of Clinton's statement:

Now the principal focus of our discussions today is on Afghanistan, but we cannot hope to succeed if those who seek to reestablish a haven for violence and extremism operate from sanctuaries just across the border. For this reason, our partnership with Pakistan is critical. Together, we all must give Pakistan the tools it needs to fight extremists within its borders.

As for the continuing vagueness of "What Is to Be Done?" on Afghanistan, CNN's headline grab is a tip-off: "Clinton Backs Talks With Moderate Taliban".

At a superficial glance, that seems dramatic. The US talking to the same people who sheltered Al Qa'eda, who held Afghanistan under a reign of terror until they were toppled at the end of 2001? Here is how Clinton framed the call:

We must...support efforts by the Government of Afghanistan to separate the extremists of al-Qaida and the Taliban from those who joined their ranks not out of conviction, but out of desperation. This is, in fact, the case for a majority of those fighting with the Taliban. They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al-Qaida, and support the constitution.

All well and good, but who gets approached? Vice President Joe Biden is spreading the good news that 75 percent of Taliban members, with no incentive other than "desperation", can be stripped away from the organisation, but it is unclear how the US or the Afghan Government gets to those members.

In practice, if General Petraeus's model for Iraq is used, the manoeuvres will be with local commanders and leaders who may be persuaded --- by kind words or by lots of money --- to join the right side. In the Petraeus model, however, those former Sunni enemies of the US were already in powers in villages and towns. Is Washington considering a similar offer of political influence to ex-Taliban?

And who is to make the approach? Clinton's statement indicates that this will be "the Government of Afghanistan", and she none-too-subtly opened her remarks with an acknowledgement of "President Karzai, who fills a critical leadership role in his nation, and whose government helped to shape the shared comprehensive and workable strategy that we are discussing today".

Yet only weeks ago, some US officials were putting about the story that Karzai was to be curbed or even removed from power, and Washington was desperate not to let the President call a quick election for April. So is Clinton now signalling --- from reconciliation or from a lack of other options --- that the US will now accept Karzai's lead or equal participation in the political strategy?

Beyond the politics, Clinton offered the reconstruction approach of "the raw material of progress – roads, public institutions, schools, hospitals, irrigation, and agriculture". Again, nothing unexpected in the rhetoric. And again no specifics: earlier this year, the US Government was thinking that European and NATO partners could take the burden of non-military projects but President Obama's declaration last Friday of an expanded US civilian corps indicated that Washington may take the lead.

Clinton's statement tilted towards the former option: "We hope that others gathered here will heed the United Nations’ and Afghan Government’s call for help throughout the country with job creation, technical expertise, vocational training, and investments in roads, electrical transmission lines, education, healthcare, and so much else." At the same time, in another indication that Washington --- for all the charges of corruption leveled at the Karzai Government --- is having to put up with Kabul, Clinton supported "the Government of Afghanistan’s National Development Strategy, the National Solidarity Program, and other initiatives".

There was, however, a possible sting in the tail in Clinton's statement. Having set out a political, security, and economic approach which seemed to be premised on co-operation with the current Afghan Government, she declared:

To earn the trust of the Afghan people, the Afghan Government must be legitimate and respected. This requires a successful election in August – one that is open, free, and fair. That can only happen with strong support from the international community. I am, therefore, pleased to announce today that to advance that goal, the United States is committing $40 million to help fund Afghanistan’s upcoming elections.

Clinton's reference to "open, free, and fair" is jarring, to say the least: were previous Afghan elections --- and thus the rule of Hamid Karzai --- illegitimate? Washington's private assessment has been that the President is likely to win re-election in the summer. So is the US bowing to his continued presence, attempting (rather crudely) to put on a bit of pressure, or still pursuing an alternative leadership?

I don't have an answer. Nor, in my reading, does Washington. The more that one parses the Obama speech of last Friday and the Clinton statement yesterday, the more that it appears that the major objective for the Administration was to have something, anything, before next week's NATO gathering. The US is now clearly on its own militarily, and President Obama, for all that charm, will struggle in getting an expanded non-military commitment from European partners outside Kabul.

This is a "hold the line" approach, trying to ensure that the Taliban does not expand its hold on territory, until the right partnership with the right Government in Kabul can be foreseen. More importantly, the line is to be held until the US can resolve its core problem, which lies not in Afghanistan but across the border in northwest Pakistan.

And those prospects are no closer or clearer from last week's events and announcements.