Lawrence J.
Haas
Read Larry's bio and previous columns
April 21, 2009
UN’s Durban II a Disgrace, But Also a Welcome Wake-Up Call
A United Nations
conference this week in Geneva, ostensibly designed to address racism
and other forms of intolerance, provides a welcome wake-up call for
those who believe that all global disputes are rooted in mere
misunderstanding.
The reality is much
different, as the results of U.S. diplomatic efforts of recent weeks
have made clear. President Obama, who is far more popular on the world
stage than his controversial predecessor, has nevertheless faced serious
obstacles in coordinating a global response to the economic downturn;
reversing North Korean and Iranian nuclear progress; convincing our
European allies to send more troops to Afghanistan; addressing Russia’s
regional aggression; defusing the Israeli-Palestinian and larger Middle
East conflicts; and confronting Islamic-driven terrorism.
Obama’s popularity is
one thing, regional and ideological disputes (some of them centuries in
the making) are quite another. This generation of Americans, especially
the Obama backers who expected him to quickly bridge our differences
with friends and foes alike, is not the first to confront this harsh
reality.
Nearly a half-century
ago, President Kennedy flew to Europe during his first year in office
and both he and his glamorous wife, Jackie, wowed the continent. At a
luncheon in Paris, the young president was even moved to joke, “I do not
think it altogether inappropriate to introduce myself to this audience.
I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, and I have
enjoyed it.”
European adoration,
however, did not produce smooth sailing at the governmental level.
During his tenure, Kennedy faced huge problems with the leaders of
France and Germany, for instance, when it came to coordinating Western
policy in response to Soviet threats over the fate of a divided Berlin.
Fast forward to this
week. Nations and groups have gathered in Geneva for the U.N.’s Durban
Review Conference, which is supposed to measure progress toward
combating “racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related
intolerance” since the 2001 U.N. conference on that subject in Durban,
South Africa.
That this week’s
conference opened on April 20, the 120th anniversary of Adolf
Hitler’s birth, is only fitting – for this get-together has already
plunged into the rank anti-Semitism that marked its predecessor.
Indeed, that Iranian
president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has denied the Holocaust but has, in
essence, promised a second one to “wipe” Israel “off the map” – spoke on
the first day and charged that Zionism “personifies racism,” makes the
real agenda of this event ever-more transparent.
To the dismay of event
organizers, Obama announced late last week that the United States would
boycott it over concerns about its direction. His decision follows the
boycott announcements of long ago by Israel and Canada and more recent
ones by the Netherlands, Italy, Australia and Germany.
The U.N. reaction to
Obama’s decision was predictable, with its high commissioner for human
rights, Navi Pillay, saying she was “shocked and deeply disappointed”
that “a handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate
their approach to this issue, allowing them to outweigh the concerns of
numerous groups of people that suffer racism and similar forms of
intolerance.”
Notwithstanding this
predictably Orwellian view from Turtle Bay, it was the event’s
organizers (including officials from such morally challenged nations as
Libya, Cuba and Iran) who “permitted one or two issues to dominate their
approach” and that made Obama’s decision the only defensible one.
From the start, through
the drafting of papers to guide the conference, Israel has been on the
hot seat. While the Jewish State was singled out as a serial human
rights violator and the cause of regional conflict, the far more serious
human rights abuses of neighboring Muslim countries received little
attention.
Also troubling was a
push to use international law to prohibit any criticism of Islam, which
would essentially put questions about the theological roots of
anti-Western terrorism off limits for open debate.
That preparations for
Durban II fell to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, the embarrassing
successor to the equally embarrassing Human Rights Commission – both of
which mocked “human rights” by obsessing over Israel and ignoring
brutality in Sudan, Congo and elsewhere – made the result all too
predictable.
Durban II is a moral
disgrace. But for those seeking a silver lining in this dark cloud,
here’s one: By highlighting the clear differences between nations over
human rights and other issues, it brings a needed dose of reality to
discussions about how the U.S. should operate in a dangerous world.
© 2009
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column #
LH028.
Request permission to publish here. |