A little history is in order to understand where BBI has been on this topic. Like many Jewish groups, the question of whether to go or not to go to Geneva for the Durban follow-up conference presented a catch-22. This Durban Dilemma represented a conflict between having a voice within a terribly, and possibly fatally, flawed system, or having no voice at all.
As more and more preparatory meetings took place, it was becoming strikingly clear that the new conference would follow an eerily similar route as the original.
Although meant to evaluate the progress of declarations from the original World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, early review conferences have included the same unrelenting focus on Israel and the same anti-Semitic denouncements. There seemed no interest in taking on the real problems of discrimination and intolerance in our world. It has become standard, and accepted practice for countries with some of the world’s worst human rights records to point the finger at Israel.
In a February 16 meeting with leaders of major American Jewish organizations, Israel Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni appealed to the United States to forgo the conference. Livni had announced in November that Israel would not attend. Until the U.S. decision, Israel and Canada were the only two nations to announce a formal embargo of the conference.
The United States taking part in a preparatory meeting was in line with the Obama administration’s stated commitment to diplomatic engagement. Riding a wave of global interest in our new administration, the U.S. participation was aimed at changing the tone of the Durban preparations.
But that proved to be a mission impossible. U.S. officials concluded the anti-Israel language was so embedded in the draft documents that a fair conference could not be had. We hope the withdrawal by the U.S. will open the door for a number of European nations that have already said if the offending language stays in they would not participate in the conference.
The message sent in the United States’ abandoning these hopelessly tainted proceedings is immeasurable. For the United States, choosing not to participate became a matter of principle. To be part of a process hijacked by the likes of Libya and Iran is to be part of the problem. A conference with the stated mission of fighting intolerance is now led by an amalgam of nations that should serve as examples of what not to do. The conference is once again focusing a microscope on Israel – the sole democracy in the Middle East – while blatant racism, human rights violations, and intolerances by numerous nations go undeterred. Women are forbidden to congregate publicly in Iran and are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, North Koreans are starving to death, and in Darfur hundreds of thousands have been murdered and millions displaced. And yet somehow, tiny Israel gets all the attention.
The original Durban conference taught the world that nefarious nations and voting blocs can distort the truth and even sway an international organization like the United Nations.
To be sure, in theory the conference is necessary. But in practice, the conference has once again crossed over the brink into inconsequence. An international conference against racism should promote fair and uniform human rights standards and be built on a framework of civil conduct and mutual respect.
It would have been counterproductive and counterintuitive to attend a conference on combating racism put on by an organization that is preternaturally preoccupied with vilifying Israel and ignoring real promoters of racism.
The Durban Review Conference has squandered a remarkable opportunity to demonstrate that the world community is serious about exposing and eradicating racism and fighting intolerance.
No comments:
Post a Comment