OTHER VIEWS

Boycott Forum

Washington/JTA

T

he 2001 World
Conference Against
Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Related Intolerance, oth-
erwise known as the Durban
Conference, was a parley
hijacked by radicals betraying
the real purpose of the event
— the confrontation of racial
discrimination worldwide. The
April 2009 Durban II conference prom-
ises to top that fiasco, despite the Obama
administration's attempt to influence the
process.
In the end, it will be a Holocaust-
denying, anti-Israel hate-fest. The United
States, the Europeans and all other
democratic nations should boycott this
cynical effort to incite racist hatred and
religious bigotry. If the United States
chooses to attend this fraudulent confer-
ence, we will legitimize and sanction
the bigotry and racism practiced by the
world's most intolerant, anti-democratic
nations.
Indeed, it is these nations and their
long and hostile records that cause the
most concern.
If you had to choose a responsible
chair for the beginning Conference
Preparatory Committee, a safe bet would
be to pass over Libya. Yet, as the upside-
down logic of Durban II goes, the Libyan
representative was elected by his peers
along with vice chairmen from human
rights-abusing nations such as Iran and
Cuba. Libya's twisted worldview, if there
were any doubts, was on exhibit last
April when its deputy ambassador to
the United Nations, Ibrahim Dabbashi,
appeared before the Security Council
and brazenly compared Israeli actions in
Gaza at the time to the Nazis' systematic
killing during the Holocaust.
This is what happens when terrorist
countries are elevated to the stature of
democratic states. What stunts will they
try to pull at Durban II?
With Iran proudly serving as the
center of Holocaust denial today, we can
only imagine what it has up its sleeve for
this conference.
Syria objected recently to language
in conference program documents cit-
ing the number of Jewish deaths dur-
ing the Holocaust, saying it didn't want
to engage in a statistical debate. Iran

Redeem The U.N.

New York/JTA
also objected to Holocaust
references, complaining
that banning denial was a
n allowing U.S. repre-
restriction on freedom of
sentatives to attend con-
expression.
sultations last month in
Yet these countries and
Geneva, in a serious attempt
to detoxify the Durban
their allies have been
staunch defenders of the
Review Conference in April,
President Obama has taken
insertion of blasphemy
legislation in numerous
one of his first concrete steps
other U.N. forums, a policy
to show the world that the
United States is not afraid
that violates freedom of
expression through the sup-
to engage and on our own
pression of any criticism of Islam or its
terms.
Rather than immediately recasting
leaders.
the confrontational image perceived by
The Human Rights Council, the
successor to the Human Rights
so many during most of the Bush years,
the new administration may take advan-
Commission, also has been active in
tage of the lingering resentment and
the planning of the conference at the
request of the U.N. General Assembly.
apprehension as well as Barack Obama's
credibility as an agent of progress and
Yet the council, like its predecessor, has
change.
become irrevocably tarred with
The world and the United
anti-Semitism and bias against
AT ISSUE Nations
have been optimisti-
Israel.
cally curious about Obama's
The timing of the Durban II
Should
internationalist agenda and his
conference is equally disturbing,
new team. As those preparing
as it will take place in Geneva,
America the
Switzerland, from April 20-24,
new U.S. strategy know well,
overlapping Israel's annual
take part "new politics" has not overtaken
the United Nations or many of
observance of Yom HaShoah,
in Durban the regimes represented at its
or Holocaust Memorial Day, on
headquarters in New York and
April 21. How ironic it will be
II?
Geneva. The U.N.'s notoriously
that a conference organized by
cynical human rights agenda is
the United Nations, which gave
no exception.
birth to Israel in 1948 out of the ashes
By exacting a price for joining the
of the Holocaust, promises to repeat its
Durban process and other high-profile
shameful performance of 2001 by again
human rights mechanisms, and pos-
allowing the unbridled eliminationist
sibly even giving a second chance to
hatred, condemnation and slander of
the International Criminal Court, the
Israel.
post-Bush United States might be able
In encouraging this conference to
to strike a better deal if it does so before
reconvene and worse, leaving it in the
the diplomatic swords are turned into
hands of the likes of Iran, Libya and
ploughshares. The American Jewish com-
other terrorist states, the United Nations
munity should be a natural advocate for
again dishonors itself by allowing these
this approach.
tyrants a platform to impose their racial
Most immediately, the Durban Review
and religious bigotry on the world.
process, following up on the U.N.'s 2001
How can the United States possibly be
World Conference Against Racism held in
part of this insanity? If we join this cha-
Durban, South Africa, is both a threat and
rade, we extend this dishonor through
an opportunity to show that Washington
our presence, sullying ourselves in the
is unwilling to let the fight against racism
process. We must do the only honorable
be hijacked without a fight.
deed and boycott Durban II, denying the
European governments will be hoping
world's terrorists and bigots the privi-
to avoid a boycott of Durban II, and U.S.
lege of our legitimizing presence among
participation will give them tremendous
them. II
cover. Having made a non-decision
under President Bush not to participate
Gregg J. Rickman served as the first U.S.
in the review of commitments from the
special envoy to monitor and combat anti-
infamous 2001 Durban conference, the
Semitism from 2006 to 2009.

I

•

United States must now be
wooed to attend.
The original conference,
promoted as a global platform
against racism, was com-
mandeered easily by anti-
Semitic and anti-Israel forces
and left an indelible stain on
the anti-racism agenda. If
the internationally admired
Obama administration does not
send a delegation, millions of
Europeans, Asians and Africans
will be forced to reassess their support
for so-called human rights crusaders and
even the United Nations itself. The new
administration already has demonstrated
its good faith merely by participating in
the early discussions.
Either of the two possible outcomes is
preferrable to remaining on the sidelines.
The consensus statement delivered by
the European Union at last October's
Preparatory Committee session in
Geneva avoided any acknowledgement of
the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel focus
of Durban I or the blatant anti-Israel
language already included for Durban II
— a disappointment, if not a surprise.
By reinforcing the position of working-
level diplomats with direct intervention
by the president or Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Washington can
set out specific conditions for attending
April's review conference.
If Durban II is the first short-term test
of whether the world's ideal U.S. presi-
dent can make a dent in the U.N.'s busi-
ness as usual, the Human Rights Council
is a medium-term opportunity.
The council was an over-promised
and underprepared successor to the old
Human Rights Commission. Ironically,
while its first two terms have been even
more focused on allegations against Israel
— at the expense of most other countries
— the council continues to enjoy wide-
spread benefit of the doubt because it was
hailed as the great salvation and the U.N.
system sees no way back.
Durban II will come and go, but the
Human Rights Council will be around
for years, and there may be no better
moment for the United States to enter
with some advantage or even conces-
sions. II

.

Shai Franklin is senior fellow for United
Nations Affairs at the Institute on Religion
and Public Policy.

March 5 • 2009

A23