US to boycott UN racism meeting, just like under Bush

[Sarkus]

I remember there was a thread where this was discussed as a negative towards Bush (I searched but can't find it now) but it looks like Obama has come to the same conclusion.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009034846_apusunracismconference.html

This article does explain some of the details of why this UN conference series has been opposed by the US.

[Anders Hallin]

No real surprise, it's been discussed in many countries, I imagine, after how the last one developed. The problem is that we in some respect have to work with the institutions we have. One might wonder what had happened if the Western nations had actually expended some capital on UNHCR.

[Jason McCullough]

Just as stupid now. Obama being too much of a coward to fight the Isreali lobby isn't much better than Bush actually agreeing with the Isreali lobby.

[Eric T Cheng]

Just as stupid now. Obama being too much of a coward to fight the Isreali lobby isn't much better than Bush actually agreeing with the Isreali lobby.

Why does the Israeli lobby have that much influence? The Jewish population in the US is only about 5 million people, a very small percent of the entire American population.

[Dan Lawrence]

Florida.

[Anti-Bunny]

I am sure we had a thread about the last one.

And I thought it was a good idea to snub that meeting, too.

[JeffL]

Florida.

Same reason we've refused to just normalize relations completely with Cuba.

Another reason to get rid of the electoral college. (D&R!)

[Sarkus]

Just as stupid now. Obama being too much of a coward to fight the Isreali lobby isn't much better than Bush actually agreeing with the Isreali lobby.

I know! I mean, now other countries are collapsing to the Israeli lobby as well, like New Zealand! And Canada. And Germany. And Australia. And the Netherlands. So many racists!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009085403_apasnewzealandunracismconference.html


More seriously, I think we have to consider the possibility that the original document is seriously messed up.

[Grifman]

Just as stupid now. Obama being too much of a coward to fight the Isreali lobby isn't much better than Bush actually agreeing with the Isreali lobby.

Except that it doesn't seem the Israeli lobby is the only problem, instead it seem to be more an atheist lobby problem:


The draft final declaration has been causing much heated debate. It has been watered down, with all references to Israel and the Middle East removed. However, at the request of Middle East nations, it still contains a clause about the incitement of religious hatred. Many Western countries see this as a curtailment of free speech.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8006852.stm

[Jason McCullough]

Hrm! Where is this clause?

[Grifman]

Hrm! Where is this clause?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=un+declaration+on+racism%2C+2009

[Lum]

Just as stupid now. Obama being too much of a coward to fight the Isreali lobby isn't much better than Bush actually agreeing with the Isreali lobby.

This has nothing to do with "the Israeli lobby". The UNCHR is a one-sided joke whose entire existence is devoted to attacking Israel in lieu of every other human rights abuse on the planet (literally voting to ensure Israel is on the agenda each and every session just to save time) and desperately is in need of reform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Accusations_of _bias_against_Israel

[Jason McCullough]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=un+declaration+on+racism%2C+2009

You know, I asked because I couldn't find it - can you? Digging around a bit more I get this draft 2 outcome document (http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Draft_outcome_document_Rev.2.pdf) that I guess is it? There's nothing in there I can see that'd be worthy of refusing to go, through "make hate groups illegal" would piss off the US with our strong free speech laws.

Lum, fair enough, but the US is pretty much the only nation that refuses to ever condemn Israel in a UN resolution, no matter how big of dicks they're being, right?

[Grifman]

You know, I asked because I couldn't find it - can you? Digging around a bit more I get this draft 2 outcome document (http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Draft_outcome_document_Rev.2.pdf) that I guess is it? There's nothing in there I can see that'd be worthy of refusing to go, through "make hate groups illegal" would piss off the US with our strong free speech laws.

I assume this is the problem:


12. Deplores the global rise and number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism manifested in particular by the derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief; and in this regard urges all the UN Member States to implement paragraph 150 of the DDPA;

Paragraph 150 of the DDPA says:


150. Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to
counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities;

[Anti-Bunny]

I have a really good solution for defamation of religion. Stop trying to peddle stupid shit, and I will stop calling you stupid.

[Lux]

I have a really good solution for defamation of religion. Stop trying to peddle stupid shit, and I will stop calling you stupid.

Yeah, I'm sure that one will fly with the vast majority of people in the world who are religious. Not that I've ever tried that line of reasoning in a public forum. Give it a shot in Mecca or Salt Lake City and let me know how it works out for you.

[Anti-Bunny]

Yeah, I'm sure that one will fly with the vast majority of people in the world who are religious. Not that I've ever tried that line of reasoning in a public forum. Give it a shot in Mecca or Salt Lake City and let me know how it works out for you.

They can't be as bad as Clearwater.

[Lum]

Lum, fair enough, but the US is pretty much the only nation that refuses to ever condemn Israel in a UN resolution, no matter how big of dicks they're being, right?

Jason, fair enough, but you know, Chewbacca lives on Endor, right?

[Flowers]

Speaking of religious people, I was talking to my friend Mark the other day, and he said that, if he couldn't be an irreligious white guy, he'd probably want to be a Japanese man that shames his parents, so he could dress all rockabilly, since Japanese rockabilly guys are pretty awesome. I thought that would be cool, and I was about to steal his choice, when I decided I would want to be an Arab Muslim woman living in America. That way, I could wear a burqa and go out to the bars and just get lit up, and have all my drinks for free. The other thing I decided I would do is go to mosque dressed as an Imperial Guardsman.

[Jason McCullough]

Jason, fair enough, but you know, Chewbacca lives on Endor, right?

If the Zionist does quit you cannot acquit!

[Jason McCullough]

Jason, fair enough, but you know, Chewbacca lives on Endor, right?

If the Zionist does not quit you cannot acquit!


I assume this is the problem:

Erm, but why? Is there some code here I'm not seeing?

[Sarkus]

Erm, but why? Is there some code here I'm not seeing?

I assume he means this part:


urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities

Which could be interpreted as asking that anti-free speech measures be taken.

[Chris Nahr]

Is that the paper that the Economist recently commented on? They said the problem was that this proposal attempts to protect religions from criticism, rather than believers from persecution.

Also, inviting Ahmedinejad was probably not a great idea.

[Phil_Stein]

Looks like the meeting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_racism_conference) is going swimmingly.

[Jag]

Looks like the meeting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_racism_conference) is going swimmingly.

But of course this is also the fault of Israel. It's all part of the grand plan.

[Cubit]

But of course this is also the fault of Israel. It's all part of the grand plan.

What are you talking about? The western diplomats walked out because Ahmadinejad began to slander Israel.

[Jag]

What are you talking about? The western diplomats walked out because Ahmadinejad began to slander Israel.

I was being sarcastic due to people claiming here that the only reason the US didn't attend was because of the powerful Israel lobby.

[AaronSofaer]

Jag's being sarcastic, because of the up-thread blaming of Teh Jewz for the US's boycoytting of the meeting.


-Damnit, beaten by Jag.

[Lum]

What are you talking about? The western diplomats walked out because Ahmadinejad began to slander Israel.

"slander Israel" is somewhat mild, considering that he literally blamed all racism in the modern world on Israel.

[Flowers]

I'm a little annoyed. Israel should expect to take at least a tongue lashing for what they do to the Palestinians, but goddamn, they aren't the only racist people in the world. If they could just hold the Israel stuff til the end, we all talk about everything else first, and then the United States and Germany, and Israel could just be like, "Oh, whoa, look at the time, we totally want to talk about this, but we've got to pick up our kids, yeah, taking them to Def Leppard tonight, yep, first concert. Should be good. Yeah, We're sorry we didn't tell you guys, we thought you wouldn't want to go. Well, remember that time we were riding together on the way to that Gtwenty-million thing? Yeah, well "Love Bites," was on the radio and you guys didn't seem into it, so, yeah, sorry. Anyways, you guys have fun, you know, hey Norway, did you still want a shirt? No? Ok, that's right, you're into Black Metal now. Lates."

[Dirt]

Yet another indication that Israel controls the conversation over Palestine.

[Jason McCullough]

I assume he means this part:

Which could be interpreted as asking that anti-free speech measures be taken.

On its face its absurd to not attend based on that sentence. I guess diplomats can't say "we expect the attendees to be absurd dicks," so they need a face-saving reason.

[Cubit]

Video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/durban-ii-conference-ahma_n_188918.html) of the walkout.

[Aeon221]

Does anyone know which (if any) nations (other than Israel, duh) have been condemned by the UNHRC? I haven't been able to find a list -- presumably because it contains exactly one entry, but I'd like to be sure.

[Tim James]

Does anyone know which (if any) nations (other than Israel, duh) have been condemned by the UNHRC? I haven't been able to find a list -- presumably because it contains exactly one entry, but I'd like to be sure.He's not a nation, but they've repeatedly condemned Flowers. It's so bad they even work on him before they start talking about Israel.

[Lum]

Does anyone know which (if any) nations (other than Israel, duh) have been condemned by the UNHRC? I haven't been able to find a list -- presumably because it contains exactly one entry, but I'd like to be sure.

The current list of appointed "rapporteurs" (everything sounds more diplomatic in French) in the most recent session covers Israel, Burma/Myanmar, poverty, the right to food, the right to housing, discrimination against indigineous people, child trafficking, "the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights", and slavery.

[Dirt]

If Israel wants to stop being vilified, they can start by pulling out of the West Bank.

[ElGuapo]

They'd rather not. Comeback?

[Dirt]

Fuck Israel.

[Lum]

The most recent statements by the UNHRC on Myanmar, North Korea, and Palestine:


The Human Rights Council,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights, and reaffirming Council resolutions S-5/1 of 2 October 2007, 6/33 of 14 December 2007 and 7/31 of 28 March 2008,

Welcoming the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar (A/HRC/8/12) while calling on the Myanmar authorities to extend full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur, including by inviting him to visit Myanmar as soon as possible,

Being deeply concerned that the urgent calls contained in the above-mentioned resolutions, as well as of other United Nations bodies concerning the human rights situation in Myanmar have not been met and further emphasizing that, without significant progress towards meeting these calls of the international community, the human rights situation in Myanmar will continue to deteriorate,

Expressing its condolences to those who suffered loss as a result of Cyclone Nargis, and welcoming the efforts of international, regional and national organizations to bring relief to the survivors of this natural disaster and noting the commitment made by the authorities of Myanmar, on 25 May, to grant unfettered access to relief workers to the affected areas,

Expressing also its deep concern that the country’s political processes are not transparent, inclusive, free and fair, and at the decision of the Government of Myanmar to proceed with the constitutional referendum in an atmosphere of intimidation and in disregard with international standards of free and fair elections at a time of dire humanitarian need,

Being concerned about reported widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Kayin State and Bago Division,

Being most concerned by the decision, once again, to extend the house arrest of the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, on 27 May 2008, and by reports that there are as many as 1,900 other political prisoners, many held without charge and in unknown locations,

Being concerned that no effort has been made to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the violent crackdown on peaceful mass demonstrations of September 2007 and of the ensuing human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture and ill-treatment,

1. Condemns the ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Myanmar;

2. Strongly urges the Government of Myanmar to desist from further politically motivated arrests and to release all political prisoners without delay and without conditions;

3. Calls upon the Government to fully implement the commitments it has made to the Secretary-General on granting immediate, full and unhindered access by relief workers to all persons in need throughout the country, to cooperate fully with all humanitarian organizations, in particular in the Irrawaddy Delta, to refrain from sending people back to areas where they cannot have access to emergency relief and to ensure that return is voluntary and occurs in safety and with dignity;

4. Strongly urges the Government of Myanmar to end all forms of discrimination and protect civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, in particular, to comply with its human rights obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child in this regard;

5. Condemns the recruitment of child soldiers into both the Government armed forces, contrary to its international obligations, and non-State armed groups, and calls for an absolute and immediate stop to this appalling activity;

6. Calls for a full, transparent, effective, impartial and independent investigation into all reports of human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture, ill treatment, forced labour and forced displacement, and for bringing those responsible to justice in order to end impunity for violations of human rights;

7. Strongly calls on the Government of Myanmar to engage in a real process of dialogue and national reconciliation with the full and genuine participation of representatives of all political parties and ethnic groups who have been excluded from the political process;

8. Expresses its strong support for the good-offices mission and commitment of the Secretary-General, and encourages the Government of Myanmar to take early steps to admit his Special Representative on Myanmar, Ibrahim Gambari, to facilitate a genuine and inclusive political process, and calls on the Government of Myanmar to ensure full cooperation with the Secretary-General, his representative and the Special Rapporteur;

9. Strongly urges the Government of Myanmar to receive, as soon as possible, the Special Rapporteur and to cooperate fully with him to implement the recommendations contained in his reports (A/HRC/6/14, A/HRC/7/18, A/HRC/7/24 and A/HRC/8/12), as well as Council resolutions S-5/1, 6/33 and 7/31;

10. Requests the Special Rapporteur to report to the Council on the fulfilment of his mandate, and in particular, on the implementation of its relevant resolutions;

11. Decides to remain seized of this matter.


Having reviewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,

Deeply concerned at the continuing reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and at the unresolved questions of international concern relating to the abduction of foreigners, and urging the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Deploring the grave human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,

Deeply regretting the refusal of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur or to extend full cooperation to him,

Alarmed by the precarious humanitarian situation in the country,

Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population,

1. Commends the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the activities undertaken so far and his continued efforts in the conduct of the mandate despite the limited access to information;

2. Decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2004/13 and 2005/11, for a period of one year;

3. Urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to respond favourably to his requests to visit the country and to provide him with all necessary information to enable him to fulfil his mandate;

4. Also urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to ensure safe and unhindered access of humanitarian assistance that is delivered impartially on the basis of need, in accordance with humanitarian principles;

5. Encourages the United Nations, including its specialized agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations, mandate-holders, interested institutions and independent experts and non-governmental organizations to develop regular dialogue and cooperation with the Special Rapporteur in the fulfilment of his mandate;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with all assistance and adequate staffing necessary to carry out his mandate effectively and to ensure that this mechanism works with the support of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;

7. Invites the Special Rapporteur to submit regular reports on the implementation of his mandate to the Council and the General Assembly.

[Lum]

And last, surely deserving of its own post:


The Human Rights Council,

Guided by the principles and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights,

Affirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Recognizing that the Israeli military attacks and incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the recent ones in the occupied Gaza Strip and the West Bank city of Nablus, constitute grave violations of the human and humanitarian rights of the Palestinian civilians therein, exacerbate the severe humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and undermine international efforts, including the Annapolis Conference and the Paris Donors’ Conference for the Palestinian State, aimed at invigorating the peace process and establishing a viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian State by the end of 2008,

Recognizing also that the Israeli siege imposed on the occupied Gaza Strip, including the closure of the border crossings and the cutting of the supply of fuel, food and medicine, constitutes collective punishment of the Palestinian civilians and leads to disastrous humanitarian and environmental consequences,

1. Expresses grave concern at the repeated Israeli military attacks carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, which have resulted in loss of life and injuries among Palestinian civilians, including women and children;

2. Calls for urgent international action to put an immediate end to the grave violations committed by the occupying Power, Israel, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the series of incessant and repeated Israeli military attacks and incursions therein and the siege of the occupied Gaza Strip;

3. Demands that the occupying Power, Israel, lift immediately the siege it has imposed on the occupied Gaza Strip, restore continued supply of fuel, food and medicine and reopen the border crossings;

4. Calls for immediate protection of the Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in compliance with human rights law and international humanitarian law;

5. Urges all parties concerned to respect the rules of human rights law and international humanitarian law and to refrain from violence against the civilian population;

6. Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council, at its next session, on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.

Note that the report on Israel is not only completely one-sided (lest we forget, Hamas has, however ineffectually, targeted civilians in Israel with attacks), but the report is more scathing of Israel than of North Korea (which declined to even admit any UN personnel) or Myanmar.

It should also be noted that there are a multiplicity of resolutions by the UNHCR concerning Israel. Israel's conduct in Jerusalem, the Golan, Gaza, and "cultural rights" all come under scrutiny in separate reports. The above reports on North Korea and Myanmar are the sole resolutions adopted concerning those countries.

There has to date been no notice given to human rights abuses by the HRC in Tibet, Saudi Arabia or Iran and minimal attention given to Darfur.

In short, this post:


Fuck Israel.

is a cogent summary of the activities of the UNHRC.

[Cubit]

Fuck Israel.

but tell me how you really feel

[Lum]

Noted neoconservative bastion of thought on the UNHRC (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/opinion/11sat2.html?_r=3)


The council frequently and unsparingly condemns Israel, but when it comes to Sudan’s genocide in Darfur or the murderous crimes of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, it has cynically and shamefully pulled its punches. Last month, it endorsed an ill-considered Pakistani resolution against defaming religions that could easily be used to justify censorship and official persecution of unbelievers.

The council’s weakness is part of a larger problem at the United Nations. Rather than risk criticism of their own policies, members all too willingly enable each other’s excesses — and call it respect for national sovereignty. And like too many other United Nations bodies, the council apportions membership on the basis of regional bloc politics, not merit or performance. As a result, countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba — all current members — sit in judgment of others’ human rights performance, while routinely abusing the rights of their own people.

Of course, everyone knows New York is controlled by the Jews. er. Zionists. Yes.

[Lum]

Quotes from the UNHRC when reviewing Uzbekistan, an ex-Soviet dictatorship out of the news and flush with oil revenue. There is no free elections, freedom of the press or freedom of movement in Uzbekistan, and its government routinely tortures dissidents. Freedom of religion is also strongly curtailed, as the government fears the spread of militant Islam as a competitor to power.


Azerbaijan commends the efforts of Uzbekistan to guarantee the rights of women.


We would like to commend Uzbekistan on the human rights awareness campaign. We would like to seek clarification on child labor in the plantation field.


There have been increases in women’s representation in the legislative as well as the administrative bodies, a very high rate of literacy, and a mandatory primary and secondary education. [These] are two among other successes… Its efforts need to be complimented by the international community.”


Uzbekistan has been committed to democratic reform, modernization, established a system to review and protect human rights and the freedoms, and has made a series of achievements in the improvements of people’s livelihood, promotion of economic, cultural, and social rights and human rights legislation…. The government prohibits all forms of discrimination… Since their independence, there has not been a single ethnic or religious conflict.


We’d like to underscore…a constant increase in budgetary allocations to develop the social sphere: education, health, assistance to disabled persons and low income individuals…


We would like to commend Uzbekistan for the progress made towards the promotion and protection of human rights.


Uzbekistan is a nation who, following its independence, has been striving its efforts to enhance its economic development for its people.


We commend the efforts and commitments of the government for promotion and protection of human rights.


Malaysia also notes that much international attention and scrutiny has
been focused on Uzbekistan in light of the events that transpired in the province of Andijan in 2005. While regretting and being saddened by the loss of life and property that resulted, Malaysia is of the view that the international community should welcome the cooperation and transparency shown by the government of Uzbekistan, and underscores the issues that impinge on the integrity and sovereignty of the state fall within the efforts of the state’s own prerogatives.


Nicaragua would like to recognize and congratulate the government of Uzbekistan on its countless efforts made to guarantee true rule of law for its citizens.


We call on the international community to provide urgently needed assistance to Uzbekistan.


The national report indicates that there are a number of national human rights institutions. Law enforcement agencies likewise have departments for human rights protection.


Uzbekistan also offers protection for freedom of religion and belief. Various religious groups practice their religious rights freely in view of laws promoting religious and racial tolerance.


We would like to express our appreciation of the most recent steps taken by the Uzbek government to enjoy the improvement of civil and political rights. We would like to commend Uzbekistan for ratifying four core human rights treaties.


It is also worth noting steps that have been taken by the government in dealing with the inequalities among men and women.


Uzbekistan is witnessing nowadays a period of dynamic modernization. One of the manifestations of this period is the increasing effective and independent role of the legislature.

Most Western nations raised concerns about Uzbekistan's abysmal human rights record. They were outvoted. The official report on Uzbekistan by the UNHRC covered none of their objections.

[Jason McCullough]

"Human rights commission regulatory capture by human rights violators" should make for an entertaining entry in a public choice theory textbook someday.

[Tim James]

Most Western nations raised concerns about Uzbekistan's abysmal human rights record. They were outvoted. The official report on Uzbekistan by the UNHRC covered none of their objections.A majority vote failed somewhere? This will shake the world to its core.

My favorite is Nicaragua: "efforts made to guarantee true rule of law for its citizens." Glenn Beck should invite them on his show.

[Cobra]

Well, this was predicable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8007193.stm

[Sarkus]

Well, this was predicable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8007193.stm

Yeah, it looks like Obama's decision (and those of other countries) to boycott this event was justified. When the first speaker says something that the UN Sec Gen terms "to accuse, divide and even incite" you know that nothing is going to be accomplished.

[Lum]

Because inviting Ahmadinejad to give an address at a conference on human rights has completely unpredictable consequences. No one could have imagined this would have happened!

[Jag]

Most Western nations raised concerns about Uzbekistan's abysmal human rights record. They were outvoted. The official report on Uzbekistan by the UNHRC covered none of their objections.

That list of countries is right out of a Naked Gun movie. All we need is Leslie Neilson trying to rub off Gorby's spots.

[RSofaer]

No mention of this sort of thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8007756.stm
when Palestine is brought up in these contexts.


Hamas must stop killing and torturing its political rivals in Gaza, Human Rights Watch has said.
At least 32 Palestinians have died and several more have been maimed in such cases during and since Israel's January military assault, the group said.

[Dirt]

Yeah, who gives a fuck about those ass backwards countries? Only rich, Western countries matter!

[Dan Lawrence]

Reading the quotes from the BBC, Ahmadinejad seems on fairly tame form - he even seems to acknowledge that the holocaust actually happened. Maybe ther is some more inflammatory stuff that the BBC felt unable to print but pretty much all he does, in this speech, is accuse Israel of racism over and over again which isn't a million miles from Jimmy Carter calling the state apartheid.

I was expected much worse after all the walk outs and boycotts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8008850.stm



The victorious powers [of the world wars] call themselves the conquerors of the world, while ignoring or down-treading the rights of other nations by the imposition of oppressive laws and international arrangements...

...Following World War Two, they resorted to making an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish suffering. They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine. In compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive, racist regime in Palestine

[Lum]

It's offensive in that in a conference on racism Ahmadinejad proclaims that the most urgent racial problem facing the world is Israel, Israel is by definition a racist entity and Israel personifies racism in the 21st century.

Which is actually a million miles from Carter terming Israel's occupation policies apartheid-like (Carter's condemnations of Israel are actually far more reasonable than the media usually reports).

He also went on a bizarre tangent accusing "Zionists" and arms merchants of conspiring to invade Iraq. Apparently the actual reality of neoconservatives conspiring to invade Iraq wasn't sexy enough for him.

[Grifman]

On its face its absurd to not attend based on that sentence. I guess diplomats can't say "we expect the attendees to be absurd dicks," so they need a face-saving reason.

It's not like this was drafted in a vacuum. I think you can safely assume that the discussion centered around Islamic issues with things like the Danish cartoons.

[Chris Nahr]

Here's the Economist editorial (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13413974) I recalled. Basically, a bunch of Islamic countries that persecute critics of their regimes want a global ban on such criticism under the label of "religious intolerance".


What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word “defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of violence should be outlawed.

[Dan Lawrence]

It's offensive in that in a conference on racism Ahmadinejad proclaims that the most urgent racial problem facing the world is Israel, Israel is by definition a racist entity and Israel personifies racism in the 21st century.


Sure, he has a particularly focused perspective but I don't see how thats actually offensive in a conference purportedly attempting to debate racism. There is nothing stopping another leader getting up and proclaiming that Darfur is the most serious racial problem facing the world. I just don't understand what was so especially offensive about this speech that justified the walkouts and boycotts. What happened to debate?


Which is actually a million miles from Carter terming Israel's occupation policies apartheid-like (Carter's condemnations of Israel are actually far more reasonable than the media usually reports).

Maybe our definitions of a million miles are different but Carter saying 'Israel's policies are very similar to a fundamentally racist party' and Ahmadinejad saying 'Israel is a fundamentally racist state' doesn't seem to be so far apart to me. The difference being that Carter holds out hope that Israel can change to be less racist while Ahmadinejad believes that there will never be any change. I'm inclined to agree with Carter but I think his position is closer to Ahmadinejad on this issue than it is with Israel's new foreign minister.


He also went on a bizarre tangent accusing "Zionists" and arms merchants of conspiring to invade Iraq. Apparently the actual reality of neoconservatives conspiring to invade Iraq wasn't sexy enough for him

That is more the sort of crazy that I was looking for! What happened to the good old Holocaust denying Ahmadinejad of times past! I personally don't believe it was am organised conspiracy that started the Iraq War, but a natural continutation of fundamentalist Friedmanite economic forces as encouraged by its most dedicated adherents.

[Sarkus]

Sure, he has a particularly focused perspective but I don't see how thats actually offensive in a conference purportedly attempting to debate racism. There is nothing stopping another leader getting up and proclaiming that Darfur is the most serious racial problem facing the world. I just don't understand what was so especially offensive about this speech that justified the walkouts and boycotts. What happened to debate?


The issue, as I understand it, is that the goal of this series of conferences has been to create a resolution against racism that the UN can adopt. So the idea is that they are trying to find common ground. The problem is that the arab countries keep trying to call out Israel by name every chance they get while refusing to consider the idea that racism exists on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. At the same time they keep trying to demand that wording be adopted that from the western perspective seems to be designed to stifle religious dissent. As long as many of the attendees are willing to accept this kind of behavior, it's rather pointless for western nations to attend and "debate." By boycotting they are ensuring that the conference will always be viewed as flawed and thus will likely never see any of its recommendations adopted by the UN as a whole.

[Kareem]

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/death_to_all_juice.jpg

[Cobra]

How was that helpfull?

[Dan Lawrence]

The issue, as I understand it, is that the goal of this series of conferences has been to create a resolution against racism that the UN can adopt. So the idea is that they are trying to find common ground. The problem is that the arab countries keep trying to call out Israel by name every chance they get while refusing to consider the idea that racism exists on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. At the same time they keep trying to demand that wording be adopted that from the western perspective seems to be designed to stifle religious dissent. As long as many of the attendees are willing to accept this kind of behavior, it's rather pointless for western nations to attend and "debate." By boycotting they are ensuring that the conference will always be viewed as flawed and thus will likely never see any of its recommendations adopted by the UN as a whole.

I don't think that is ever a reason to not have the debate, so what if the anti-Israel factions keep mentioning racism there? The point of the UN is at least 50% all about debate, you prevent conflicts better by talking about them. You contest their position by argumentation and engaging them with debate not by storming out, its diplomacy. I don't think the arab nations are just 'trolling' the meeting, they just feel very strongly (or their voters do) about this issue. What you want is a speaker to get up after Ahmadinejad and refute his points, if they can be refuted. Then we could be posting 'owned' jpegs as his arguments were systematically torn down, instead of having this debate. To me, boycotts & storming out just says 'We don't have an good arguments to refute what he just said, but we sure are angry about it'.

[unbongwah]

Noted neoconservative bastion of thought on the UNHRC (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/opinion/11sat2.html?_r=3)
One minor correction: Egypt is slated to be on the 2010 Council (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/year0809.htm); such stalwart defenders of racial tolerance as Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba are on the 2009 Council.

But anyway, yeah, the UNHRC is pretty much a sham, IMHO.

[NoWayJose]

I haven't been following this too closely. Is racism gone now? I guess we can shut down the UN (finally).

[Lizard_King]

I don't think that is ever a reason to not have the debate, so what if the anti-Israel factions keep mentioning racism there? The point of the UN is at least 50% all about debate, you prevent conflicts better by talking about them. You contest their position by argumentation and engaging them with debate not by storming out, its diplomacy. I don't think the arab nations are just 'trolling' the meeting, they just feel very strongly (or their voters do) about this issue. What you want is a speaker to get up after Ahmadinejad and refute his points, if they can be refuted. Then we could be posting 'owned' jpegs as his arguments were systematically torn down, instead of having this debate. To me, boycotts & storming out just says 'We don't have an good arguments to refute what he just said, but we sure are angry about it'.

That's certainly a mature way of looking at it, but I think one that ignores the power imbalances that make the modern UN the mess it is today. The Western powers have never seriously accepted the proposition of a meeting of equals, the traditionally marginalized are fully cognizant of that and want to bring it to the forefront all the time, and the up and coming powers (already there powers? I don't know) like China and recovering Russia have no qualms about using that tension to score points against the other big players.

The UN is at its best when it focuses on concrete negotiation and goals, and at its worst when it engages in debate on theoretical points, irrespective of the situation I have just described. When something falls squarely in that second province it spirals into farce very quickly. I don't think that's an artificial distinction to draw, but I can see where others would.

There's no question that the US and other Western countries have a lot they need to modify in their way of dealing with the UN. But I would disagree with you in that it also seems fairly obvious that a lot of the smaller players are basically trolling for the PR stunt. They may be doing it because they recognize the inherent futility of their position in the power structure, but that doesn't make it any less of a symbolic gesture versus an actual negotiation attempt. The Western powers share greater responsibility for creating this situation, in my opinion, but they aren't on their own in screwing this up.

[Dan Lawrence]

There's no question that the US and other Western countries have a lot they need to modify in their way of dealing with the UN. But I would disagree with you in that it also seems fairly obvious that a lot of the smaller players are basically trolling for the PR stunt. They may be doing it because they recognize the inherent futility of their position in the power structure, but that doesn't make it any less of a symbolic gesture versus an actual negotiation attempt. The Western powers share greater responsibility for creating this situation, in my opinion, but they aren't on their own in screwing this up.

I still don't think I can go along with the idea that they are trolling when they are using the UN for broadly its intended purpose, if you can't debate racism in the UN racism conference then where can you? If they, and likely they already have, start dragging the israel issue into other unrelated meetings then it would become trolling.

I agree completely that there are problems with the UN but the problem is not Ahmadinejad giving a speech on racism at a racism conference at which he was invited to speak. If people disagree with what he is saying then engage with him and use rhetoric, logic and passion to refute his points. If the world's leaders could be seen to debate issues like this on the world stage then the UN would truly have a point. It would be headline news, televised live.

How fantastic would it have been to see Barack stride up after Ahmadinejad and tell him that he knows a few things about racism before point by point taking apart what he has just said. It would be all over You Tube and likely do far more good in combating anti-semitism than a boycott. I even found some crazy soul who agrees with me, a former director from the institute for jewish policy research:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/20/ahmadinejad-durban-israel-united-nations

Though of course it was easy to find someone who disagreed with him:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/21/racism-ahmadinejad-durban

[Lizard_King]

Well, that's just the thing. I don't care about UN conferences on racism. If they want to have a conference on a specific problem with some specific end in sight, that's more what I see as a useful purpose for the organization. This just seems like a celebration of bureaucratic irrelevance and political showboating.

So, the problem isn't Ahmen... per se, it's that the overall event is largely a ceremonial function, and no one's going to stick around past their comfort zone if nothing is at stake.

[RSofaer]

Well, that's just the thing. I don't care about UN conferences on racism. If they want to have a conference on a specific problem with some specific end in sight, that's more what I see as a useful purpose for the organization. This just seems like a celebration of bureaucratic irrelevance and political showboating.

So, the problem isn't Ahmen... per se, it's that the overall event is largely a ceremonial function, and no one's going to stick around past their comfort zone if nothing is at stake.

This is why it isn't in the comfort zone of a lot of people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV3rw_QOD7U

(Link sent to me by a kid I know who is there.)

[Aeon221]

This is why it isn't in the comfort zone of a lot of people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV3rw_QOD7U

(Link sent to me by a kid I know who is there.)

I kept expecting someone to start screaming about zombies.

[RSofaer]

My favorite thing is the stoic look on Elie Wiesel's face. I think he's a little old to be doing this sort of thing. He has exactly the same expression when my friend got a picture taken with him.

For those of you who do not want to go to a video, it is what is apparently an Iranian diplomat or group of diplomats shouting "zionist nazi!" at some group of people including Wiesel, then inventing the glorious abbreviation "Zionazis" and shouting that, then getting shouted down by a bunch of others.

[Sarkus]

My favorite thing is the stoic look on Elie Wiesel's face. I think he's a little old to be doing this sort of thing. He has exactly the same expression when my friend got a picture taken with him.

For those of you who do not want to go to a video, it is what is apparently an Iranian diplomat or group of diplomats shouting "zionist nazi!" at some group of people including Wiesel, then inventing the glorious abbreviation "Zionazis" and shouting that, then getting shouted down by a bunch of others.

Hey, it's just another example of Dan's desire for "debate."

:-)

[RSofaer]

Personally, I don't think there's any reason for any part of the diplomatic corps of our country to be in a place like this. This conference has no significance in the wider push to end racism, symbolic or otherwise, and the people that might have gone there should go do something useful. That's what I would say to the public, also.

"Sorry, our diplomats are being productive."

[Lum]

I agree completely that there are problems with the UN but the problem is not Ahmadinejad giving a speech on racism at a racism conference at which he was invited to speak.

That's correct. The problem is Ahmadinejad giving a speech on Israel at a racism conference at which he was invited to speak.

The implication that the words "Israel" and "racism" are synonyms is why most Western diplomats took that moment to stretch their legs.

If, say, a Dutch diplomat had given a speech that equated Saudi Arabia with racism, I suspect the reaction would have been somewhat more condemning from the people applauding Ahmadinejad.

[Lizard_King]

This is why it isn't in the comfort zone of a lot of people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV3rw_QOD7U

(Link sent to me by a kid I know who is there.)
I don't really care about the screeching mobs, and I'm 100% confident that did not factor into the decisions of western representatives in walking out. They may use it as an after-the-fact rationalization, but no, that was not the comfort zone I was referring to.

That's not to say I don't think it's fucked up, or that I don't find it an interesting link, I just don't attach the same weight to it.

[Jag]

It's pretty clear that a major goal of the Arab/Islamic majority was to use this conference to ban any form of criticism of Islam. It's not that hard to understand why many Western nations refused to take part in it.

Iran's speech was just an ironic sideshow that highlighted the racism inherent in the racism conference.

[Anders Hallin]

Well, the draft proposal, which among other things included the text that all denial of the Holocaust should be immediately condemned, was voted through unanimously.