The UN’s Durban Review Conference, scheduled for April 2009 in Geneva (widely referred to as Durban II) shapes up to be even more disgraceful than Durban I, the notorious anti-racism conference held in that South African city in 2001. Durban I exemplified what it was supposed to combat, turning into an orgy of hatred against Israel (with considerable venom against the United States thrown in). Then Secretary of State Colin Powell, to his credit, withdrew the U.S. delegation, telling the UN organizers that you don’t combat racism by singling “out only one country in the world – Israel – for censure and abuse.” In a fitting irony, the conference, which concluded by identifying Israel alone as a state sponsor of racism, ended three days before 9/11.

It is not surprising that Durban II should promote Israel’s destruction given that it is designed to come up with “concrete measures” to implement Durban I and is a project of the UN Human Rights Council. The Jerusalem Post reports that the agenda for Durban II is largely being shaped by Libya (the Council’s current chair) in the role of preparatory conference chairman along with so-called “Friends of the Chairman,” including Egypt, Iran, Cuba and Pakistan. (Compounding the absurdity of it all, the U.S. State Department, seeking to offer a rationale for the administration’s new policy of modernizing Qaddafi’s military with U.S. systems, has declared: “The U.S. and Libya have a common interest in promoting international peace and security.”) The U.N. Human Rights Council devotes almost all its time (and virtually all its resolutions) to condemning Israel. Durban II offers another verbal “hook” – “racism,” as against “human rights,” to make the familiar litany of false charges.

In October, meeting in Geneva, the PrepCom, as the Preparatory Committee is called for short, released the text of a “Draft Outcome Document” for Durban II. While this is not the final document (which will be adopted at the Conference itself in April), it gives a good idea of what that will look like. It draws on submissions prepared by regional groups which had met earlier to prepare their input into Durban II. For example, the African regional group met in Nigeria at the end of August and called for the elimination of Zionism in the name of “the values and principles of human dignity and equality.” The group’s Abuja Declaration made no mention of Darfur, the inter-ethnic slaughter in the Congo, the denial of food by Mugabe to political opponents in Zimbabwe.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference’s contribution and the Asian regional draft, heavily influenced by it, accuse Israel of “apartheid,” “crimes against humanity” and “genocide.”

The key individual keeping tabs on what she aptly calls the UN Racist “Anti-Racism” Campaign is the Hudson Institute’s indefatigable Anne Bayefsky. She has posted the “Draft Outcome Document” for Durban II on the website http://www.EYEontheUN.org. I will spare readers the endless paragraphs of bombast against Israel, but here are a few (as numbered in the Document) to get the flavor:

57. Reaffirm that a foreign occupation founded on settlements, its laws based on racial discrimination with the aim of continuing domination of the occupied territory, as well as its practices, which consist of reinforcing a total military blockade, isolating towns, cities and villages under occupation from each other, totally contradict the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity, a form of genocide and a serious threat to international peace and security.

116. Express deep concern at the plight of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons who were forced to leave their homes because of war and racial policies of the occupying power and who are prevented from returning to their homes and properties because of a racially based law of return, and recognize the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.

117. Re-emphasize the responsibility of the international community to provide international protection for the Palestinian people under occupation against aggression, acts of racism, intimidation and denial of fundamental human rights, including the rights to life, liberty and self-determination.

But the threat posed by Durban II goes beyond Israel – and indeed beyond anything in Durban I. As noted earlier Durban I ended just before 9/11 – in its aftermath Islamic organizations and countries have been nurturing an odd combination of sentiments: a sense of grievance and victimhood along with feelings of empowerment. The end result is that the Moslem countries setting the agenda for Durban II seek to outlaw a new form of “racism,” namely “Islamophobia.”

Anne Bayefsky notes that the “Draft Outcome Document” constitutes an attempt to strangle free speech by demands that states adopt broad new laws that would undercut democratic rights and freedoms in the name of religious sensibilities. The Document demands that states “take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.” (One wonders if they have in mind such “firm action” as that reported by the Wall Street Journal of October 22: an Afghan student who asked about women’s rights had his death sentence revoked, receiving instead a 20 year prison term.)

Bayefsky observes that the Draft Document seeks to undercut counterterrorism and national security efforts with the accusation that they “hamper…progress in the collective struggle against racism.” Any suggestion that Islam or Muslims have anything to do with terrorism is attacked as xenophobia leading to “worsening of the situation of Muslim minorities around the world.”

Ominously, not content with urging “legal and administrative measures at the national and local levels” to punish “expressly and specifically contemporary forms of racism” the Draft Document demands international measures. “National laws alone cannot deal with the rising tide of defamation and hatred against Muslims…A framework is needed to analyze national laws and understand their provisions. This could then be compiled in a single ‘universal document’ as guidelines for legislation aimed at countering ‘defamation of religions.’” What this amounts to is a demand by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to universalize Islam’s blasphemy laws, so that the whole world becomes subject to them.

While this might have seemed ridiculous as recently as Durban I, it is absurd no longer. As an article (October 8th) posted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union points out, “The recent success of the OIC in having both the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly adopt resolutions ‘combating defamation of religion’ means that even though the General Assembly resolution was non-binding, states who wish to do so now have international approval to enact new laws against defamation of religions (blasphemy laws to you and me) and to keep existing blasphemy laws in place.” See also in this issue of Outpost, the proposed European Arrest Warrant discussed by Fjordman (pp. 9-10).

While the EU has treated the defamation of Israel with indifference, the assault on freedom of speech has spurred some response. Speaking on behalf of the EU, France warned the “anti-racists” of Durban II “not to spoil this opportunity by seeking to restrain freedom of expression or other fundamental rights.”

At Durban I some of the most virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Israel denunciations came from the NGO [Non-Governmental Organization] Forum held alongside the official proceedings. The Forum grew so vicious that even Mary Robinson, then UN Human Rights Commissioner and no friend of Israel, denounced the “hateful, even racist” anti-Semitic atmosphere of the Forum and refused to endorse its final declaration including the call for “mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes” and “complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state.” (Nonetheless, much of the Forum’s harshest attacks on Israel have made it into the draft document for Durban II.)

Unsurprisingly, the NGO Forum is back, with more than 50 rabidly anti-Israel NGOs mobilizing alongside the “PrepCom” in Geneva in October to prepare for the forthcoming Durban Review Conference. Shimon Samuels, who monitored the proceedings on behalf of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, reported that proposals advanced included that an NGO Caucus be created to produce “a hard-language Final Declaration to impact upon the Governmental document” and that the NGO Forum be held just before Durban II “in order to fully participate in influencing Governments.”

In February 2008 Israel, which, like the United States, walked out of Durban I, announced it would not participate in Durban II and has since been trying to influence Western countries to stay away, so as not to give the proceedings legitimacy. So far only Canada, led by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has agreed to follow Israel’s lead. Australia, which Israel initially believed would stay away, is expected to attend. Anne Bayefsky notes that although the United States at first seemed supportive – in December 2007 the U.S. voted against the entire UN budget for 2008-09 because it contained funding for Durban II – the Bush administration has not promised to stay away. With U.S. elections coming, Bayefsky says one explanation is the bureaucracy is managing to stifle decision-making along any lines a President Obama and other UN enthusiasts might abjure.

As for Europe, while France’s President Sarkozy suggested France might stay away last February, Gerald Steinberg, who directs the NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, says that as things stand now, France is likely to attend, as is Spain, Scandinavia, Belgium and Austria. The Jerusalem Report of October 13th notes that Steinberg will brief the European Parliament in November in an attempt to persuade as many member countries as possible to stay away. Steinberg believes that much will depend on the position of the new American President.

That in turn is likely to depend on the outcome of the election. But whatever happens, it seems apparent the U.S. will provide much of the funding. That’s because unlike Durban I, which was funded by South Africa, Durban II’s costs – a pricy $6.8 million – will come out of the core UN budget, which means, as journalist Claudia Rosett points out, “that Americans, as top contributors to the U.N. budget, can look forward not only to being vilified at Durban II…but also to picking up the biggest share of the tab for this next landmark U.N. exercise in bigotry.”

What’s more, the U.S. may also be funding those poisonous NGOs, for the planners, says Rosett, “have also been angling to use U.N. regular budget money to subsidize the travel costs for non-governmental organizations from poor countries to attend the conference.” Rosett has harsh words for today’s State Department which is not using the firepower the U.S. has to stop the charade. “Faced with Durban I, Colin Powell pulled out and spoke up. Faced with Durban II Condi Rice has given no sign she’s even noticed. Is it policy these days at the U.S. State Department that the U.N. abuse of U.S. money to pervert everything the U.S. stands for is no longer worth the Secretary’s time?”

While Israel is overtly most at risk from Durban II, given the emphasis on impeding Western defenses against Islam and outlawing criticism of it, the threat to the West is not far behind. Will the West fight back by refusing to attend or meekly participate and indeed pay for this attack on its own values? Will it reject this moral infamy or will it continue down the path of subservience to the barbarians at – and increasingly within – our gates?

 

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author

1 Comment for Durban II: The U.N.’s Racist Jamboree