NEW YORK - When politically-sensitive issues such as racism and human rights are discussed at the United Nations, all hell breaks loose. The usually unflappable diplomats-- minus the traditional striped pants-- go virtually berserk.
When the former Human Rights Commission (HRC) was dominated by serial violators such as Libya, Zimbabwe, and China, the members of the UN body were described as inmates taking over the asylum. But left unsaid was whether the HRC was a political asylum or a mental asylum -- or a mix of both.
At the 2001 anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, the US and Israel walked out before the declaration was adopted on the ground that the Jewish state had been singled out for condemnation for its racist policies. The follow-up conference to Durban, which took place in Geneva last week, did not fare any better.
 |
| Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (C) delivers his speech in front of United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay (L) and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during the opening of a five-day UN review conference on racism on April 20, 2009 at the UN Offices in Geneva. AFP |
Even before the conference began, several Western states, including the US, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, New Zealand and Australia pulled out of the meeting fearing the worst. Both Israel and Canada declined to participate even in the preparatory meetings, right from the inception months before.
The "sad truth" is that countries professing to want to avoid a reprise of the contentious 2001 racism conference were now the ones triggering the collapse of a global consensus on the fight against racism, said Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch.
As these Western governments demanded, she pointed out, the negotiated text for last week's Geneva conference did uphold freedom of expression and also avoided singling out Israel.
But still, these governments decided to boycott the conference anyway, thereby depriving the political universality the declaration needed. The London-based Amnesty International said it was "dismayed" by the boycott.
The fact that these Western states withdrew from the conference also provides them with an excuse: they have no political obligations to respect or conform to the declaration (which condemns all forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia).
Stephen Zunes, a professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, was more pointed in his criticism of the Obama administration for refusing to participate in the conference.
In boycotting the conference, he said, the Obama administration "demonstrated that just because an African-American can be elected president doesn't mean the United States will be any more committed than the (former) Bush administration in fighting global racism".
Zunes also said that despite claims to the contrary by various right-wing pundits, the final declaration didn't contain any anti-Israel statements or language equating Zionism with racism. The declaration also deleted a call to ban "defamation of religion" which raised concerns regarding restricting free speech.
So why the boycott? Was it an attempt to bend over backwards to please the Israelis, who were opposed to the conference right from the beginning?
Meanwhile, the Geneva conference also generated controversy over attacks and counter-attacks by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who accused Israel of being a racist state for its continued suppression of the Palestinians.
According to published reports, about 15 to 20 countries, including delegates from Britain, France and Finland, staged a walkout to protest the Iranian's president's statement.
In a stinging attack on Ahmadinejad, Ban said he "deplored" the use of the Geneva meeting as a platform by the Iranian President "to accuse, divide and even incite". "This is the opposite of what this Conference seeks to achieve," he said.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay was equally critical of Ahmadinejad, when she faithfully followed in the footsteps of her boss. "I condemn the use of a U.N. forum for political grandstanding. I find this totally objectionable."
But the Iranians were not going to take the attacks lying down. In a letter of protest, Iran dismissed the two statements as "deplorable, irresponsible and unwarranted." The public lashing of the Iranian president by two senior UN officials is as exceptional as the harsh rejoinder by a member state.
The attacks and counter-attacks have also violated longstanding diplomatic protocol in the world body. In its protest letter, Iran said both statements "utterly contradict UN well-established norms and practices to the effect that civil servants of the United Nations should at all times abide by the principles of impartiality and refrain from any judgmental remarks about the positions and statements made by the representatives of any member states, specifically if they are heads of state."
| 
E-mail