Now that the US has elected a black man to the White House, there is a preconceived notion that the fight against racism and intolerance is not so much won — even a fool would not argue that far — but galloping ahead in great strides. Over the last week, we have for instance seen much about the impact of the new first lady on fashion, not simply in terms of style but in the way her presence has encouraged a rethink of American ideals of beauty and provided not-just black women but all women with a new type of role model, one that is strong, ambitious, intelligent and not afraid to make a statement. Suddenly the supremacy of pale skin not just in beauty but in defining success has been tested. Or consider all that hoopla about the family dog. Those images of a black first family in the White House playing with their new dog — joyous, energetic, dynamic and natural — pretty much define what the Obamas are going to be in terms of a new black identity.
There is an assumption that fighting racism and related issues must by definition gain a position at the top of Barack Obama’s agenda. I am not so sure this assumption is justified. It may well turn out to be the case, but it cannot be assumed that just because someone comes from a social minority issues of race will be their top priority. But in any case, the rhetoric is there. Obama’s government has affirmed that fighting racism and intolerance is a top priority of his administration. Just listen to Robert Wood, a spokesman at the State Department: “The United States is profoundly committed to end racism and racial discrimination” and “will work with all people and nations to build greater resolve and enduring political will to halt racism and discrimination wherever it occurs.”
Sounds good, three cheers for the new administration. There’s just one problem and that was the context in which it was said. For the US has just thrown a spanner in the works by deciding to boycott this week’s UN Racism Conference in Geneva. Why, you may ask? Because, quite simply, the United States is profoundly committed to end racism and racial discrimination so long as this does not interfere with Israel’s ongoing racism and racial discrimination against non-Jews or Palestinians, to call them by their right name.
The US is also opposed to new additions to the proposed final text that refer to protecting religion in a way which could interfere with free speech, but more of that later.
The Durban Review Conference is a follow up to the Durban Conference of 2001 that ended with Israel and the US walking out because the final document equated Zionism with racism. It is no great surprise that the follow-up conference should provoke similar reactions. As well as the US, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands and of course Israel have decided to boycott the conference. The European Union was meeting late on Sunday to decide whether or not it would send a delegation. For all intensive purposes the conference has been shot dead in the water and once again the world has been split along the “West versus the rest” lines, with the West deciding that the agenda set by the rest was not to its liking.
It’s a crying shame that this opportunity has been lost. Partly this is also the fault of parties who wished to politicize the conference in ways inconsistent with its aims. The protection of religion may sound like a lofty ideal but in reality what was on the table was the protection of censorship and control or put another way, it was the protection from the possibility of being incited against rather than the protection of the rights of people of a particular faith. And of course we Muslims stand in the front line. Why is protecting our religion from offense yet again such a primordial issue when it is protecting people that matters most? Surely a religion such as Islam cannot be threatened by a few words of criticism, and what is needed are robust ways to counter criticism rather than shutting it down as racism. And why has Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad been given a starring role once again? Surely it is wrong to let people like Ahmadinejad define such an important agenda, just as it is wrong to let Israel’s priorities dominate US policy.
But at the end of the day, the real disappointment is with Barack Obama. Here was an opportunity for his administration to do something, to at the very least send the right signals. There are many ways to attend a conference, just as there are many ways to avoid signing your name to a paragraph you do not adhere to. Obama had started along the right lines. Whereas Bush’s administration had refused to take part in the preparatory meetings for the conference, Obama sent a delegation. Their presence ensured that the text was discussed and debated with fervor and in fact many of the offending sentences regarding the equation of Zionism with racism were taken out. The United States has a responsibility to take a seat at the table and make its voice heard, to claim back the agenda and put the fight against racism and racial discrimination at the forefront of international relations. Instead we have good old political squabbling. In the words of Barbara Lee, the Democratic congresswoman who leads the Black Caucus in Congress, “this decision is inconsistent with the administration’s policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with...This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple.” It sure is.
