The feel of absolute might and the desire to control the world under the umbrella of the new world order has so blinded the US administration that it finds itself unable to maintain a balanced foreign policy and tackle the issues of global concern.
By all accounts, the present and previous US administration's policies and actions militate against the interests and ambitions of the world's other nations and their desire for a better future. The Clinton administration, for example, could not help the US losing its seat on the UN human rights committee. Earlier, the US also lost its seat in UNESCO when it tried to impose conditions unacceptable to the world community.
The new administration, interestingly, has refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement on global warming. Now, the US administration is quarreling with its European allies, Russia and China because of its determination to go ahead with the missile shield program.
A few days ago, the US administration, refused to implement a UN agreement that aims to ban the proliferation of small arms which are used in regional conflicts in both Africa and Asia. As if this is not enough, the US administration also scuttled the plan, discussed at the recent G-8 summit, to send international observers to the occupied Palestinian territories. The US imposed a condition that both parties, Palestinians and Israelis, must agree to international observers being sent to the region. In other words, the US administration gave Israel the veto power over the G-8 decision. Today, the US administration is putting pressure on the Arab and African ambassadors, Mary Robinson, the head of the UN human rights commission and the head of the world conference against racism to be held in South Africa this month. And this too for the sake of Israel! The US has threatened that it will not attend the conference if Zionism is equated with racism by the conference and if it raises the issue of compensation for slavery as African countries want.
The US used to be a major slave trader and importer of slaves from Africa until the end of the nineteenth century. So, tackling the compensations issue means investigating slavery where African countries will be in a position to claim appropriate compensation. In other words, just as the Jews have claimed compensation from Germany! It is a right for the Jews, as supported by the US, but no right for others to claim compensation.
Not to treat Zionism as racism, discrimination and racial discrimination, the whole world knows that Israel practice in the open these acts but Washington would not allow anybody to target Israel for such acts. Moreover, tackling this specific issue may lead to escalating the matter in the United States between both the whites and the blacks and immigrants from central and southern America. This is true, because the US is considered a country that still has racism and racial apartheid more than any other place in the world. It is worth mentioning that the United States did not attend two previous UN anti-racism conferences in 1978 and 1983 because US would not have Zionism equated with racism. The United States, moreover, pressured the world from 1975 until 1991 to cancel the UN resolution that considers Zionism a form of racism and succeeded in having it withdrawn.
Racism and apartheid have vanished in South Africa and Zimbabwe and the native people are now in power in both these countries. Therefore, the US attendance or otherwise is not important. The US attendance, however, may spoil the conference, so it is better to tackle this issue and eliminate racism without US participation or intervention.
