A large number of countries will participate in the World Conference Against Racism, scheduled to be held in Geneva, April 20-25. But the highly touted international meet has already been marred by disagreement after Israel, the United States and other countries decided not to attend. Although the abstention of four or more countries is immaterial to the proceedings, the US decision in particular was meant to render the conference “controversial” at best.
The US government’s provocative stance is not new but a repetition of another fiasco which took place in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. There, Israeli and US representatives stormed out in protest against the “anti-Israeli” and “anti-Semitic” sentiments supposedly pervading the World Conference Against Racism. The decision was an ominous sign because the Bush administration was yet to be tested on foreign policy in any definite terms as the conference concluded on Sept. 8, three days before Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The US justified its denunciation of the international forum then on the very same, unsubstantiated grounds cited by Israel — that the forum had been transformed into a platform for anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic rhetoric. But was the “World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” indeed transformed into a platform for racism and bigotry, as Israel’s friends, most prominent among them the Bush administration, charged?
What indeed took place at the conference was democracy in its purest manifestations. No country could defy an international consensus by using a veto power nor could it flex economic muscles to bend the will of the international community. The result was, of course, disturbing from the viewpoint of those who refuse to treat all United Nations member states with equity and impartiality. An African demand for a separate apology from every country that had benefited from slavery to every African nation that had provided slaves was considered excessive and eventually dropped.
But the main “controversial” issue that led to the US representative’s departure from the conference was the criticism by many countries of Israel’s racism in dealing with the Palestinians. A majority of countries called for reinstituting UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 which in 1975 equated Zionism with racism.
The conference, then, was not meant only to address the issue of Palestine and Israel. However, the strong American resistance to any criticism of the racially motivated Israeli practices — the extreme violence, the land theft, the Wall, the settlements, the protracted military occupation, etc. — pushed the issue to center stage.
The Palestinian struggle is not meant to overshadow the struggles of oppressed nations around the world, but it rather compliments the calls for rights, freedom and liberation that continue to echo around the globe. However, the fact that the illegal and violent mass oppression of Palestinians, as practiced openly by the Israeli state, continues unabated — and that they are defended and justified by the United States and other European powers highlights the historical legacy championed by former colonial powers throughout the so-called Third World for so many years.
There are hardly any international forums that are held and governed by principles of equality and fairness among nations. The World Conference Against Racism is one of the very few. It was not a surprise, therefore, to witness the international solidarity with the Palestinians and the worldwide repulsion at Israel’s racist and apartheid policies.
But the mere censure of Israel’s unfair, undemocratic and racist policies — let alone taking any action to bring them to a halt — is automatically considered anti-Semitic from an Israeli standpoint and also by any US administration.
The US conditioned its participation in the April conference in Geneva (Durban II) by removing any specific censure of Israel, and ensuring that Israel was not “singled out” for criticism. Although US sensibilities constantly demand the singling out of any country, leader or group it deems a rogue, a war criminal, or a terrorist, Israel is dealt with using different standards. “A bad document became worse, and the US decided not to participate in the conference,” Israeli daily Haaretz reported in reference to the draft documents being finalized before the conference.
The original “bad” document apparently dubs Israel “an occupying state that carries out racist policies,” a description which is consistent with international law, UN resolutions and the views of leading world human rights defenders — Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Dugard, the former UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, and Richard Falk, the current UN envoy, among many others.
The “bad document” might have “became worse” with new references to the Gaza bloodbath, which killed and wounded nearly 7,000 Palestinians in 22 days. From an American — and unfortunately so far Canadian and Italian — viewpoint, such inhumane practices don’t warrant a pause or even words of condemnation. The same, of course, does not apply to Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, Cuba and other “unfriendly” nations. The US decision must be particularly disheartening to African nations who saw in the election of Barack Obama some vindication. The first US black president, however, has seen fit to boycott a conference that intended to discuss the issue of slavery and reparations, to prove once again that race alone is hardly sufficient in explaining US internal and external policies.
A day after rebuffing the conference, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived on her first visit to the Middle East where she admonished Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah — for largely posing threats to Israel — and praised the Jewish state and its “moderate” allies. In a joint statement with Israeli President Shimon Peres on March 3, she said: “It is important that the United States always underscores our unshakable, durable, fundamental relationship and support for the State of Israel. I will be going from here to Yad VaShem to pay respects to the lost souls, to remember those who the Holocaust took, to lay a wreath, and to say a prayer.”
Needless to say, Clinton refused to visit Gaza, where 1.5 million people are trapped in one large concentration camp, denied access to food, medicine, political and human rights.
— Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
