Will Durban II be a replay of racist Durban I?

In the first Durban Council on Human Rights the only nation that was condemned for violations of human rights was Israel. Not Saudi Arabia where 1/2 the population has no rights. Not Sudan for the ongoing genocide being committed there. Not Myanmar for the crackdown on dissidents and other groups. No Israel. The whole conference was a condemnation of Israel and Judaism. It was lead by those greats of human rights Iran, Syria, Libya and the Palestinians. Nations and groups dedicated to the great advancement of human and civil rights.

Now it seems that the same will happen at the next conference being planned for April. Although being called Durban II, it will take place in Geneva, Switzerland. But it is being lead by the same great defenders of human rights: Iran and Libya.

Is the United Nations' follow-up to the racist 2001 Durban World Conference Against Racism headed for the same fate? Perhaps. In response to the newly released UN blueprint for next April's Durban II in Geneva, EU members need to defend the red lines set by France, the UK and the Netherlands.

What went wrong with Durban I? Despite its supposedly universal intentions, compromises were made to satisfy the non-aligned group of 118 countries, dominated by Islamic states.

Slavery was and is evil. But by addressing only the trans-Atlantic slave trade of previous centuries while ignoring the modern Arab slave trade and other forms of slavery, the 2001 conference showed itself to be more concerned with scoring points than promoting human rights.

SIMILARLY, THE conference's condemnation of Western European colonialism became tainted when it omitted mention of far more recent colonial crimes — be it Russian colonialism in Ukraine, Armenia and the Baltics, or China's ongoing repression of Tibet.

To make matters worse, the entire Durban I agenda was hijacked by anti-Israel forces, led by Iran and Yasser Arafat, who showed up in person.

Then as now, the lead-up was formative. Six months before Durban I, at the preparatory Asian meeting in Teheran, the 57-strong Organization of the Islamic Conference led the conference to single out Israel, accusing it of "ethnic cleansing" and committing a "new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity." After international interventions, Durban's final declaration was toned down. Nevertheless, it expressed concern about "the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation," and recognized "the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes." The US delegation walked out. At the end of the conference the Canadian representative said: "Canada is still here only because we wanted to have our voice decry the attempts at this conference to delegitimize the State of Israel."

Far worse, though, were the nongovernmental proceedings. Goebbels-like caricatures of Jews circulated freely. Jewish activists were harassed. The final NGO statement declared Israel a "racist apartheid state" guilty of "genocide." The text was so odious that even Mary Robinson, the UN rights chief who had been criticized for appeasing anti-Israel forces, refused to accept it.

The late Democratic Representative Tom Lantos of California, a US delegate, said "this was the most sickening and unabashed display of hate for Jews I had seen since the Nazi period."

WILL DURBAN II suffer the same fate?

Some fear it is inevitable. Canada has already announced that it will not participate. The US and Israel will also stay away, unless it is proven that Durban II will not be another platform for anti-Semitic hatred.

That leaves the EU.

It has been clear in resisting attempts by Algeria, Pakistan and other Islamic states to alter the agreed mandate with a condemnation of "defamation of religions" — i.e., the unflattering Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, as well as milder forms of free speech deemed unacceptable to Islam.

It has been ambivalent, however, in its response to the renewed attempts to tar Israel. On the one hand, France and some other leading EU states have declared attacks on Israel to be a red line. "[T]the Durban conference in 2001 led to intolerable excesses from certain states and numerous NGOs that turned the conference into a forum against Israel," said President Nicolas Sarkozy in February. "France will not allow a repetition." His position was unequivocal: "If our legitimate demands are not taken into account, we will disengage from the process."

Similar warnings were expressed by UK Minister for Europe Jim Murphy and Netherlands Interior Minister Maxime Verhagen.

BUT SINCE the UN on May 27 released a blueprint for Durban II that again singles out Israel, not one EU state has spoken out.

The issues to be included in an April 2009 declaration confirm that the planners of Durban II, headed by Libya, have again set their sights on the Jewish state. First, under the header "Victims of racism," the draft makes special reference to "the plight of the Palestinians."

Second, under "contemporary forms of racism as reported by different countries," Israel is singled out by Iran, a vice chair of the conference's organizing bureau.

In other words, the train to Durban II has already left the station. Why is the EU failing to defend the principles laid down by France, the UK and the Netherlands? Those who would like to give the new conference a genuine chance to combat intolerance need to know that Durban II will not be a repeat of the Durban I debacle.

The test — the EU's test — is now.

In further news from UN Watch:

UN Watch this week released a major study of Louise Arbour’s performance as UN rights chief over the past four years, refuting inflated claims made by both her critics and defenders, and giving the Canadian jurist mixed reviews on how she took on violators. The report also offers concrete recommendations for her replacement, Navanethem Pillay of South Africa, urging her to adopt a stronger approach in confronting UN heavyweights like China, Russia and Egypt.

Critics and defenders of Arbour’s record seem to agree on one thing: a principal measure of her efficacy and success as High Commissioner is the degree to which she properly criticized countries that violate human rights. Bearing neither the power of the purse nor of the sword, the UN’s top human rights official must make use of her unique bully pulpit to name and shame violators, throwing a spotlight on their abuses.

No it is time for the EU to take a stand. But they won't, for their Dhimmitude is almost complete. Durban II will condemn Israel, the United States, and Europe in this next round of attacks. Thus insuring that the nations of the Civilized world know that the UN has become irrelevant to any hopes of the world. Maybe then these nations will leave this behemoth by the East River and impose true democracy and human rights upon the nations of the planet who refuse to do so themselves.

Cross posted at Reject the UN