Obama Caves to Right-wing in Boycotting UN Anti-Racism Conference

Obama Caves to Right-wing in Boycotting UN Anti-Racism Conference
by Stephen Zunes
April 23, 2009

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus. He is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism

In boycotting the United Nations conference on racism, 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 Bush administration in fighting global racism. Rejecting calls by liberal Democratic members of Congress, leading human rights groups, Pope Benedict XVI, and most of the international community to participate, the Obama administration instead gave into pressure by Congressional hawks and other anti-UN forces by joining a handful of other nations refusing to participate in the historic gathering.

With pressure from the United States and some other countries, the draft declaration prepared for this year's conference dropped a call to ban "defamation of religion," which raised concerns regarding restricting free speech, as well as any references to Israel and Palestine. State Department spokesperson Robert Wood acknowledged that the draft was "significantly improved," and that the United States was "deeply grateful" that requested changes had been made. Yet he announced the United States would boycott the conference anyway because the document reaffirmed the final declaration of the 2001 meeting in Durban right-wing critics had labeled "anti-Israel."

.... the only mention of Israel in the final 61-page document was as follows:

We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion; We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights, and security.

.... the right wing applauded Obama's decision. A bipartisan group of congressional hawks, which pressured Obama to boycott the conference, sent him an open letter applauding Obama's decision. The letter claims that the meeting "undermines freedom of expression and is tainted by an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda that questions the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state." The effort was led by such influential members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee as Ron Klein (D-FL), Mike Pence (R-IN), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Eliot Engel (D-NY), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-FL), as well as Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, all of whom previously attacked the United Nations, the World Court, and various human rights groups for challenging certain U.S. and Israeli policies.

By accepting the recommendation of these congressional militarists and unilateralists to boycott the conference, while rejecting calls to participate by the Black Caucus, reputable human rights groups, UN officials, and world religious leaders, Obama has given the clearest indication yet as to who he will listen to in determining how his administration approaches the United Nations and other international initiatives in support for human rights.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/23-0

If you disagree with the article be specific on what you disagree with. Don't dismiss the article out of hand without actually reading it and don't wave it off with the usual personal attacks claiming the writer is anti-Semitic.

Reasonable and clear criticisms of the article will be read. Personal attacks will be ignored.

and by that I mean you. I could have sworn we did the same thing with you last week too.

because this is not what you wanted to hear, but it is the fact, your job seems to be
fetching and searching for all the wedged issues and posting them here, its your daily
persona.

It helps to put the OP's posting history in context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8359841

----> Remember, when you put people on ignore, no peaking!

:rofl:

If so, why do you bother to post comments on articles you either haven't read or just can't comprehend?

:rofl:

But since you asked, I didn't realize all these DEMOCRATS would be considered "Right wing".

Ron Klein (D-FL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Eliot Engel (D-NY), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-FL), as well as Henry Waxman (D-CA)

So, the article is idiotic tripe.

Is that good enough to get me ingored too?

Isn't that right?

Now if you have an intelligent comment to make regarding the article, I'm listening!

If you don't, I might pay attention to one or two of your further comments just for a little comic relief.

I always get a charge out of know nothings who come into discussions waving their guns but having no bullets!

OK

Take your best shot against the article.

Now this ought to be really funny!

I didn't realize all these DEMOCRATS would be considered "Right wing".

Ron Klein (D-FL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Eliot Engel (D-NY), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-FL), as well as Henry Waxman (D-CA)

So, the article is idiotic tripe. What kind of stupid fucking piece of shit article claims the right wing is responsible for a decision and then lists a bunch of Democrats that includes HENRY WAXMAN?

Only someone like you would buy this crap.

Is that good enough to get me ingored too?

:rofl:

Keep that up and posters who don't have political blinders on may actually pay attention to you!

:) :)

While it's true that these particular Democrats support right-wing Republicans on this issue and clearly defend and support the right-wing extremists (they are to the right of Cheney/Bush) who govern Israel, I don't think they are right-wing on all issues and I doubt the writer thinks that.

He did no such thing, unless you think Henry Waxman is Right Wing.

What makes you think these Dems support RW Repubs on this issue and don't just merely have their own position? :shrug:

The conference was a sham and Obama was right not to go. It was coopted by Israel slamming racist douchebags.

usernames of DUers. How else would one remember who is on the ignore list?

I feel sorry for the ones who cannot participate in an exchange, or just walk away and choose to put people on such a list.

:hi:

Oh, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has never been a Democrat.

Is Henry Waxman Right Wing?

:evilgrin:

:rofl:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8365793&mesg_id=8365826

I didn't ignore him, we were goofing around.

and both Engel and Berkely are way too AIPAC. They're liberals on other issues but they are hard liners on Israel.

It lists her as Dem! :rofl:

And claims he caved to the RW and goes on to put Waxman on the list!

If you need a reason, its because i think your a idiotic right wing troll that's been leaving tire tracks through this forum for some time. That also means your probably a genetic malfunction. Oh yeah,


im referring to "Better believe it"

I'm going to say it like Dr. Doom would, too, for extra effect.

I think he's on to something with this approach. Every time you hear something you don't want to hear, stick your head up your ass. I never thought of that! Better Believe It is quite clearly a brilliant, brilliant man.

Let the world know where they stand!

I am going to have a "Fuzzy Puppy Summit".

At the summit, I am going to rabidly denounce anyone who owns cats as evil.

Will you come to my Fuzzy Puppy Summit?

Why do you hate Fuzzy Puppies?

n/t

you're a perfect fit for the Amadnejad crowd, dear.

The article assumes that the conference contributes to "fighting global racism".

One can call a conference whatever one likes. I am interested in what tangible relationship the conference has to its stated goal.

it's ALL about Isreal, Palestine, WBG, the nakba, the '67 war, and nothing more.

:eyes:

n/t

Sorry, this isn't the answer to your question from the OP.

Everyone knows that conference turned out to be a mess. I find your timing late and pointed.

Frankly, when we realize after the fact, that not only would president Obama have met Hugo Chavez, he would have also had to deal with Ahmadinejad, that's one too many controversial leaders for one time period in an historical presidency. I'm very glad he didn't attend.

As for the conference itself, I would like honest open debate about racism but apparently this one was felt to have an agenda, singling out one particular country, instead of racism worldwide.

Do you feel there is only one kind of racism and that piling on one country while ignoring the racism of others is helpful or even realistic?

he/she is an Ahmadinejad fan and apologist. He/she will deny that with great faux indignation, but his/her posts in other threads demonstrate that he/she is not being honest in his/her denials.

abandon a thread just like this last week? Didn't nearly everyone disagree with you then too? Pope Benedict is a liberal?

I think he did the right thing by not attending. Now if the conference actually did fight racism and bigotry, instead of giving a platform to bigots, I might feel differently.

I'm sure

by some were.

The reality is that UN Anti-Racism Conference has been hijacked by parties who want to use it for purposes that have nothing to do with racism.

The UN is not a unified body answerable to the General Secretary. Each organization has its own board and its own leadership and there is very little coordination between them. Just because something carries a UN label doesn't mean that it will meet the same standards as the other agencies, and I state this having worked as an international civil servant and strongly support the UN system.

It would be interesting to compare Israeli's treatment of Sudan Jews (Black Jews) that recently migrated to Israel and other countries, especially Middle Eastern ones, with their treatment of minority groups.

It is particularly galling to have the conference, which is aimed at increasing human rights, taken over at the podium by Ahmadinejad. Iran has executed hundreds of Bahai followers and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights states that persecution has increased under Ahmadinejad;


According to a US panel, attacks on Bahá'ís in Iran have increased since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president.<90> The United Nations Commission on Human Rights revealed an October 2005 confidential letter from Command Headquarters of the Armed Forces of Iran to identify Bahá'ís and to monitor their activities.<91> Due to these actions, the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights stated on March 20, 2006, that she "also expresses concern that the information gained as a result of such monitoring will be used as a basis for the increased persecution of, and discrimination against, members of the Bahá'í faith, in violation of international standards… The Special Rapporteur is concerned that this latest development indicates that the situation with regard to religious minorities in Iran is, in fact, deteriorating."<91> On May 14, 2008, members of an informal body known as the Friends that oversaw the needs of the Bahá'í community in Iran were arrested and taken to Evin prison.<90><92> On 17 February 2009 IRNA news agency reported about this case that "next week, an indictment will be issued and will be discussed in court"<93>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai


And finally just because an action is supported by the right wing does not mean that it isn't also supported by the left and the middle. By the same token a defense of Israel against bogus charges of racism does not acquit it of other charges in its conflict with the Palestinians.

It would have been more interesting if Zunes had written on how the Anti Racism Commission could be restored to its original intent rather than taken over by those whose hands carry the blood of persecution.

Including Henry Waxman!

"The effort was led by such influential members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee as Ron Klein (D-FL), Mike Pence (R-IN), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Eliot Engel (D-NY), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-FL), as well as Henry Waxman (D-CA),"

:rofl:

And when did the right-wing extremists running Israel become liberal civil rights and human rights activists?

I thought they were a bunch of right-wing racist bigots but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm listening!

by Hillary! hehe..

my bad.

Not me. He's clearly listed with an "R". But that list is mostly Dems INCLUDING Waxman.

:shrug:

"And when did the right-wing extremists running Israel become liberal civil rights and human rights activists?"

Whoever claimed they were? Nice idiotic strawman.

If no one bothers to engage you with well thought out points, don't make the mistake of thinking its because we don't have any. Its because we don't waste our time.

you're still fucking clueless. or just shit stirring or what I think you are- bizarrely obsessed to the point of derangement with Israel.

One can oppose Israel's gov't and policies vis a vis the oppression of the Palestinian people without endorsing anti-semitism and hate. Well, most of us can. Not you though.

This was a charade. Not being used as a prop in that charade was a very wise thing if you ask me. The entire idea that this conference was about 'racism' is a farce. Consider this, if you will. After complaints were raised, as the article says they " dropped a call to ban "defamation of religion,". Fine. But the truth lies in asking what any discussion of religion was being put forward at an 'anti-racism' conference to begin with. The notion that criticism of any of the three desert religions should be considered racist is laughable, as all three religions have members that come from all 'races'. There is no Christian race, nor Muslim race. Why are we talking about religion at all at an anti-racisim conference?
That is where I find the problem. The intent of the drafters of the original document was too clear. And it had fuck all to do with race. So. Don't ask me to have a conversation about race and talk to me about religion. That shows a basic lack of 'good faith'. It showed the objectives of the conference were not as stated. Ask me to talk about religion, sure. I'll even talk about Israel and Palestine and anything else. But try to come at me with a bait and switch, saying let's talk about racisim, and throw in religion, and the protection of religion from critical speech, and I would say kiss my ass. And my ass is white. I think if I were an African American President, and they were pulling that crap, I'd say kiss my black ass, and have double reason to do so.
Sorry, but I feel very strongly that he made the right choice, and that Israel has near fuck all to do with that choice. The President was being asked to take a role in a Punch and Judy show under false pretenses. And he refused. Good for President Obama.

As an old time Republican, this will be news for her.

Why should anyone takes anything else on this "story" seriously?

Perhaps this year Israel Was mentioned only in the last page, however in previous years, these conferences were a stage for being anti Israel.

And what about the plights of the people of Chechnya?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x442383

Of Darfur, where the President of the Sudan comes to several Arab-African conferences and is treated with honor?

While we are aware of Darfur, there has been a civil war going in the Sudan for decades, where the Muslim north has been massacring the African South.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/sudan-civil-war1.htm

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 Bush administration in fighting global racism.

bzzzt. well, that's guite the illogical leap. he has 0 evidence that the Obama administration will be a bushco clone on this issue. And staying away from the Orwellian circus dominated by the planet's worst human rights abusers, is not evidenece.

Let's move on, shall we?

Sorry, stevie dear, but most liberal members of Congress did NOT call for the U.S. to attend. lying is a no no. And the author presents no evidence whatsofucking ever that Obama gave in to pressure and didn't act on principle.

Henry Waxman is not a right winger.

The conference members endorsed the Durban statement which absolutely did mention Israel- the only country chosen for condemnation.

The hate and anti-semitism anticipated, materialized. Zunes is no anti-semite, but he's always struck me as a dogmatist of the first water. He doesn't disappoint in this silly piece.

The foremost of which was obvious, but if you pay attention to public comments by Susan Rice and the commitments that came from attending this conference it tells a different story. The second conference(this recent one) was based on affirming the principles decided from the last conference, which included a clause that countries ban criticism of islam. That within itself is a good enough reason to boycott the conference, attending would show tacit support for such a measure.

Not to mention this racism conference for some reason is all about islam, something that only has a minor racial component.

to boycott the conference..."

This is stark-raving spin that won't convince anyone except people with a stake in smearing Obama, Waxman et al by tainting them with the racism brush.

Once again, no cigar for you, BBI.

Another issue is the context you have placed yourself in as a writer. Many here are aware of the agenda you have pursued. Remember, you started off on DU by posting Chinese Communist Party talking points to discredit the plight of the Tibetans during the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, and I was among those who challenged you repeatedly to expose your hidden agenda.

Yikes. I remember that vile crap. Someone really has a hateful and sick little agenda.

"Remember, you started off on DU by posting Chinese Communist Party talking points to discredit the plight of the Tibetans during the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, and I was among those who challenged you repeatedly to expose your hidden agenda."

Beginning in March 2008, a handful of posters popped up all over progressive sites such as DU, HuffPo etc. who seemed to have nothing else to do all day than sway public opinion in favor of the Chinese government which was engaged in an all-out PR campaign to boost its image before the summer Olympics.

BBI and a few notable others on DU were accused of being paid shills for the CCP since their efforts were so obviously laughable and so relentless.

I see at least 4 very thorough and cogent posters here defending their positions.

The OP said they would *read* them, but says nothing about *responding* to them.

The only posts I see the OP *responding* to are the "personal attacks." Why isn't the OP responding to the cogent arguments presented?

(For the record I don't care if OP puts me on ignore or not. I'm not attacking the OP personally, but I AM calling out the methodology.)

And, like Cali wrote, Ros-Lehtinen is most certainly not a Democrat.

The writer should have known this...

This isn't healthy.