Durban II: Boycotts and Politics Take over Conference against Racism

Related Post: Extract from Ahmadinejad Speech, Delegate Walkout at Durban Conference

The Second United Nations World Conference against Racism opened on Monday. Even before the first session was called to order, it was the politics surrounding the conference, rather than the proceedings, that were generating headlines.

United Nations General Secretary Ban-Ki moon opened the conference with a general statement of objectives:

The document before us is carefully balanced. It addresses key issues. It sets the stage for concrete action in a global campaign for justice for victims of racism worldwide.

However, the Secretary-General immediately shifted to the issue of the boycott declared by the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Israel on the eve of the conference: "I deeply regret that some have chosen to stand aside. I hope they will not do so for long.”

Ban Ki-Moon's message was clearly for Washington. The previous day, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay was even more explicit, "I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States decision not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide."

Amnesty International also expressed its regrets :

The withdrawal of Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland and the refusal of Italy and the USA to join the Conference is very disappointing in light of the long and difficult negotiations and the acceptance of the revised Outcome Document on Friday. True conviction in combating racism requires governments to be there to stand up for what is right and to reject forcefully what is objectionable. While Amnesty International appreciates these countries’ reaffirmation of their commitment to continue to combat racism and other forms of discrimination, their continuing engagement on the side of the victims of racism and related forms of discrimination at the Review Conference would have made that reaffirmation much more convincing.

And thousands of miles away, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum added his criticism: "Those countries were quick to respond to the Zionist and American pressure and extortion against their leaders.”

By this afternoon, all of the political fuss over the boycott had been complemented, possibly superseded by the furour over the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Geneva. As he started to speak, coincidentally on Holocaust Memorial Day, two men in multi-coloured clown wigs tried to reach the podium. One of the men threw a soft red object at Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad began his speech (see the video extract in a separate blog) by accusing Western powers of building a "unilateral and unequal" United Nations after the end of World War II, contributing to a violence of "racist Zionism" which continues to this day:

Following the World War II, they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under pretext of Jewish sufferings and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and from other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in convincation, for the dual consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine. The Security Council helped to stabilize this occupying regime and supported it in the past 60 years, given them the free hand to continue their crimes. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defend those racist perpetrators of genocide, whilst the awakened conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggressions, brutalities and bombardments of civilians in Gaza.

In the middle of the speech, many delegates including those from France and Britain left the hall while others supported Ahmadinejad with their applause.

Israelis arefurious because of the language of the draft resolution before the conference and Ahmadinejad’s speech, and they have also been disappointed with the offer of leaders like Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz to meet his Iranian counterpart. After Israel recalled its ambassador to Switzerland in protest, Merz defended the meeting with the assertion that Switzerland was a neutral country which was not a part of any alliance.

Amidst all this diplomatic posturing, the foundation of the conference has been lost. The latest draft on World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance is still the one being circulated around tables in Geneva. There has been no change yet. There is no language accusing Israel of racism. There is no reference to the recent Gaza War. There is still the attempt at neutrality in the treatment of the State of Israel and the Arab world.

Which raises the question: is any of the politics surrounding this conference connected in any way with a meaningful discussion of the draft text and racism?

Roxana Saberi/Hossein Derakhshan Update: Ahmadinejad Intervenes in Court Cases

UPDATE: Curiously, CNN does not seem to have noticed Ahmadinejad's intervention. Their current story focuses on the statement of Reza Saberi that his daughter is "frail and weak" in Evin prison.
*********************

Enduring America, 18 April: "It could be that judicial forces wanted to show 'independence' from political pressure (ironic given that this is a politicised case) and moved quickly."

Iranian politics just swung in favour of Roxana Saberi.

Less than 24 hours after the announcement of Saberi's 8-year jail sentence on espionage charges, the office of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has published a letter to the judiciary about the cases of Saberi and jailed Iranian-Canadian blogger Hossein Derakhshan (whose case Enduring America highlighted last November):

Based on the president's insistence, please make sure that all the legal stages about the mentioned people be based on justice.......and you personally make sure that the accused people will enjoy all freedoms and legal rights to defend themselves and their rights will not be violated.

Translation: the Iranian prosecutors and courts pushed this case to a quick conclusion. Now, facing the consequences for US-Iranian engagement and also wanting to curb the judiciary's activisms, Iranian leaders are pushing back.

The showdown will come as the case is appealed. Ahmadinejad has clearly indicated that he wants --- quickly --- a reduction of Saberi's sentence. Such a move will meet the measured but clear response of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that they were "deeply disappointed" over yesterday's announcement.

However, the President's wish is not necessarily a command. Will the prosecutors and judges try to hold their line and enforce the full 8-year jail term?

Analysis: Iran Jails Journalist Saberi for 8 Years on Espionage Charges

Latest Post: Roxana Saberi Update - Positive Signs Despite a Hopeless TV Interview
Related Post: The Dangers of the Roxana Saberi Espionage Trial

Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi has been convicted on charges of espionage and jailed for eight years by an Iranian Revolutionary Court.

Ms Saberi's lawyer Abdolsamad Khorramshahi and her father confirmed that the sentence would be appealed. The sentence was confirmed inside Iran by the Iranian Students News Agency, and there is a short item on the English-language website of Press TV.

The quick sentencing surprises me, as a judiciary spokesman indicated on Tuesday that it would be two to three weeks before the verdict was announced. It could be that judicial forces wanted to show "independence" from political pressure (ironic given that this is a politicised case) and moved quickly.

Alternatively, Iranian political elements --- reacting to perceived US pressure or raising the stakes, both in internal Iranian political manoeuvring and in US-Iranian relations --- pushed for a lengthy jail sentence.

No evidence was presented publicly to support Saberi's conviction. Thus it remains unclear why her initial crime --- the purchase of a bottle of wine --- escalted into charges of reporting without a license (especially as she had been filing stories over the last two years without that license) and then spying.

The reaction of the US Government should be watched very carefully. My suspicion is that American officials have been trying behind the scenes to strike a deal for Saberi's release (probably after conviction and deportation).

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response reinforces that suspicion, as she maintained the measured tone that she was "deeply disappointed". Her statement was limited to the case rather than the wider significance for US-Iranian relations: "We are working closely with the Swiss Protecting Presence to obtain details about the court's decision, and to ensure her well-being....[We will] continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government."

So far, Washington has not publicly linked the Saberi case to its "engagement" with Tehran, apart from the letter handed to the Iranians at the end of March. Does the Obama Administration continue with this strategy or does it threaten a suspension of engagement because of today's news?

Israel-Palestine: What Has Happened to George Mitchell's Talks?

Funny thing about US envoy George Mitchell's latest visit to the Middle East: most of the US and British press didn't take much notice.

Mitchell was in talks yesterday with Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. The New York Times decided this was worth one paragraph with the lead sentence:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday skirted calls by George J. Mitchell, President Obama’s envoy to the Middle East, for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demanding prior Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state instead.

The Washington Post relied on an Associated Press summary, "Stark differences between U.S. and Israeli policy toward peace talks with the Palestinians emerged clearly Thursday."

Even those brief mentions, however, raise the question: has Netanyahu effectively blocked Washington's pursuit of substantial Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper, offers a possible answer:

The Obama administration is preparing a Middle East peace process that will include simultaneous bilateral talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and Syria. The plan is based on the Arab peace initiative that offers establishing normal relations between Israel and Arab League states in exchange for withdrawing from the occupied territories and establishing a Palestinian state.

The United States will put together a "security package," including demilitarization of the territories from which Israel will withdraw and the option of stationing a multinational force in them for years.

Frustratingly, Ha'aretz gives no clue to its source, so it is unclear if the information has been leaked by Washington. Even more curiously, the spin on the plan is that "the Obama administration believes that a breakthrough in the peace process between Israel and the Arab states would restrain Tehran's influence and contribute to the diplomatic effort to block Iran's nuclearization". This could be an attempt by an Israeli official to sell the US approach to a domestic audience, or it could be an American attempt to overcome Tel Aviv's opposition by setting out the "Iran-first" framework.

All this speculation and spin, however, may be no more than academic, given the current Israeli position. Palestinian Authority leaders, meeting Mitchell in the West Bank today, made clear, "The U.S. must hold Israel to previous peace commitments and pressure it to accept the principle of Palestinian statehood."

Iran: The Dangers of the Roxana Saberi Espionage Trial

Latest Post: Roxana Saberi Update - Positive Signs Despite a Hopeless TV Interview
Related Post: Iran Jails Journalist Saberi for 8 Years on Espionage Charges

It is a rare day when I agree with an opinion in the Wall Street Journal, but that morning has come.

Commenting on the espionage trial of Iranian-American Roxana Saberi, which began in secret on Monday, Gerald Seib commented, "This is a significant event that likely serves multiple, unpleasant purposes for an Iranian government with which the Obama administration is about to begin talking."

Let's be clear. The immediate multiple, unpleasant effects are being felt by Roxana Saberi, as she remains in Evin Prison in Tehran. Any failure of judgement --- she was initially charged with buying a bottle of wine and then for reporting without a license --- does not constitute espionage, especially when that guilt is to be determined without legal representation or any public presentation of evidence.

Possibly some of my friends and colleagues in Tehran would argue that the judiciary, as an independent branch, makes its own determinations on cases to be tried and that politicians should not interfere in that process. But, again to be clear, every indication is that the decision to ratchet up the charges against Saberi from possession of alcohol to spying was political, not legal, in nature. As Seib writes, "A journalist can be an easy target for signal-sending."

I'm not so sure about Seib's speculation for Saberi's prosecution, "It's the kind of move that chills internal dissent." This feels more like one agency or faction trying to score points against others within Iran's complex political system.

The broader point remains, however, that this trial is a powerful check-and-balance against Iranian engagement with the US. Two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton passed a letter to Iranian representatives at The Hague conference raising the cases of Saberi and another detainee, as well as an American who has been missing for years after a trip to Iran. The decision to proceed with the trial, as well as a judiciary spokesman's criticism of American interference, is a blunt response that Iran does not bow to US wishes on its internal matters.

Some Iranian officials and politicians may have recognised the damage this case could cause to US-Iranian discussions. However, it has now proceeded so far that Iran cannot release Saberi and "save face".

My hope is that the Saberi case will follow the pattern of that of Haleh Esfandiari, the Iranian-American academic jailed in 2007 on charges of spying. After four months, and an intensive campaign on her behalf by colleagues such as the former Senator Lee Hamilton, Esfandiari was released.

However, it is important to note that Esfandiari was "better connected" than Saberi and that she never went to trial. And the US Government has been very reluctant to step in publicly for Saberi; it was only yesterday that a State Department spokesman broached concern.

Thus for Saberi's sake and --- not more importantly but more broadly --- for the sake of US-Iran engagement, some politicians and officials in Iran need to move with a face-saving solution such as conviction and immediate deportation.

It is essential that US-Iran discussions, leading to a more productive relationship diplomatic, economic, and cultural relationship, continue. It is just as essential that, in the name of those discussions, Roxana Saberi is not seen as expendable.