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By this afternoon, all of the political fuss over the boycott had been complemented, possibly superseded by the furour over the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Geneva.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?

Venezuela Update: Ohmigod, Obama Shook Chavez's Hand! He Took His Book!

UPDATE: A senior Obama administration official told CNN late Saturday that Chavez had asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to consider the return of US and Venezuelan ambassadors to their posts in Caracas and Washington. The official endorsed the initiative, "This is a positive development that will help advance U.S. interests. And, the State Department will now work to further this shared goal."

Have just emerged from academic conference limbo to see this video of President Barack Obama accepting both a handshake and a book from Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas.

No doubt, we will now have lots of media frothing about Obama's appeasement of Latin America dictators through displays of courtesy, rather than, say, slapping Chavez across the face with a white glove and ripping the book to shreds. Already Newt Gingrich, who apparently was once a Republican Congressman, has made the magic link between smiling at Chavez, bowing to Saudi King Abdullah, and giving a loving kiss to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv1NjuMwzQ8[/youtube]

Behind this flapping, there is one of the major foreign policy stories of this Administration. In sharp contrast to the macho posture taken by George W. Bush and his advisors --- which failed to overthrow Chavez and alienated many in Latin America as new governments emerged from Bolivia to Ecuador --- Obama's White House has decided to exert influence through discussion and partnership. Even before this handshake, a new Washington had accepted referenda in Bolivia and Venezuela that bolstered the Morales and Chavez Governments.

And, of course, there are the gradual steps being taken by Obama to ease the US isolation of Cuba, as well as his Friday declaration that “the United States seeks a new beginning” with Havana. Indeed, this may be Chavez's inadvertent contribution to American "engagement": by grabbing the media hot lights with his book presentation, he has taken criticism away from Washington's tip-toeing but still significant approach to a relationship with the former #1 Latin American Bad Guys.

Shirvin Zeinalzadeh: The Possibilities of US-Iran Talks

On Friday, Scott Lucas wrote of "Iran's Pride" in the speech of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the country's nuclear program. No surprise to the trained eye here: rallying around the flag is of great importance to any Iranian politician involved in forthcoming elections, and vagueness of Ahmadinejad's announcement was designed to create a media circus around the incumbent President.

Beyond the electoral short-term, the Iranian nuclear program should be compared to a ’slow boat to self-independence’. It is a long and expensive journey, but it will get there in the end.

Yet, beyond that obvious statement, there is a key element forgotten by the international community and sceptics of the Iranian program, one to consider alongside the statement issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ‘It would benefit the Iranians, in our view, if they cooperated with the international community.' The view and constant rhetoric of the Iranian government is that Iran IS abiding by such rules, rules set by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran became a signatory in 1969.

The key with diplomacy at this level is communication. Iran and the US have failed to seize upon clear opportunities to talk face-to-face on this issue. After 30 years of mistrust since the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iranians may ask why their scepticism of Washington should change. Each time Iran has tried to reconcile with the West, for example in negotiations with the European Union 3 of Britain, France, and Germany, the US that has undermined any progress, for example, rejecting the admission of Iran to the World Trade Organization.

Tables have now started to turn, however, with ‘corridor diplomacy’ taking place on issues concerning Iran's border states of Iraq and Afghanistan. The common ground for Tehran and Washington is that Iran can assist with the rebuilding of Iraq, bringing regional security, support the American eradication of the Taliban.

In time, diplomatic corridors become negotiating rooms where bilateral talks can begin. However, this requires time and patience. Instead of looking at this like a business negotiation, where no deal is considered a success until both parties have signed the dotted line, one should consider in diplomacy that the mere fact of US-Iran talks is a victory.

The truth about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons is that if Tehran obtained and used them, it would be the end of the country. If it obtained the weapons and did not use them, it will open the door to either 1) a strike by other countries to cripple Iran's military capability or 2) a ‘horizontal proliferation’ in which all states in the region become nuclear powers, causing a very uncomfortable global security dilemma.

This summer should reveal these truths and the possibilities in US-Iran discussions. Change has occurred in the US with the Obama willingness to extend the hand of diplomacy; now the question is whether Iran will accept it. If President Ahmadinejad remains in office after the elections, that acceptance might not come, in which case the issue will be how long US patience will last. If Ahmadinejad fails, however, it will be a question of how much time it takes for the Iranians to start direct talks.

Iran's Pride: Ahmadinejad Speech on Nuclear Programme

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

A day after the Obama Administration announced that its officials would join Iran and other countries in direct talks, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke on National Nuclear Technology Day. Would this stop the American approach before it really started?

No.



Ahmadinejad, speaking from the historic city of Isfahan, highlighted the progress at the Bushehr plant with "the packaging of fuel and making the fuel ready to be put inside the reactor". The second achievement was the testing of two new types of centrifuges with a capacity "several times greater" than Iran's existing equipment.

The statement didn't announce, as some expected, that Bushehr was already operational. Ahmadinejad's reference on new centrifuges was too vague to prompt any shift in current intellligence estimates. Most importantly, there was nothing in the speech to indicate a move in Iran's programme toward military, rather than civilian, uses of nuclear energy.

So US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the new American position was unaltered, ""We do not attribute any particular meaning with respect to the range of issues that we are looking to address with the Iranians from this particular statement." Translation? Those issues, from Afghanistan to Iraq to other Middle Eastern discussions, are too important to be set aside for confrontation over Iran's nuclear plans. Instead, Clinton continued:

It would benefit the Iranians, in our view, if they cooperated with the international community, if they abided by a set of obligations and expectations that effect them and by which we believe they are bound -- and we are going continue to insist on that.

So the US-Iran engagement, while not exactly love and bliss, continues.