The US refusal to participate in the Durban II conference against racism dashes the hopes of those who voted for and welcomed the first black US president, writes Ramzy Baroud Many countries are set to participate in the Conference Against Racism, slated for Geneva 20-25 April. But the highly touted international meeting is already marred with disagreement after Israel, the United States and other countries decided not to participate. 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 provoking stance is not new, but a repetition of another fiasco that took place in Durban, South Africa in 2001. Israeli and US representatives stormed out in protest at the supposedly "anti-Israeli" and the "anti-Semitic" sentiments that allegedly pervaded the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR). The decision was an ominous sign, for the Bush administration was yet to be tested on foreign policy as the conference concluded 8 September, three days before the 9/11 attacks. The US justified its denunciation of the international forum then on the very same unsubstantiated grounds cited by Israel -- that the forum was transformed to a stage for anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic rhetoric. But was the WCAR indeed a stage for racism and bigotry, as Israel's friends charged? On the contrary, what took place at the conference was democracy in its best manifestations, where no country could defy the international consensus by veto power, or could flex its economic muscles to bend the will of the international community to its ends. The result was disturbing from the viewpoint of those who refuse to treat all United Nations member states with equality and impartiality. An African demand for a separate apology from every country that benefited from slavery, to every African nation that suffered from slavery, was considered excessive and eventually discounted. But the main "controversial" issue that led to the US representative's departure from the conference was the criticism levelled by many countries against Israel's racist practices against the Palestinians. A majority of countries called for reinstituting UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 that in 1975 equated Zionism with racism. The conference, then, was not meant only to address the issue of Palestine and Israel. However, strong American resistance to any criticism of the racially motivated practices of the Israeli state -- the extreme violence, the land theft, the apartheid wall, the settlements, the protracted military occupation, etc -- pushed the issue to centre stage. The Palestinian struggle is not meant to overshadow the struggles of oppressed nations around the world, but rather compliments 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 practised openly by the Israeli state, continue unabated -- and 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 many years. There are hardly many international forums that are held and governed by principals of equality and fairness amongst nations. The WCAR is one of very few, indeed. It was not a surprise, therefore, to witness the international solidarity expressed with the Palestinians and worldwide repulsion at the racist and apartheid policies carried out daily by Israel. But the mere censure of Israel's unfair, undemocratic and racist policies, let alone taking any action to bring them to a halt, is mechanically considered anti-Semitic from an Israeli standpoint and US administrations. The US conditioned its participation in the April conference in Geneva (Durban II) on removing any specific censure of Israel and ensuring that Israel is not "singled out" for criticism. Although US sensibilities constantly expect, and demand, the singling out of any country, leader or group it deems criminal or terrorist, Israel is treated on 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 finalised before the conference. The original "bad document" apparently dubs Israel "an occupying state that carries out racist policies", a description that is consistent with international law, UN resolutions and the views of leading world human rights defenders, including 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 become "worse" with new references to the Gaza bloodbath, which killed and wounded nearly 7,000 Palestinians in 22 days. From an American -- and unfortunately, Canadian and Italian, so far -- viewpoint, such inhumane practices don't warrant a pause or words of condemnation. The same, of course, doesn't apply to Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, Cuba and other "unfriendly" nations. The US decision must be particularly disheartening to African nations who saw in the ascent of Barack Obama to the US presidency some vindication. The first US black president, however, saw it fit to boycott a conference intended to discuss the issue of slavery and repatriation, to once again prove 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 Hizbullah for posing threats to Israel and praised the Jewish state and its "moderate" allies. She remarked in a joint statement with Israeli President Shimon Peres on 3 March: "It is important that the United States always underscore our unshakeable, 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, and political and human rights. Does the world have the right to ask why? * The writer is editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
