Saturday 11 April 2009
by: David Gespass, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Across the United States today, human and civil rights activists protest the US boycott of the Durban Review Conference Against Racism. (Photo: Amadi Ajamu and Roger Wareham / Independent Media Center)
For those of us who were in Durban, South Africa, in 2001 for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, the decision of the United States to leave before the conclusion was disheartening, but not surprising. The Clinton administration had given little support to the conference and the Bush administration appeared downright hostile to its goals. There were two issues in particular the US did not want on the agenda. One was that of reparations for the slave trade and the other was the plight of the Palestinian people. While the US withdrawal was predicated on the latter, it remains an open question how much of a role each played in its decision.
Nearly eight years have gone by, a new US administration has promised change and greater engagement with the international community. One would think, therefore, that administration would seize the opportunity to participate in the Durban Review Conference next month in Geneva as the perfect opportunity to distinguish itself from the past. Sad to say, that is not the case. This time, the US is not going to leave in the middle of the conference. It will be absent from the start, having decided that "current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable." The administration criticizes the original Durban Declaration and Program of Action and claims that the draft for the upcoming conference compounds its flaws. It specifically expresses concern that no one country (meaning Israel) should be singled out for criticism and that the document should go no further on reparations than did the Durban declaration. The Durban declaration called for Palestinian self-determination, for a lasting and just peace in the region and recognized the slave trade as criminal, calling for appropriate measures to reverse its consequences.
Since the US has done little to address the issues of concern on either front since Durban, one would expect the Bush administration to oppose any document calling for more. But this is a new administration that has promised change and more internationalism. In the wake of the world's excitement over the first African-American president in our history, it had an opportunity to truly distinguish itself from the past. It chose, instead, to embrace it.
Most recently, the things the US criticized were deleted from the draft document. Incredibly, the US is still refusing to participate in the review, though it now has no justification at all for its stance. And it has never addressed the fact that both the original Durban Declaration and the document being negotiated for the Review Conference require consensus for adoption. That is, unless every participating country agrees, not just to every word but to every punctuation mark, the document cannot be adopted. Therefore, the best way to ensure a document acceptable to the US is for it to participate in the review process. Indeed, its failure to do so guarantees it will find the resulting document unacceptable.
The US began its announcement that it would not participate in the Durban Review Conference by saying: "This Administration is committed to diplomacy and to active and effective engagement with international institutions, which can play a vital role in addressing the challenges we face. The United States looks forward to engaging with our partners around the world to build a more peaceful and secure world." Apparently, the administration really intends to engage only its "partners" and those with whom it disagrees are not part of the equation, a position that insures the world will not become more peaceful and secure, but more divided and contentious.
The rich kid on the block used to take his ball and go home if he didn't get picked to play, but the US goes further than that. Since everyone not only plays, but has veto power in the UN, the US is staying home because it is not being allowed to dictate the final score before the game is played. The promise of change and the promise to engage rings hollow when the condition to engage is for the world to accede to your demands before the conference even begins. It rings hollower still when you decide that acceding to your demands is not enough.
David Gespass is the president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild and co-chair of its International Committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment