What some might now regard as some sort of infamous Conference - the Durban II Conference in Geneva - has just concluded.
A postscript is called for....
Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her concluding Statement [see here] amongst other things says:
"The final document of this conference – the Conference product, if you like – also says the Holocaust must never be forgotten and deplores anti-Semitism along with Islamophobia and all forms of racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance. But already the propaganda machine is starting to wind up to term this conference a failure, a “hate fest and all the rest of it.” This is extraordinary. Yet no one has really written up the true story of this Conference – a strange rough and tumble affair full of smoke and mirrors, I must admit, yet very definitely a success story, with plenty of good will as well as plenty of bad will of the type I have described just now.
I want to say at this point particularly to you that the Geneva press corps has been terrific during the later stages of this process. You have seen through the propaganda, you have read the DDPA and the Review Conference’s outcome document, and you have reported accurately, fairly and professionally. So on behalf of my entire office, I would like to extend you a very warm thank you for that. I believe you have played an exceptionally important role. I know that some of you have had to argue with editors who, like so many others, have succumbed to the mythology.
But because of this campaign that was so determined to kill the conference, some countries decided to boycott it, although a few days earlier, they had actually agreed on what is now the final text. I consider this bizarre. You agree the text on Friday evening, and walk out on Sunday. I think, it was unfortunate that a few states disengaged from the process. Although almost all of them had agreed this text, they are not part of the consensus that adopted it. I do hope they will come back into the process now. They can still add their names to the list of 182 states that have adopted the outcome document. And by the way, Iran is part of that consensus. When the final call came, Iran did not oppose the text."
Meanwhile, this from Realistpeace:
"Virtually everything that emerged from the Durban II conference in Geneva was overwhelmed by the vile words of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Though some intrepid folks, like the amazing Cecilie Surasky of Muzzlewatch, tried to get the word out about everything that was going on at the conference, most of the attention remained on the issue of Israel and ignored everything else being discussed.
But Alan Dershowitz did his best to see to it that Ahmedinejad was not the only demagogue with a spotlight on him.
Dershowitz decided to give a history lesson, purporting to “prove” that the entire Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has always aimed not for Palestinian independence and self-determination but rather at the destruction of the Jews.
That Dershowitz has an audience at all is a sad comment. He has no expertise in Israeli history and politics, in the Middle East (in any discipline), or in any field related to politics. His books (yeah, I held my nose and read them) reflect this lack of knowledge and depth. But because he is well-known for other things and is rude and bombastic, he has an audience."
And over at The Guardian in Comment is Free Seumus Milne in "What credibility is there in Geneva's all-white boycott?"says:
"What do the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy and Israel have in common? They are all either European or European-settler states. And they all decided to boycott this week's UN conference against racism in Geneva – even before Monday's incendiary speech by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which triggered a further white-flight walkout by representatives of another 23 European states.
In international forums, it's almost unprecedented to have such an undiluted racial divide of whites-versus-the-rest. And for that to happen in a global meeting called to combat racial hatred doesn't exactly augur well for future international understanding at a time when the worst economic crisis since the war is ramping up racism and xenophobia across the world."
And finally, Adrian Hamilton in The Independent in "Walking out on Ahmadinejad was just plain childish":
"Isn't it time western diplomats just grew up and stopped these infantile games over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? All that this play-acting over boycotting of conferences because of his presence and walking out because of his words achieves is to flatter his ego, boost his poll ratings at home and play into the hands of an Israel that is desperate to prove Iran the gravest threat to its existence.
True, Iran's President is not the world's most endearing character. Some of the things he says are certainly contentious. But he is far from the most offensive leader on the block at the moment. With Silvio Berlusconi sounding off about women and sex, and Nicolas Sarkozy sounding off about everything from the quality of his fellow leaders to the unsuitability of Muslims to join the civilised nations, and a Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, giving his views on gays, Europe could claim its fair share of premiers who should not be allowed out in public.
Read Ahmadinejad's address at the UN conference on racism in Geneva this week and there is little to surprise and a certain amount to be agreed with. His accusations against the imperial powers for what they did with colonial rule and the business of slavery is pretty much part of the school curriculum now. His anger at the way the economic crisis originated in the West but has hit worst the innocent of the developing world would find a ready echo (and did) among most of the delegates."
A postscript is called for....
Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her concluding Statement [see here] amongst other things says:
"The final document of this conference – the Conference product, if you like – also says the Holocaust must never be forgotten and deplores anti-Semitism along with Islamophobia and all forms of racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance. But already the propaganda machine is starting to wind up to term this conference a failure, a “hate fest and all the rest of it.” This is extraordinary. Yet no one has really written up the true story of this Conference – a strange rough and tumble affair full of smoke and mirrors, I must admit, yet very definitely a success story, with plenty of good will as well as plenty of bad will of the type I have described just now.
I want to say at this point particularly to you that the Geneva press corps has been terrific during the later stages of this process. You have seen through the propaganda, you have read the DDPA and the Review Conference’s outcome document, and you have reported accurately, fairly and professionally. So on behalf of my entire office, I would like to extend you a very warm thank you for that. I believe you have played an exceptionally important role. I know that some of you have had to argue with editors who, like so many others, have succumbed to the mythology.
But because of this campaign that was so determined to kill the conference, some countries decided to boycott it, although a few days earlier, they had actually agreed on what is now the final text. I consider this bizarre. You agree the text on Friday evening, and walk out on Sunday. I think, it was unfortunate that a few states disengaged from the process. Although almost all of them had agreed this text, they are not part of the consensus that adopted it. I do hope they will come back into the process now. They can still add their names to the list of 182 states that have adopted the outcome document. And by the way, Iran is part of that consensus. When the final call came, Iran did not oppose the text."
Meanwhile, this from Realistpeace:
"Virtually everything that emerged from the Durban II conference in Geneva was overwhelmed by the vile words of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Though some intrepid folks, like the amazing Cecilie Surasky of Muzzlewatch, tried to get the word out about everything that was going on at the conference, most of the attention remained on the issue of Israel and ignored everything else being discussed.
But Alan Dershowitz did his best to see to it that Ahmedinejad was not the only demagogue with a spotlight on him.
Dershowitz decided to give a history lesson, purporting to “prove” that the entire Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has always aimed not for Palestinian independence and self-determination but rather at the destruction of the Jews.
That Dershowitz has an audience at all is a sad comment. He has no expertise in Israeli history and politics, in the Middle East (in any discipline), or in any field related to politics. His books (yeah, I held my nose and read them) reflect this lack of knowledge and depth. But because he is well-known for other things and is rude and bombastic, he has an audience."
And over at The Guardian in Comment is Free Seumus Milne in "What credibility is there in Geneva's all-white boycott?"says:
"What do the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy and Israel have in common? They are all either European or European-settler states. And they all decided to boycott this week's UN conference against racism in Geneva – even before Monday's incendiary speech by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which triggered a further white-flight walkout by representatives of another 23 European states.
In international forums, it's almost unprecedented to have such an undiluted racial divide of whites-versus-the-rest. And for that to happen in a global meeting called to combat racial hatred doesn't exactly augur well for future international understanding at a time when the worst economic crisis since the war is ramping up racism and xenophobia across the world."
And finally, Adrian Hamilton in The Independent in "Walking out on Ahmadinejad was just plain childish":
"Isn't it time western diplomats just grew up and stopped these infantile games over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? All that this play-acting over boycotting of conferences because of his presence and walking out because of his words achieves is to flatter his ego, boost his poll ratings at home and play into the hands of an Israel that is desperate to prove Iran the gravest threat to its existence.
True, Iran's President is not the world's most endearing character. Some of the things he says are certainly contentious. But he is far from the most offensive leader on the block at the moment. With Silvio Berlusconi sounding off about women and sex, and Nicolas Sarkozy sounding off about everything from the quality of his fellow leaders to the unsuitability of Muslims to join the civilised nations, and a Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, giving his views on gays, Europe could claim its fair share of premiers who should not be allowed out in public.
Read Ahmadinejad's address at the UN conference on racism in Geneva this week and there is little to surprise and a certain amount to be agreed with. His accusations against the imperial powers for what they did with colonial rule and the business of slavery is pretty much part of the school curriculum now. His anger at the way the economic crisis originated in the West but has hit worst the innocent of the developing world would find a ready echo (and did) among most of the delegates."
Comments