I’ve gotten some great feedback from my question to y’all about the US boycott of the UN sponsored conference on racism. I’m still welcoming more opinions, but I’m going to go ahead and get started in crafting my own. First, I think we all need a little background information.
The Failed 2001 Conference
This conference was designed to be one about actions and not just words, or so said the High Commissioner for Human Rights. According to the rules, the build up to the conference begins with preparations committees that focus on setting the agenda, procedural rules, and regional meetings that focus on corresponding issues of concern. As it would turn out, even just these preperatory meetings became ripe with controversy. Just look at the official provisional agenda and imagine all the debate that would take place:
The elements of the provisional agenda are to be grouped under the following themes:
Theme 1: Sources, cause, forms and contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance;
Theme 2: Victims of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance;
Theme 3: Measures of prevention, education and protection aimed at the eradication of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance at the national, regional and international levels;
Theme 4: Provision for effective remedies, recourses, redress, [compensatory] and other measures at the national, regional and international levels;
Theme 5: Strategies to achieve full and effective equality, including international cooperation and enhancement of the United Nations and other international mechanisms in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia.
The bracket in theme 4 indicates that a consensus could not be reached on the word “compensatory”.
The issue of compensation for crimes against humanity was so heated it threatened to derail the entire conference. This would include reparations for slavery and colonialism, among other great tragedies. The reason the word “compensatory” is in brackets above is because the US suggested it should be. The issue pitted the US and European states against the African states, who were supported by the Asian, Latin American, and Carribean groups. (Chakmai)
But even within the African states group, there was some hesitation to add language about reparations. The Senegalese president is quoted as saying, “We still suffer the effects of slavery and colonialism, and that cannot be evaluated in monetary terms. I find that not only absurd but insulting.” The South African government and others focused their attention on gaining Western aid for the Millenium Africa Recovery Programme. (Chakmai)
But the controversy was not limited to Africa. Arab and Islamic countries began pushing to have a condemnation of Israel in the final draft, which included linking Zionism to racism, and that did not sit well with a number of Western countries as well as Israel. The US quickly withdrew the diplomatic team that had been sent, even though they had no public participation.
Israel was branded as a “racist apartheid state” while the text called for an end to the “systematic perpetration of racist crimes, including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” Immediately, such claims were met with counter-accusations of anti-Semitism.
Durban, The Sequel
The second go at a conference on racism comes this month, but things were already starting to look bleak as it appeared Western states were gearing up to boycott again. Language from the original Durban text was not being amended to everyone’s satisfaction.
“If we have a clean start, a fresh start, we are happy to go,” [Obama] said, explaining the U.S. position. “If you’re incorporating a previous conference that we weren’t involved with (and) that raised a whole set of objectionable provisions, then we couldn’t participate.” (“Western boycott threatens U.N. racism forum”)
“We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that’s not something we can sign up for,” Obama said. “Our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn’t believe in.” (“US boycotting, Iran starring, at UN racism meeting”)
Even more unsettling was the invitation to speak extended to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is practically today’s Middle Eastern anti-Semitism poster boy.
Really? You Don’t Know Why?
Now comes the part where I start opinionizing. In researching the topic, I came across a quote from the UN human rights chief Nav Pillay that is either taken out of context or evidence that Pillay is totally clueless.
“I fail to see why, given that the Middle East is not mentioned in this document, that politics related to the Middle East continue to intrude into the process.”
Its a forum on racism designed to air grievances against real and perceived oppressors for the world to hear. It should come as no surprise that different groups are going to use that forum to further their own warped agendas, whether they be Arabs, Jews, blacks, or whites. Its going to happen. Any conference that is supposed to address the issue of racism has to be prepared for participants to say racist and outlandish things. Furthermore, those racist and outlandish things need to be said in order for them to be properly addressed. Any good dialogue has to have participants that are honest with themselves and each other yet committed to coming out of the dialogue a changed person. Maybe the US pulling out isn’t such a great idea, but I think the failure of the second conference lies is a burden that the UN Commission on Human Rights needs to bear.
The important thing isn’t to focus on the content of these controversial statements about Israel but why they are made in the first place. Zionism, given all its diverse expressions, is not a racist ideology. Racism does exist within the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I think it is a symptom of a much larger problem. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a conflict rooted in racism, its rooted in politics and nationalisms. There are obvious benefits for those who accuse their (real or perceived) oppressors of racism. When the world recognizes that a particular group is a victim of racism, there is a sense of legitimacy and perhaps even a sense of restoring dignity to their struggle.
I think its very interesting that the Arab and Islamic states chose to single out Israel in this way, because it proves an argument made by my favorite Israeli author:
“In reality, two children of the same abusive father will not necessarily make common cause… Often each sees in the other not a partner in misfortune but in fact the image of their common oppressor… The Europe that abused, humiliated, and oppressed the Arabs by means of imperialism, colonialism, exploitation and repression is the same Europe that oppressed and persecuted the Jews… But when the Arabs look at us, they see not a bunch of half-hysterical survivors but a new offshoot of Europe, with its colonialism, technical superiority, and exploitation, that has cleverly returned to the Middle East—in Zionist guide this time—to exploit, evict, and oppress all over again. And when we look at them, we do not see fellow victims either; we see not brothers in adversity but pogroms-making Cossacks, bloodthirsty anti-Semites, Nazis in disguise, as though our European persecutors have reappeared here in the land of Israel, put keffiyehs on their heads, and grown mustaches, but they are still our old murderers, interested only in slitting Jew’s throats for fun.” (“The Spirit Level”)
To date, no one has excelled at racism more than the Europeans. And just as Oz describes, both sides of the conflict are arguing over who has inherited that legacy the most.
Works Cited
Suhas Chakmai (2003). “The Issue of Compensation for Colonialism and Slavery at the World Conference Against Racism”. in George Ulrich and Louise Krabbe Boserup. Human Rights in Development Yearbook 2001: Reparations: Redressing Past Wrongs. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 58–71.
Bradley S. Klapper, US boycotting, Iran starring, at UN racism meeting, Associated Press
Laura MacInnis, Western boycott threatens U.N. racism forum, Reuters
Remnick, David. “Profiles: The Spirit Level”. The New Yorker (November 8, 2004)
Filed under: Arab-Israeli Conflict, Dialogue, Human Rights, United Nations | Tagged: amos oz, barack obama, durban, israel, mahmoud ahmadinejad, palestine, racism, zionism
Surrealist, transitioning environmentalist, faux-liberal, wanna be artsy indie hipster, occasional self-hating Neo-Luddite, post-Orientalism constructivist, pro-theist agnostic(ish) Christian and Miami native gone rogue in DC.
Libya, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Russia? That’s who they elect to chair or vice chair this thing? My spidey sense tells me this is not a serious effort to end racism or any other kind of oppression (as if a bunch of beauracrats spending other people’s money on food and hotels has any chance of doing that regardless of which country they’re from). When you throw a couple hundred representives from the world together, most of whom represent autocrats and thugs, the fact that they’re voting on things doesn’t make the process less odious. It certainly doesn’t give it any sort of moral force.
It’s a farce that provides a platform for some good ol’ America bashing, with a healthy dose of Israel bashing and some general West bashing, just for good measure. The idea that Europeans have the market cornerd on racism is a little absurd. Half these countries or their predecessors were practicing slavery and racism before Europe even existed and it’s not exactly better today. I seriously doubt slavery would have ended (to the extent that it has ended) so soon had it not been for Europeans.
My point about Europeans and racism isn’t to suggest that Europeans are the only racists in the world. They’ve just been the most successful at it. Racism/xenophobia is of course still going strong in the above mentioned countries, but to date, nobody has profited from it as much as Europe.
By what measure? I’d like to see some data on that that people from both sides of the issue agree is accurate and relevant. I suspect their were some countries in the past that were made even more wealthy by the standards of their day. Ancient Egypt and the Ottoman Empire come to mind.
I suspect we’d disagree on how much of Europe’s success and wealth came from slavery and racism and how much came from other things like invention and the rule of law and more modern forms of government and the like.
There’s no quantitative study that you’re talking about, but I think the evidence is pretty plain for all to see. European racism was not limited to just slavery, it includes colonialism as well. Many different empires were involved in international slave trades back in the day, but no one continent or group of people had been specifically harvested for slaves. Europeans succeeded in mining slaves from Africa, messing up the social and hierarchical structure for centuries and in the case of the New World, nearly decimated the indigenous populations.
Europe’s success did come from invention but also from the procurement of raw materials. Tobacco, cotton, sugar, etc etc European economies boomed because of their exploitation of all these resources which came from their colonies in the East, Africa, and the New World.
Take a look at any region in the world (that is not Europe) and ask yourself how the borders of each country were drawn. Ask yourself why some of those nations exist. Ask yourself how European languages spread so far across the world and became dominant languages. Its not because everyone looked at Europe and said “Omg you are so cool, we want to be just like you”.
European philosophies of freedom, democracy, liberty only ever applied to white Christian Europeans and no one else. France after the revolution let Jews be citizens for the first time ever in European history, but that was quickly revoked. Those that the French colonized would only ever gain rights and citizenship if they renounced their native identities and became Christian and decidedly French.
I could go on forever. But the point is, Europeans didn’t invent racism they just reaped the benefits of it more than anyone had previously ever done.
Ah, the great evil of colonialism, which is racist on its face without question, as if, had there been numerous white tribes of “backwards” natives, their resources would have been passed over. This is as opposed to the previous method of resource acquisition which was to kill everyone (maybe enslave the women and children) and take what you want.
Why is it that only the Europeans of the past get judged by todays standards and no one else? Back in that day, if someone was going to come take your resources, anybody in their right mind would be greatful it was England over, say, a neighboring enemy or one of the other non-European powers of the day.
And, those institutions largely came to an end because of or were/are opposed by those self-same Europeans (depending on how much progress you think we’ve made). But instead of getting credit for ending and opposing these practices, they get excoriated, apparently for not emerging from the womb of civilization with fully developed and modern ideas and practices. And nary a word about the gozillions that Europeans have invested in trying to help those regions (discussions of whether such efforts actually help or not aside). No, more self-flagellation and and scorn and demands for more handouts are the order of the day.
Well, I don’t buy it. Especially not from the most vocal voices in those crowds at Durban who would most certainly roll back human rights if they had their druthers.
As far as borders go, take a look at how things were before the Europeans got their hands on the world and ask yourself how they came to be. I guarantee you resource allocation and various borders weren’t settled with rousing games of canasta. Maybe we should track down those guys’ decendants and make them cough up an apology and some reparations.
Well there is all kinds of wrong in that aforementioned statement so I’m going to have to create a new post about it.