This guest post by Felice Gaer, executive director of the American Jewish Committee’s Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was published by JTA. Gaer was a member of the official U.S. delegation at the Durban review negotiations in Geneva in February.
In all the deliberations over the U.N.-sponsored Durban Review Conference on Racism, the one abiding concern has been that the infamous first conference in Durban, South Africa, in August 2001, which degenerated into a cacophony of Israel baiting and outright antisemitism, will be repeated next month in Geneva.
Indeed, expectations for the Review Conference have been so low that both Canada and Israel pulled out early. In late February, the United States announced that it was disengaging, rapidly followed by Italy. Other major European Union states have indicated they might follow.
Yet in the flurry of Durban diplomacy in recent days, one important detail has been overlooked. Even as the United States extracted itself from the review process, it left the door slightly ajar, indicating it would accept a miracle, if an acceptable draft declaration appeared and met its conditions.
Specifically, the draft had to be shorter. It had to avoid singling out a particular country or conflict, as the draft being circulated was peppered with vilifying references toward Israel. It had to ditch the concept of “defamation of religions,” a smokescreen for the stifling of critical speech. Also, it could not reaffirm the 2001 Durban Declaration, which alluded to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a racial, not a political, one.
Lo and behold, the United Nations has produced a new draft seeming to meet those conditions. In actuality, however, there is still quite a way to go.
A revised, shorter draft, shepherded by the Russian chief negotiator, has dropped the attacks on Israel, including the grotesque “apartheid state” caricature. In fact, this new text contains no reference at all to the Middle East, Israel or Palestine. That is a major change for a United Nations that routinely and one-sidedly denounces Israel in resolutions and meetings devoted to almost any topic. Its abandonment flies in the face of those Islamic states, along with Cuba, that have tried to use the Durban Conference document to revive the equation of Zionism with “racism” first expressed in a 1975 U.N. resolution that was rescinded in 1991.
Gone, too, are the specific references to the “defamation of religions.” In effect, this would have amounted to a global blasphemy law to mollify those who rioted after cartoons about the prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish press in 2005. This “defamation” concept would empower religions (and those purporting to speak in their name) with the right to censor free speech, stripping a key democratic right of its purpose to protect the individual from abuse by the state.
All that is significant progress, and credit for it goes to the United States.
After President Obama’s inauguration, a 3-week-old administration dispatched myself and four others to evaluate the Review Conference preparations in Geneva. We conveyed the message that the conference must be redirected to its core purpose of addressing racial discrimination responsibly and constructively. In face-to-face conversations with 30 key ambassadors, we made our position crystal clear. In particular, we stressed that the culture at the United Nations, which regards Israel’s pariah status as somehow normal, has to be eliminated.
After our delegation’s return home, the United States announced that it would not negotiate or participate in a Review Conference based on the earlier draft document. It set out red lines for participation, some of which are now met by this document — but not fully. The United States explained that the Review Conference must not reaffirm the 2001 Durban Declaration “as it was adopted” because of, among other reasons, its singular, obsessive focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Unfortunately, the new draft cites the 2001 declaration more than 30 times in 17 pages.)
Moreover, while the term “defamation of religions” has disappeared, there is a sinister emphasis on “incitement” prohibitions as set forth in U.N. treaties that could have devastating consequences for freedom of expression. In several places, the document outlines how it will demand that states prohibit speech, communications, media and advocacy organizations that may contribute to “incitement” — seemingly used here as little more than a code word for the “defamation of religion.”
The countdown to the Durban Review Conference has begun. While there is much to be done to counter bigots the world over, one thing is clear: Nations have finally begun to get the message that this conference was supposed to be a clarion call against the scourge of racism and it is not a place for settling political scores or a vehicle for any form of racism, including antisemitism. Above all, the Durban Review Conference must prevent incitement to hatred in the guise of criticism of one government.
Straight talk? Given the opaque, presumptive and arrogating quality of the brouhaha, how is one to know?
Not pretty and a bit sad. My trust in AJC has deteriorated markedly.
What’s opaque about this? (And what’s arrogating, anyway?) The new Durban draft is an improvement, but not good enough. Seems like some people just can’t handle the fact that AJC was in a position to work with the Obama Administration, while others sit on the outside looking in, stomp their feet, and call him a Muslim.
J Cohen,
Instead of patronizingly and dismissively presuming about what “some people just can’t handle” - people who are only interested in stomping their feet and calling Obama “a Muslim” (thanks for the guffaws though), a more genuine effort to engage might be attempted, at least initially. (And are you asking for the definition of “arrogating,” or are you asking what it is that is being arrogated? Given the sneers about name calling, stomping one’s feet and what one is incapable of handling, you might at least evidence a grammatic ability to formulate a question.)
As to my previous comment and description, I am referring to the discussions and contretemps that have developed around Durban II in general, but am also referring more specifically to the linked article. I’m fully prepared to defend that description on both scales, but 1) I doubt the willingness to more seriously engage in the first place, 2) I additionally doubt my comment will be published here (an original attempt in a nearby and related thread was not), and likewise, 3) have every reason to suspect any more serious and responsible attempt to engage will be met with mere dismissiveness, even if it is published.
As such and for brevity I’ll advance a single supportive note only, presently, and will focus that note on the linked piece. Two caveats however. Firstly as pertains to Ms. Gaer’s piece, there are several things to be recommended in her commentary and obviously enough (I would hope, despite my stomping and other neanderthalish inclinations) I do not remotely seek to impugn Ms. Gaer’s personal integrity in the least. Secondly, without bringing into view the surrounding discussions and brouhaha (relevant to Durban II, I’m familiar with Bayefsky and Phillips as well as JPost articles and discussions, in addition to JTA pieces, I have not read Glick), the general discussion will necessarily be truncated, will be incomplete. I’m tempted to indulge other caveats still - the set of discussions requires some appreciable nuance - but will leave it at that presently.
Nonetheless and with those caveats now pointedly emphasized, I’ll briefly and generally note that with very sparse evidence and inadequate cogency and transparency indeed, Gaer ascribes solely to the administration and AJC what is not at all obviously the case. This seeming “insider” take on the matter is not at all as apparent as Gaer’s piece would suggest, not remotely so.
I’d likewise note Gaer’s piece lacks a certain “descriptive force” at notable junctures, given, for example, what actually manifested itself at Durban I. But that invokes a wider discussion and set of notes itself, so will high-light that fact at a general level only. Finally, my interest is not to merely bicker or quibble as I believe some extremely important issues are at stake, and not merely the more obvious ones. Finally again, when I indicate my confidence in AJC has “markedly” declined, I do not intend to connote something absolute, irreversible or even exaggerated. My trust in AJC remains relatively high, though I have been disappointed in aspects of the wider set of discussions. My trust remains relatively high in substantial part due to an appreciation for some of the more difficult and sensitive aspects of all that surrounds Durban II, from realpolitik and power dynamics at the U.N. and elsewhere, to sensitivities that I’m simply not privy to, such as those at inter-personal or inter-diplomatic levels. Even foot-stomping, name-calling neanderthals can be sensitive to such matters, at least on occasion. That’s my “brief” response, shorn of notes relevant to the background discussions, i.e. the give-and-take between David Harris, the AJC in general and the three commentators in question.
Michael B - despite your promise of brevity, this is one of the longest comments we’ve ever published. And I, for one, really have no idea what it is you’re actually saying.
You are welcome to clarify - but please do so in a couple of sentences, not an essay. I’ve said many times to others that the Z Word comments are not a surrogate blog.
Oh yes - “I additionally doubt my comment will be published here” - sorry to disappoint you.
Ben Cohen,
1) The more focused point made - in the penultimate graf - is apparent enough, I don’t see the transparency, I don’t see that a cogent argument is made (in the linked article at JTA). It reflects a certain type of intramural appeal rather than an argument made in a transparent/cogent manner. I felt the caveats, in the antepenultimate graf, warranted emphasis, and yes, I rambled as well.
2) The prior commenter met my brief, descriptive comment with a rank dismissiveness and with presumption. I returned the favor. I’m not going to play the part of the supplicant in the face of such hostility. Further, such an indifference has been common in other fora applied to this very topic; the level of commentary surrounding this subject as been abysmal.
3) I’m not disappointed. It was an earlier comment that had not been published. That’s not a complaint (you have a right to publish what you wish and have a right to request that I don’t comment here), I was more simply putting some things in perspective.