U.S. could help Durban

Editorial

We praised the Canadian government for pulling out of the preparatory work for the Durban II conference. Now we commend the new American administration for jumping in. Have we gone mad?

Maybe. But there is a disproportionate response at play here, based on the simple reality of comparative diplomatic force.

To recap, the first Durban conference – the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance – in 2001 was intended to discuss, well, the litany of evils in its title. Instead, the entire undertaking was poisoned by an obsessive attention to Israel inside the conference and medieval-style anti-Semitism outside the official proceedings. Distribution of the most elementary tracts of the anti-Semitic catechism – the irrepressible Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion among them – indicated a degree of planning that betrayed the suggestion of spontaneous eruption. Chants of "death to the Jews" betrayed any recourse to the usual disclaimer that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. As a whole, the world paid little attention. The conference ended on Sept. 8, 2001, and, three days later, newscasters turned their sights elsewhere.

But a follow-up conference is being planned. One wonders what intellectual developments have intervened in the past eight years to make this session more effective and original. This time, the chair country is Libya. What possible experience Libya could bring to the table to enhance discussions against discrimination is a wide open question. Canada and Israel made their conclusions known last year. Noting that the 2001 conference had "degenerated into open and divisive expressions of intolerance and anti- Semitism that undermined the principles of the United Nations and the very goals the conference sought to achieve," the Canadian government said it "had hoped that the preparatory process for the 2009 Durban Review Conference would remedy the mistakes of the past," but concluded that the process as it had evolved to January 2008 remained too flawed to make Canadian participation advisable.

In November, Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, came to a similar conclusion.

"The documents prepared for the conference indicate that it is turning once again into an anti-Israeli tribunal, singling out and delegitimizing the state of Israel," Livni said. "The conference has nothing to do with fighting racism." Israel will also sit this one out.

The United States and European countries were waiting and seeing. Then, in a startling development, the Obama administration announced that it would participate in the planning meetings for the conference, which takes place in April. This does not mean the United States will participate in the conference itself, but it is an indication that the new administration is taking a direct interest in developments at the conference and this is a good thing.

Here's the difference: Were Canada to attend and then walk out because the conference became the hate-fest we anticipate, the world would continue on its axis. Likewise if Israel departed, it would be held up as evidence of an admission of guilt.

But the participation of the United States is a different thing altogether. A few cabinet-level embarrassments notwithstanding, President Barack Obama and his team are consummate strategists. They will not go into a minefield of this magnitude without a plan.

Obama has a font of goodwill around the world. There is a possibility that his administration's intervention could have a real impact on the forces of evil assembled. And, if it does not have an impact in the process, its abrupt departure could have an impact far beyond that of its presence. Barring some 9/11-like catastrophe in the days after the second Durban conference, the new president could focus the world's attention on the new anti-Semitism in a way no one else has been able to in the decade or so since this new version of the oldest hatred first became evident. Imagine if, as the hate-mongers of Durban conclude their wayward Woodstock with the anti-Semitic jamboree we anticipate, possibly the most articulate leader of our generation turned his powers of persuasion to this most enduring prejudice. Imagine if, while the countries with the most despicable records of human rights abuses heaped scorn on Israel, Obama delivered against anti-Semitism the calibre of speech he offered on race in that monumental elocution on race he offered in the midst of the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio.

There is, of course, the possibility that American presence in the preparatory work for Durban II could have a positive effect and turn away from anti-Semitism the hearts and minds of those organizing the event. It's possible. But if American presence doesn't sway the conference, a walkout by the new American administration would have a power that a walkout by the Canadian or Israeli delegations never could. That's why it's good news that, even as Israel and Canada opt out, the Americans are opting into Durban II.

^TOP