EYE on the UN

The Durban Delay

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in National Review Online.

The Durban II U.N. “anti-racism” conference is set to begin April 20 -- the anniversary of Hitler's birth -- and the committee responsible for drafting the conference’s final declaration met today in Geneva. As the dialogue for and against expressing regret for the Holocaust continued, President Obama hasn’t decided whether the U.S. will attend the conference, apparently quivering at the prospect of “non-engagement.”

Engagement in this U.N. forum is about giving voice to anti-Semites and racists -- under the guise of combating racism. Today Iran used the U.N. megaphone to express its views about human rights as many times as the entire European Union did; Iran was second only to South Africa. Syria took the opportunity to announce it had reservations about the Holocaust paragraph, which reads: “Recalls that the Holocaust must never be forgotten, and in this context urges all U.N. members to implement GA resolutions 60/7 and 61/255.” Iran’s delegate immediately declared “a lot of support for the specific comments of Syria.”

Syria and Iran’s constant complaints about the reference to the Holocaust have already done enormous damage to the credibility of Durban II. The above-quoted paragraph is a stripped-down version of an older text that was more expansive and action-oriented. It included:

Affirms that the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of one-third of the Jewish people, along with numerous members of other minorities, will forever be a warning to all people of the dangers of hatred, bigotry, racism and prejudice; recalls again that the Holocaust must never be forgotten
. . . .
Urges States to raise awareness and to implement United Nations General Assembly resolutions 60/7 and 61/255 which inter alia observed that remembrance of the Holocaust is critical to prevent further acts of genocide, condemned without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urged all Member States to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event either in full or in part or any activities to this end.

When the European Union listed its various objections to the negotiating text today, the deletion of these detailed references to the Holocaust (which they themselves had originally proposed) was not among them. This is the essence of what consensus means at the United Nations: A lowest common denominator emerges for reasons having nothing to do with human rights.

Syria and Iran also served notice that they do not intend to leave the effort to demonize a “racist Israel” off the table at Durban II. Said Syria, “We feel the structure of the text is not victims-oriented as it allows the perpetrators of racism to find refuge. . . . We will not endorse a process that ignores the surviving apartheid regime.”

Also, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, called for the “reaffirmation” of the 2001 conference’s final document so that “we can hope to alleviate the plight of countless victims of racism.” Pillay chose her words deliberately. She knew this amounted to once again labelling Israel as racist. She was fully aware that such a “reaffirmation” is a primary hurdle to U.S. participation in Durban II -- because the 2001 document’s list of “victims of racism” includes “the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation.”

Also engaging in this “human rights” discussion was Pakistan. On behalf of the 56 states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Pakistan indicated that the paragraph mentioning anti-Semitism needed “more work.”

Cuba, meanwhile, got upset about this idea: “Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society, since it ensures access to a multitude of ideas and views.” Cuba declared: “I don’t think this is really a subject matter for the conference and should be deleted.”

Throughout this “human rights” dialogue, Australia contributed a sentence, the U.S. and Italy observed from the sidelines, and the Dutch pointed out that the draft still undermined freedom of expression.

In the U.N.’s Geneva halls, there is much speculation that the Obama administration might be prepared to join Durban II if a nice footnote were tacked on explaining U.S. reservations. But such a trick was tried on Canada in 2001, and every U.N. publication of the Durban Declaration thereafter failed to reproduce the Canadian caveats.

Furthermore, throughout today’s meeting repeated calls for the full implementation of the 2001 Durban Declaration were approved without any objections (although all approvals are tentative until the whole package is agreed.) Given all of these other references to the 2001 Durban Declaration, it would be virtually impossible for a minor footnote to satisfy the administration’s stated condition that it will not “reaffirm the Durban Declaration in toto.”

Also influencing the administration’s stance on U.S. participation is the recent decision by President Obama to join the permanent Israel-bashing forum known as the Human Rights Council. The move may make the president feel inclined to throw American Jews a bone by not attending Durban II. The president may also believe he will be able to extract some future concession from Israel for the magnanimous step of deciding not to participate in a global platform for anti-Semitism.

Having left this matter of principle to the last minute, what the administration really deserves is derision. The shameful delay has defeated the chances of a much wider -- and much deserved -- boycott of this dangerous gathering.

In Europe, Obama's burdened by Durban

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in The NY Daily News.

President Obama's decision to join the UN Human Rights Council, as a gift to his foreign counterparts while on his first overseas trip, leaves one more shoe to drop. Will he decide the U.S. should attend the Council's brainchild - the Durban II "anti-racism" bash? European and all other G-20 states, but Canada, want the U.S. on the inside of the conference - for reasons that have nothing to do with America's best interests or combating racism. Given Durban II is less than three weeks away will Obama succumb to the pressure? Or will joining the Council, a permanent forum for Israel-bashing, suffice?

White House delay tactics over attending/not attending Durban II have been constantly raising the stakes. Various advocacy groups have interpreted Obama's dithering to be a signal to weigh in against Jewish organizations and their call to stay out of Durban II. The scramble up the equal rights ladder by "human rights" groups, stomping on the less equal along the way, is now in full swing.

Former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, makes the case plain Writing on March 17, she said: "I implore the members of the Congressional Black Caucus to spearhead the participation of the United States" in Durban II. Far from being worried about another global platform for anti-semitism, McKinney is just fine with "a discussion of Zionism in the context of such a conference."

McKinney's call has been echoed in "Open Letters" sent to President Obama by entities that seem to have been created for petition purposes like "United Against Racism.net" - whose website sports a rally from Durban I and a sign reading "say no to apartheid in Palestine."

The go-Obama campaign is also being run out of the UN itself. UN headquarters in New York hosted a March 26 event "in support of the Durban Review Conference." Ejim Dike of the "Urban Justice Center," a signatory to a March 27 "open letter," was invited to speak. Dike said her group was spurring the go-Obama campaign with NGOs Nord-Sud and the International Action Center. The action center representative told the UN meeting that Durban II should single out Israel, claiming "a conference against racism . . . must address" "the crime in Gaza." Nord-Sud distributed a petition inside the UN New York meeting room "urg[ing] the Obama administration to participate . . . without threats or preconditions and in a spirit of mutual respect . . . " alongside the claim that Israel is engaged in "apartheid practices against Palestinians."

Raising the decibel level of these phony anti-racism campaigns is not the only consequence of Obama's fence-sitting on Durban II attendance. It also effectively abandoned the two European states that had courageously attempted to shift the European Union position away from the UN-Islamic-Durban II nexus. In the last two weeks, Italy and the Netherlands objected firmly to the direction of the conference. The Dutch boldly produced a whole new declaration that would have succeeded in bringing the United States and possibly Israel onboard. In the absence of support, however, the French and Germans - seeking to avoid any confrontation with Islamic countries - prevailed and successfully smothered the few signs of independent thinking from Europe.

This is reminiscent of events at Durban I. After the U.S. and Israel walked out of the conference in 2001, the French became the powerbrokers and cut a deal with Islamic states. The Durban Declaration was allowed to contain minimal references to the Holocaust and anti-Semitism so long as it also tied Israel to racism. Detailed draft provisions on combating anti-Semitism, promoting the study of the Holocaust and taking action against Holocaust denial were removed in the debacle.

Fast-forward to 2009. The Feb. 26 draft of the Durban II declaration included these words: "Affirms that the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of one- third of the Jewish people, along with numerous members of other minorities, will forever be a warning to all people of the dangers of hatred, bigotry, racism and prejudice; recalls again that the Holocaust must never be forgotten" and "Urges States to raise awareness and to implement United Nations General Assembly resolutions 60/7 and 61/255 which inter alia observed that remembrance of the Holocaust is critical to prevent further acts of genocide, condemned without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urged all Member States to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event either in full or in part or any activities to this end."

In the subsequent Durban II negotiations, Iran and Syria disputed the Holocaust facts and objected to this text. Then Belgium, Norway, Egypt and Russia sat down to wheel and deal. Lo and behold, the latest draft of the Durban II declaration, dated March 17, has been whittled down to: "Recalls that the Holocaust must never be forgotten, and in this context urges all UN members to implement GA resolutions 60/7 and 61/255." It is not coincidence that Belgium and Norway are currently both running for a seat on the Human Rights Council; Islamic states are sure to be impressed by their cooperation. No doubt Obama would also like to find a way to avoid offending on his way to taking a Council seat.

Going into the final stretch, the primary stumbling block to U.S. participation in Durban II is the draft declaration's first proclamation: participating states "reaffirm" the first Durban declaration. The language appears anodyne, but the U.S. has always rejected Durban I on the grounds that it singles out Israel and wrongly declares Palestinians to be victims of Israeli racism. The Obama administration said in February that it would not agree to "reaffirm Durban I's declaration in toto."

As of today, the Durban-friendly lawyers are busy searching for ways to reaffirm without appearing to reaffirm. The politicians are testing American "flexibility." As for President Obama, he has done much already to cement his reputation for seeking fair-weather friends at all costs. On the other hand, he may just feel his interest in the Human Rights Council buys enough accolades from scoundrels to be able to give Durban II a pass.

A Response to David Harris (AJC), Part 2

It is interesting that David Harris has chosen to respond to the substantive points we made about the risks of engaging in 'Durban II' by descending to personal attacks. [David Harris blog, "A Reply to the Trio", March 18, 2009] Apparently, he still does not grasp the nature and seriousness of our criticism, which he characterises as "petty."

Rather than trying to fathom AJC's intentions, our assertion was that the AJC's participation in the Durban II preparatory meeting was a serious error of judgement which validated a process intrinsically and incorrigibly inimical to Israel's interests. Indeed, our concerns have been borne out this week in Geneva. Negotiators have produced a sanitized text that still reaffirms the 2001 Durban Declaration which singled out Israel for demonization. The move makes it more likely the world will accept a document that further legitimizes the Durban Declaration and delegitimizes Israel. And recognizing this fact, on Wednesday, Israel's Foreign Ministry instructed all Israeli emissaries abroad to continue to strive to convince foreign governments to stay away from the Durban II conference.

The simple fact remains that the Obama administration was asked not to participate in Durban II by two Israeli cabinet ministers and decided to do the opposite - with an AJC member on their team. Harris's suggestion that it was US participation in Durban II planning that led to the withdrawal of the US from Durban II planning is nonsensical, to say the least. The only reason the team withdrew a few days after it went in was the public outcry at the administration having become party to a process Americans had rightly rejected seven and a half years ago. And only the growing calls for a boycott by democratic states have made any impact on negotiators - who kept provisions questioning the veracity of the Holocaust on the table until March 16, 2009. Moreover, the ambiguous nature of the US withdrawal has created confusion and disarray amongst other nations which otherwise would have by now shunned this whole disreputable process.

We need no lessons in the importance of the Israel-US relationship. But there are a number of disturbing signs - of which the US presence at Geneva was a very public example - that the Obama administration may very well not have Israel's interests at heart and indeed appears willing to override them in pursuit of its agenda of reaching out to the Islamic world. The idea that by participating in Durban II - against Israel's wishes - the AJC has helped to mellow the administration's mindset on the Middle East is frankly as arrogant as it is risible.

It is unfortunate that David Harris has chosen to respond to substantive criticisms of AJC's actions with ad feminam attacks against his critics. Perhaps this is a function of the weakness of the AJC's case that joining Durban II and the UN Human Rights Council is in the best interests of the Jewish people. In our view, however, such AJC "nongovernmental diplomacy" or US governmental "engagement" is dangerous and, indeed, needs to be confronted on the merits straight on. When Israel's interests are placed in jeopardy, it is the duty of Jews to say so.

By Caroline Glick, Melanie Phillips and Anne Bayefsky
The Jerusalem Post

Obama Should Denounce Durban II

Under the growing threat of a boycott by the United States and European countries, negotiators planning the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference made a new move in Geneva today. They released a modified version of a draft declaration that is expected to be adopted at the April melée. The draft jettisons much of the extra baggage Islamic states had piled on throughout the 10-month drafting process (for the sole purpose of "compromising" at the end). The improvements, however, do not meet the minimal conditions that the Obama administration delineated for U.S. participation. It is time to end the equivocation and get out.

Durban II represents a global showdown on the ideological battlefield between Democrats and anti-Democrats, between tolerance and intolerance. For years, the worst abusers of human rights have commandeered U.N. vehicles to trample rights and freedoms. Given the close relationship between spewing hatred and reaping violence--which the first Durban Declaration adopted on Sept. 8, 2001, made abundantly clear--the stakes are high.

Two weeks ago, the Obama administration set out four conditions for U.S. participation in Durban II. The new version of the Durban II declaration must be: "shorter," "not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration," "not single out any one country or conflict" and "not embrace the troubling concept of "defamation of religion." On some of these counts, the document makes substantial changes. It is somewhat shorter, removes grotesque allegations like calling Israel an apartheid state and deletes the words "defamation of religions."

But most important, it refuses to disavow the 2001 Declaration. On the contrary, it "Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism ... in 2001." That declaration says Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism--with Israel the only U.N. state found guilty of racism. And though today's draft divides provisions into the negotiable and non-negotiable, it announces that reaffirming Durban I is text which does not "remain to be negotiated."

This "new and improved" document, therefore, breaches President Obama's key conditions. It "reaffirms in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration." In so doing, it does not satisfy the demand that no country or conflict be singled out. Unsurprisingly, behind the scenes, Palestinian negotiators in Geneva are expressing satisfaction with today's result.

For Americans, to reaffirm the Durban Declaration is to affirm precisely what our government rejected on Sept. 4, 2001, when the United States--led by Congressman and Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos--walked out from Durban I in disgust.

The new draft is a textbook example of diplomatic double-talk. Diplomats often couch objectionable outcomes in superficially unobjectionable language, using a tool that lawyers call "incorporation by reference." Don't repeat the offensive words in the new document; just include them by referring to another document where they can be found--and which most people won't bother to read.

In plain language, here is exactly what it means to reaffirm the DDPA and its claim that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism.

For one, reaffirming the Durban document will set the priorities of the U.N. human rights system. As U.N. High Commissioner Navi Pillay--who is also the Secretary-General of Durban II--proclaimed earlier this month: "The focus on victims is the cornerstone of OHCHR's [Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights] work. The office pays particular attention to the protection of the groups of victims identified in the DDPA." Among them, of course, the alleged victims of the diabolical Israeli state.

Second, Durban I went forth and multiplied. The DDPA spawned: the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the DDPA, the Independent Eminent Experts Group, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards and the Preparatory Committee of the Durban Review Conference and its working groups. In addition, U.N. High Commissioner Pillay has promised: "I will take the lead in encouraging mainstreaming of the implementation of the DDPA in the work of all relevant United Nations entities." In this case, mainstreaming is a U.N. euphemism for ensuring the cancer spreads to all parts of the body politic.

Driving the Durban committee dealing with "complementary standards" is the game plan of Islamic U.N. member states. They argue that existing standards on racial discrimination and related intolerance--which they ignore in practice--have normative gaps. What kind of gaps? Insufficient attention to the defamation of religions--Islam in particular.

There has been some push-back from other states on the concept of "defamation of religion," since Islamic governments would be both judge and jury on what counts as defamation. So this latest version of the Durban II declaration focuses on "incitement to hatred of religious communities." It "calls upon states ... to declare illegal and prohibit by law all organizations which ... attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form ..." It calls for more U.N. "workshops" on "the prohibition of incitement with a view to remedy any possible substantive or implementation gaps." It also insists that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination ... shall be prohibited by law ... and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression."

The United States has formal legal reservations to U.N. treaties that attempt to impose fewer limits on free speech than Durban II. Those reservations insist upon the primacy of stronger American constitutional protections. Signing on to anything looking like this Durban II declaration would therefore be inconsistent with American law.

Tuesday's development sent diplomats in Geneva scurrying off in different directions. The Netherlands decided to play hardball in the defense of democracy. The Dutch took the U.S. conditions seriously and publicly disseminated a complete alternative text two pages long in stark contrast to the U.N.'s 17-page draft. The Dutch draft is direct; it highlights in plain language that "freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our fight against racism;" it includes protection for discrimination against sexual orientation; and it does not reaffirm Durban I.

Some members of the EU were not pleased. The French and the Germans are insisting the European Union act with one voice and are intent on dragging the Dutch back into the fold. The Italians have gone silent after announcing last week they were going to boycott, apparently succumbing to demands for European unity. American state officials are busy drafting alternative texts behind the scenes despite the pretense of non-participation. NGOs are pressuring the Obama administration not to leave for any reason. The Australians have been apparently struck dumb until President Obama tells them what he'll do. The Palestinians are threatening to make the draft a lot worse if "reaffirming the Durban I Declaration" is removed. The secretary-general of the Conference Navi Pillay--a native of Durban who promised the mayor to rescue the city's good name--is helping Islamic states fight the forces that are serious about combating racism.

As for human rights? What does that have to do with anything? This is the U.N.

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Forbes.

The debate over ‘Durban II’ and the AJC

By Isi Leibler
The Jerusalem Post, March 17, 2009

David Harris is an exemplary Jewish professional who is largely responsible for the American Jewish Committee becoming a major creative force throughout the global Jewish arena.

I am therefore saddened by his vitriolic public attack on Anne Bayefsky, Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick for their well-founded criticism of the strategy adopted by his organization in relation to "Durban II" and the UN Human Rights Council.

The AJC adopted a flawed approach to this issue from the outset, insisting that that the American government and others should participate in the conference. Their attitude undermined efforts by bodies like "Eye on the UN" which invested massive efforts in creating a public awareness of the need for a boycott.

The AJC decision to accept the invitation to participate as a member of the US delegation in the Durban II preparatory committee to ascertain whether this obnoxious body would change its approach was an even greater blunder. They were irresponsible in encouraging the perception that a body totally controlled by the Islamic Conference and rogue states, and even chaired by Libya, with Iran and Cuba serving as deputy chairs, could possibly be anything other than an instrument for promoting evil.

To make matters worse the US delegation, including the AJC representative, actually sat on its hands during the proceedings of the preparatory committee while vicious demonizations of Israel took place. They even remained silent when Iran objected to a resolution condemning Holocaust denial.

For many of us, the jury is still out regarding the Obama administration's approach to Israel. But it would require burying one's head in the sand not to be disconcerted by the new policy of "engaging" tyrants and jihadists, not to mention some of the candidates recommended for government positions in recent weeks.

In this context we look to the American Jewish community, which overwhelmingly supported Obama, to endeavor to ensure that Israel is not sacrificed to enable the US to placate Arab extremists.

Hence the disappointment expressed by Anne Bayefsky, Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick that the AJC agreed to participate in a US delegation to such a brazenly anti-Semitic body would be endorsed by most activists involved in this area.

One would have expected American Jewish leaders at the least to have also expressed concern when simultaneously with its announcement it would not partake in Durban, the US government proclaimed that it would in future participate in meetings of the Human Rights Council, and would even seek to be elected to the leadership of that despicable body. The US action will only legitimize an organization which represents the antithesis of its title, defends the worst regimes practicing the denial of human rights and now seeks to limit all criticism of Islamic behavior or practice. Alas, the AJC only two years ago was "urging the United States to seek membership on the UN Human Rights Council." It would appear that to this day Harris and the AJC fail to appreciate that organizations purporting to promote human rights which are controlled by tyrannies and dictatorships can never be reformed. They must be isolated and marginalized.

The US backed down on participating in Durban II for two reasons. The most important was the campaign spearheaded by Bayefsky exposing the disgusting behavior of those controlling the proceedings. The second was the stubbornness of the preparatory committee about even paying lip service to behaving decently and amending their draft document. The danger now is that they will come up with a shorter document which does not include the vile language, and the US hailing that as a victory and agreeing to participate in what will still be a massive anti-Semitic hate-fest controlled by the same villains.

David Harris is a devoted and capable leader with a track record of outstanding achievement for the Jewish people. He is not infallible, and erred in this matter. He should take one step backwards and resume his constructive work on behalf of the Jews. Instead of berating those with whom he should be working in tandem, Harris should be at the forefront of efforts to persuade the Obama administration that appeasing jihadists or providing them with legitimacy could have devastating repercussions on the future of the civilized world.

Durban II Devotees

 

The Fans of Durban II

Human rights authorities like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Russia, Yemen, the Arab Group, the African Group, Malaysia, Bahrain, Organization of the Islamic Conference, Venezuela and Senegal.

And now operating on behalf of Islamic states: the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is the Secretary-General of the Durban II Conference. In her words: "The [Durban] Review Conference has also been the target of a disparaging media and a lobbying campaign on the part of those who fear a repetition of antisemitic outbursts. This, in my view, is completely unwarranted...Narrow, parochial interests and reflexive partisanship must be cast aside in the interest of a greater common good." (The "common good" as defined by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan...)

Watch video here.

Durban II Devotees March 2, 3, 4 & 5, 2009: 10th Human Rights Council Session

A Response to David Harris (AJC)

By Caroline Glick, Melanie Phillips and Anne Bayefsky
The Jerusalem Post, March 16, 2009

It stands to reason that that David Harris would be sensitive to criticism of the AJC's participation in planning "Durban II." [David Harris blog, "Durban Diplomacy", March 15, 2009] After all, by taking part in the Durban II planning process on a US government delegation, AJC contemptuously ignored repeated calls from� Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Minister Isaac Herzog for the United States government to stay away and announce it will not participate, period. Israel's priority, and the priority of much of the American Jewish community was to delegitimize the hate-fest, not place an AJC representative on its planning committee.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason the US made a tactical retreat from the process was the pressure created by criticisms such as ours, along with protests made by Israel, Canada, and other American Jewish organizations and leaders.

For more than a year, the AJC has conducted an extensive lobbying campaign of the American government and of foreign governments to stay in Durban II.

On December 11, 2008 Harris told The Jerusalem Post: "We can't afford to declare Durban II lost without more focus on diplomacy." On January 12, 2009 the AJC's human rights arm, the Blaustein Institute, wrote to Secretary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice: "The Durban Review Conference provides an opportunity to review states' progress in the implementation of their commitments to combat racism made in 2001... While some organizations are calling for a US boycott, we believe that is the wrong decision at this time." As recently as February 22, 2009 Harris told the Post: "Our position on Durban II is clear. We have publicly praised France and the Netherlands, among other countries, for insisting on clear red lines and threatening to withdraw if they are breached."

If they are breached? The AJC's own UN monitoring body, UN Watch, reported the breach had occurred on October 28, 2008, in a report aptly called "Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft Declaration." Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations told the Post on December 11, 2008: "We clearly see that all the red lines that have been enumerated by the Europeans have been violated."

Under the guise of ever-shifting red lines (that in any incarnation Israel and the rest of the Jewish world understood were crossed long ago), AJC has caused great damage to Israel's diplomatic standing.

Contrary to much misinformation, the fact of the matter is that the Obama administration has not made a final decision about whether it will attend Durban II. Its recent departure from the planning sessions in Geneva left the door open for cosmetic changes to the text of the conference declaration that, if made, would allow its negotiators to claim a spurious victory.

The key point which Harris chooses to ignore is that the agreed objective of Durban II is to reaffirm and implement the 2001 Durban Declaration. That document singles out Israel for censure and says that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism. Consequently any attempted sanitizing of the latest text will be worthless, since by definition the new Declaration will re-affirm the 2001 singling out and demonization of Israel.

Then too, Harris's claim that the US's tactical withdrawal from the planning sessions will make other nations more likely to walk away from Durban II is both incorrect and misleading. The ambiguity of the US's current position has held back the Australians and the British from withdrawing since they do not want to be double-crossed by an Obama administration that eventually attends. Absent a clear American stand, the French and the Germans are putting enormous pressure on Italy and the Netherlands not to break ranks with the rest of the EU - which have no intention of leaving. Initial suggestions by both countries that they would not go are now in doubt.

Worse still, as a quid pro quo for its tactical retreat from Durban II, the US is on the verge of announcing that it will run for a seat (election is a foregone conclusion) on the UN Human Rights Council - a move strongly advocated by none other than the AJC's human rights institute. In the words of an AJC press release January 29, 2007: "The human rights arm of the American Jewish Committee is urging the United States to seek membership on the UN Human Rights Council." The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN member states combined. By joining the UN Human Rights Council, the Obama administration will be legitimizing a body dedicated to the delegitimization of Israel.

It is shameful that the AJC has chosen to join this cynical and sinister process, whose outcome can only be to weaken Israel and strengthen her enemies. And it is outrageous that the AJC has sought to defend its participation in the process by attacking those who point out the consequences of its actions.

No one knows whether the Obama administration or other Western governments will finally stand their ground against pro-Durban, anti-Jewish and anti-democratic forces. What is certain, however, is that if the Obama administration, European countries or Australia do decide to stay out and the West thus finally says no to the substance of Durban I, it will be through the efforts of all those who have tried to delegitimize the process rather than those whose actions have effectively helped an unconscionable exercise come to fruition.

Caroline Glick	Melanie Phillips	Anne Bayefsky
Senior Contributing Editor of the Jerusalem Post	British Journalist and Author of Londonistan	Touro College and www.EYEontheUN.org

Durban II and Obama’s Foreign Policy Mantra

The Obama administration promised transparency. It seems only fitting, therefore, to release a transcript (produced unofficially) of a conference call between Karen Stewart — acting assistant secretary for democracy, human rights, and labor — and a group of highly select organizations, which took place on February 27, 2009. On the phone line with this top State Department official was a small cabal of human rights organizations, UN-associated organizations, and an Arab NGO. At stake — U.S. participation in April’s UN’s Durban II “anti-racism” conference and the UN Human Rights Council. The conversation reveals which groups the administration is trying to please and what would please them. It also points to the devastating impact that can be expected from the Obama foreign policy mantra of “engagement.” Now on the chopping block — Israel, equality rights, and American values.

The Background of Durban II

Durban I is the infamous racist anti-racism conference that took place in South Africa and ended three days before 9/11. Durban II is the UN’s effort to launch another round of anti-Semitism via its unique global megaphone. It is also the vehicle for Islamic states to change permanently the world of human rights: the point is to move from protecting rights and freedoms to curtailing them in the name of so-called religious sensitivities.

At the time of the conference call everyone knew that the draft declaration on the table (scheduled to be adopted at the conference itself) called Jewish self-determination racist, Israel an apartheid state, questioned the veracity of the Holocaust, introduced limits on free speech, and manufactured worldwide Muslim victims of Western racism (known as “Islamophobia.”)

The chair of the drafting committee for Durban II is Libya; Iran is a vice-chair and Cuba is the rapporteur.

Even without the new abominations, the purpose of Durban II is to reaffirm and to implement the Durban I Declaration. But that declaration says Israelis are racists — the only racist country that UN “human rights” authorities could identify. So fixing Durban II is not possible. Protecting human rights would require burying Durban I, not reaffirming and implementing it.

The Background of the UN Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council is the UN’s lead human rights agency. It was created after the previous incarnation, the ignominious Human Rights Commission, was disbanded in 2006. The UN creators of the Human Rights Council rejected an American idea of instituting a membership condition about actually protecting human rights. So the Bush administration saw no reason to join or to pay for it.

At the time of this conference call everyone knew that the Human Rights Council has proved to be more extreme than its predecessor. It has reduced the influence of democracies and shifted the balance of power to the Islamic bloc. As a consequence, it has had 10 regular sessions on human rights all over the world and five special sessions to condemn Israel alone. It has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all of the other 191 UN states combined. It has one standing agenda item on alleged Israeli violations and one standing item on general human rights issues for everybody else. It has terminated human rights investigations, left over from the Human Rights Commission, on some of the worst places on the planet: Belarus, Cuba, Iran, and Uzbekistan. It trashed its only resolution on freedom of expression, forcing every Western state to withdraw support from this democratic lifeline.

Durban II and the Human Rights Council are intertwined. The council is the preparatory committee for Durban II and has pushed it from the beginning. Elections for membership on the council take place in May of this year, only a few weeks after Durban II ends. Refusing to legitimize Durban II may hurt a state’s chances of election to the council. Furthermore, if the only foreign policy mantra the Obama administration can think of is “engagement,” there doesn’t appear to be anything that ought to prevent the U.S. from jumping on board everything in sight — Durban II and the Council — substance be damned. However, the UN is required to undertake a five-year review of Council operations in 2011. By staying out until that time, the United States would be in a position to leverage its potential membership — and the instant credibility of the participation of the world’s greatest democracy — in exchange for reform. U.S. membership should be earned.

The Jewish Problem

The 2001 Durban I was divided into an NGO Forum and a governmental conference. The NGOs adopted a declaration, which said Zionism is racism and got worse from there. An NGO meeting on anti-Semitism that had been planned for months was disrupted and cut short by a screaming mob. The international NGOs, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (now called Human Rights First), decided not to vote against the NGO declaration. They also decided not to vote when a suggestion by Jewish groups concerning anti-Semitism was deleted from that same declaration. The world’s leading international NGOs thought there was a midway point between espousing anti-Semitism and denouncing it.

Overall, the hundreds of participating NGOs either agreed outright with the anti-Semitism or believed that the discrimination and demonization of the Jewish state was the price to be paid for getting their own equality issues on the agenda. They never understood that equality rights for some cannot be built on the inequality of others, that anti-Semitism poisons the human rights wellspring, and that intolerance that begins with Jews does not end with Jews.

Although UN officials — most notably the current High Commissioner for Human Rights — claim that only the NGO Forum was problematic, this is not true. Attending both, I watched almost every mention of anti-Semitism deleted from the government draft declaration and witnessed the objectionable bargain that was ultimately reached. After the United States and Israel walked out of Durban I in disgust, the European Union — led by the French — cut a deal. The result allowed a few mentions of anti-Semitism and acknowledgment of the Holocaust, in exchange for casting Israel as racist. Canada joined consensus on most of the document, but made a strong reservation to the Israel-related sections. However, every copy of the Durban Declaration produced by the UN since that time omits the Canadian reservation and claims all of Durban was adopted by consensus.

After Durban, the UN engaged in a major cover-up. For more than seven years, they made the Durban Declaration the centerpiece of the UN’s anti-racism movement and spawned multiple Durban “follow-up” activities. They blamed NGOs for all that had gone wrong. They claimed the government conference was a model of civility and the Durban Declaration a human rights godsend.

Today

The same forces present at Durban I are still operating. The Islamic bloc and Arab interests intend to use the global conference as a means to demonize and destroy their enemy on the political battlefield. Human rights organizations are prepared to throw Jews overboard while protecting other people’s human rights. The European Union is looking for a way to be the kingpin on the global stage. The new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, is claiming Durban I got a bad rap and recently made the ugly suggestion of a Jewish conspiracy lurking behind criticism of Durban II.

The behavior of Pillay tells us a lot about the nature of the UN machine and how it pushes anti-Semitism as human rights. Pillay has a vested interest in ensuring the “success” of Durban II. She is the secretary-general of the conference. She is also a native of Durban, South Africa, and when she was appointed last July said the mayor asked her to “rescue” the city’s good name. Rather than admitting the past and seeking to avoid its repetition, Pillay has taken on the job of revisionism with a vengeance:

I am fully aware that the legacy of the 2001 Durban Conference has been tainted by the anti-Semitic behavior of some NGOs at the sidelines of that conference. … [T]he Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the document that emerged from the conference in 2001, transcended divisive and intolerant approaches.

She has also deliberately sought to repeat exactly what went wrong. Asked by the Durban II drafting committee to recommend suggestions for inclusion in the final declaration, she contributed: “We must reaffirm the DDPA [Durban Declaration and Programme of Action] without reservation.”

Pillay finds fault not with Durban I and its Declaration and Durban II and its draft declaration — but with the critics. More specifically, Jewish critics. On February 20, 2009, she said:

[T]he review conference has also been the target of a disparaging media and lobbying campaign on the part of those who fear a repetition of anti-Semitic outbursts. This is unwarranted. … Narrow, parochial interests and reflexive partisanship must be cast aside in the interest of a greater common good.

Those narrow-minded Jews uninterested in the common good — who have actually been at the forefront of human rights movements the world over and have six million good reasons for being concerned about demonization — might be surprised to learn of how the UN’s leading spokesperson for human rights ended this speech. Pillay said: “Let me reiterate that — sustained by the United Nations principles of impartiality, independence, and integrity –I regard my office as a springboard for the betterment and welfare of all and a place where all are given a fair audience.” Well, not quite all.

So where does all this leave President Obama and the United States? Taking advice from those who, like the UN’s top human rights officer, advocate throwing Israel and Jews who support Israel under the bus for the sake of the greater good. In some cases, exactly the same organizations that distinguished themselves at Durban I by refusing to vote against “Zionism is racism.”

Here is the transcript (prepared unofficially) of the conference call between the acting assistant secretary of state and this powerful constituency that the Obama administration wants to please. As Durban II and the Human Rights Council elections fast approach, the question remains: will the administration cater to them?

———————–

On the conference call, February 27, 2009:

• Karen Stewart, Acting Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
• Peter Timko, The Arab-American Institute
• [T.] Kumar, Amnesty International
• Paula Schriefer, Freedom House
• Peggy Hicks, Human Rights Watch
• [Jamil Dakwar], American Civil Liberties Union
• William H. Luers, United Nations Association -USA
• Steve Dimoff, United Nations Association - USA
• Susan Myers, UN Foundation
• Eric [Tars], National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
• L. Bennett Graham, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
• Ken [Wollack], National Democratic Institute
• AFL-CIO Solidarity Center
• Democracy Coalition Project

and a handful of others.

Ambassador Karen Stewart

I am the Acting Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. I’m very glad we managed to get you all on the phone. I have been asked to give you the latest in the administration’s thinking on the Human Rights Council and on the Durban Review Conference. Let me make some points and then I would be happy for comments and questions.

With regard to Durban — consistent with President Obama’s commitment to change direction — the US sent a strong and credible delegation to negotiate in good faith on the “Outcome Document” [ed. draft of Durban II declaration]. As part of the mission — there to assess state of play — we met with over 30 delegations and the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other interested parties. Our engagement was warmly welcomed, and we appreciated that welcome, and we also consulted with many governments and capitals on their efforts. The delegation came back and we have been discussing the process to date with them, and considering what has gone on there, and concluded that the current text is not salvageable and consequently we will not participate on further negotiations and further not participate in conference on that text. We would be prepared for an Outcome Document that was much shortened, with a constructive affirmative approach to race, tackling the challenges of racism, and not unequivocally reaffirming the Durban program of action, no references to one country or a single conflict, defamation of religions, and does not go further than Durban [ed. Declaration] on reparations for slavery. We will observe developments and in capitals to see if such a document emerges and we will reengage if such a document does emerge. I know that many of you may have favored our engagement. Understand our principled stand, key reason why we had such thorough and deliberative discussions. This was not a lightly-taken decision, but as we were closely following the negotiations, we concluded that there were far too many obstacles to overcome with several key issues — biased treatment of Israel and freedom of religions to erode freedom of expression. So we couldn’t continue negotiations with this document. But we are strongly committed to fighting racism and intolerance and we are also committed to working in international fora and we welcome your input as we proceed.

Taking from that point — the Human Rights Council. After considerable deliberation the administration has decided to participate as an active observer starting Monday. We are impressed by countries that asked us to reengage, and are advocating for that position. President Obama is committed to an active and effective engagement with institutions — to play a vital role in challenges — so we look forward to building a more secure and peaceful world with our partners around the world. We share concerns that the trajectory is disturbing, and it needs to do more to help people around the world and end unbalanced criticism of Israel. We need your help on issues of freedom of expression and defamation of religions. We will do more to achieve these ends if we are part of the conversation and we participate fully at the negotiating table so we will be participating in Human Rights Council sessions. We will use this opportunity to strengthen old and forge new alliances, to engage in active participation as an observer to advance human rights in multilateral arenas. We look forward to your cooperation to make sure it is focused on the human rights concerns of our time. You heard President Obama speak on February 24 — “In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. We know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.” We can’t shun the negotiating table. We must fulfill our engagement now.

Those were lot of talking points to lay out for you. I welcome any comments.

Kumar from Amnesty International

Thank you for the briefing. Did you make any decision about running for the Human Rights Council?

Ambassador Karen Stewart

Not yet — it is still under review. So no decision yet.

William H. Luers — UNA — USA

The initial statement on Durban strikes me as being more or less sensible — if you have in it the possibility to come back with a revised statement. Are you in the business of trying to encourage a statement closer to what the US thinks appropriate or is this a final declaration?

Ambassador Karen Stewart

The message we put out there — not engaging with this text and the list. Our final message is that if a new document emerges that meets our concerns than we would reengage.

William H. Luers — UNA — USA

Do you think they will work toward a new document?

Ambassador Karen Stewart

I would say we have just been making these calls to both capitals and in Geneva and on the Hill and you and other NGO communities all through the last 24 hours and we got a variety of reactions, some who I think will be trying to see if they can change, others who think it is not possible. There is no conclusive view yet. We are sorting.

William H. Luers — UNA — USA

If you could give us encouragement to see whether the NGO community and governments could get the document closer to what we want and then have negotiations rather than saying it has to be this or nothing. The outline of things you feel are necessary. You don’t require everything? Negotiating on what would help the US change its mind?

Ambassador Karen Stewart

I have to say, I hear your tone on what we are laying down — preconditions, and I’m not authorized to say we would negotiate it any way. We laid out what we are prepared to see in a new document.

Peggy Hicks, Human Rights Watch

We followed this closely and are concerned about the turn the administration is now taking on Durban. The talking points you have on the table blur for us two issues. It is going to be a different document — which is not on its face unachievable — but of course this is coming very late in the process and will be quite difficult and put unnecessary burdens on the process. But our biggest concern is the blending together of the problem areas that are new to this document — defamation of religions — which we agree entirely has to come out — with the US new position here, which is that we need something better than Durban and we can’t have unequivocal support for Durban itself. That it cannot contain any reference to a single country or conflict, referring to the Middle East peace process and conflict is very problematic. And basically my understanding is that a group of moderate states would work with the US to draft a simpler document, but if the US is going on record saying that any reference to the Middle East conflict is unacceptable, then we’re setting a standard that is unachievable. And we will give cover to governments to back out now, and that would be destructive to the Durban Review process, but even more to the Human Rights Council itself where the dynamics are obstacles, to committed administration too, and if the Durban process falls apart it will make our work at the Human Rights Council more difficult.

Ambassador Karen Stewart

I’m trying to make a note of it so we can tell the senior levels the reactions we’re getting.

William H. Luers — UNA — USA

I agree with Peggy. From our standpoint a spoken willingness to negotiate and discuss how this can be improved and even — as has been suggested by Human Rights Watch — indicating the directions in which the document can be changed so that the US would be more prepared to consider participation, this is the ideal moment to change the pattern of the past, “either our road or the highway” and we shouldn’t do that — we now must show a different pattern of US response to such controversial issues. If we’re prepared to participate under better conditions than we see today it could be an excellent way to get countries to come together and reshape the declaration. If it’s a declaration of “this way or no way” then it becomes very problematic. And could even be that we could help if we thought there is a chance that the US government would respond to a more reasonable document.

Susan Myers — UN Foundation

Following onto Ambassador Luers’ remarks, I’m just curious if there is some sort of statement going out because what is in that statement could essentially box in the administration and if there is some effort to create a document more agreeable to the administration then whatever is said in coming days, it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage should there be something we could agree to.

Ambassador Karen Stewart

We are planning on making a public statement on our decisions in this area over the weekend. We wanted time to inform and consult with other countries and the Hill. I haven’t seen the text of the statement, so yes we would be saying something before Monday when we turn up in Geneva.

William H. Luers — UNA — USA

Could you add that the US government is interested in discussing further the changes we think are essential? Saying that you’re open to discussion is extremely important.

Ambassador Karen Stewart

I’m not making any promises. I will take that comment back but can’t promise that that is going to happen.

Paula Schriefer, Freedom House

We’re very encouraged that the US will participate in the upcoming session. We do think it’s important to go beyond acting as an observer and seek a seat in the upcoming elections. They are typically held in May so there is not much time. It would be automatic that the US would be elected, which may not be the case at the same time next year. In 2011 there will be an official review of the Council and as you noted, for the US to be part of a credible group shaping changes to the Council, it will be important to have been on the Council for a period of time. We agree there are some real problems, but they are not problems that cannot still be fixed and the US should play an important role and increase the chances of doing so.

Ambassador Karen Stewart

Those factors are going into our review of that decision. Likelihood of successful elections.

Eric [Tars], National Law Center of Homelessness and Poverty

Do you have any information about reinvigorating the inter-agency working group for facilitating the reporting process and bringing the results from the review into the US?

Ambassador Karen Stewart

I don’t. The inter-agency working group on human rights — I don’t specifically, we’re still organizing under the new administration on how to do inter-agency groups and although I’ve been here for 6-7 months, I’m not always sure of the institutions set up beforehand so have to take that question.

Democracy Coalition Project

I wanted to echo what Paula was saying and encourage the US to run. We are very concerned that regions of the world are slipping back into clean slates — even in WEOG [ed. Western European and Others regional group, one of five regional groups in the UN] there are only three candidates running for three seats. It could be they’re waiting for the US to run. Many have been encouraging the US to run. It’s a procedural issue — to encourage competition in each region. In several regions there has been regression over the years and it is important that the US support competition and weigh in on this.

L. Bennett Graham, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

We’re paying closest attention to the defamation of religions issue, and I want to be sure — and we were encouraged in the past on this issue — that you are preparing for what seems to be a major push to relook at Article 20 [ed. of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] and the fears we have about lowering the threshold on what Article 20 looks at. The US has a reservation on it, but we hope you are looking for creative solutions to making sure that the defamation issue is not entrenched into a binding covenant.

Ambassador Karen Stewart

We made sure to get ideas from you on the next session of the Human Rights Council. We ensure … defamation of religions has been a big issue for some time and so that is of great concern to us and we will be working on all ways to try and fend that off. I hope we can be creative. Any ideas you have later on we would welcome.

Peggy Hicks, Human Rights Watch

On defamation of religions, I didn’t mention it on the Durban side but we feel strongly that there is a contradiction in the US position on the Durban Review. The key way to make sure that the current Durban text doesn’t include defamation of religions is that the original Declaration didn’t have that issue in it. Pakistan acknowledges this and knows they will have to give up because of that. The problem is that the US position would reopen the terms of the Durban document and once you reopen it to take out references to the Middle East then you open the door to say new things have to be put into it. To follow up on Susan Myers, while I understand the negotiated position is that you want bottom lines to have, if we expect moderate states to work on a new document then to go on record saying “those are the red lines and it is only an acceptable document that meets all those conditions” is very difficult to achieve and will put states in an unworkable position and take us off track in a way that I hope your office doesn’t do.

———————–

The following table summarizes the organizations’ responses to the U.S. State Department’s stated conditions for participating in Durban II.

U.S. State Department stated conditions for participating in Durban II	Human Rights Watch response to U.S. conditions for participating in Durban II	UN Association - USA response to U.S. conditions for participating in Durban II	UN Foundation response to U.S. conditions for participating in Durban II	What this cabal will devise in negotiations now underway in Geneva
(1) not unequivocally reaffirming the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action		Don’t like any firm American bottom lines. A declaration of “this way or no way” becomes very problematic	Don’t like any firm American bottom lines. Could essentially box in the administration …it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage.	?
(2) no references to one country or a single conflict [ed. - Israel, Middle East]	Disagree That it [ed. the final outcome of Durban II] cannot contain any reference to a single country or conflict, referring to the Middle East peace process and conflict is very problematic. And basically my understanding is that a group of moderate states would work with the US to draft a simpler document, but if the US is going on record saying that any reference to the Middle East conflict is unacceptable, then we’re setting a standard that is unachievable. The problem is that the US position would reopen the terms of the Durban document and once you reopen it to take out references to the Middle East…[it] is very difficult to achieve and will put states in an unworkable position.	Disagree I agree with Peggy [ed. Human Rights Watch]… We now must show a different pattern of U.S. response to such controversial issues.Don’t like any firm American bottom lines. A declaration of “this way or no way” becomes very problematic.	Don’t like any firm American bottom lines. Could essentially box in the administration …it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage.	?
(3) “defamation of religions” - [ed. concept must be taken out]	Agree take out.	Don’t like any firm American bottom lines. A declaration of “this way or no way” becomes very problematic.	Don’t like any firm American bottom lines. Could essentially box in the administration …it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage.	?
(4) not go further than the Durban Declaration on reparations for slavery		Don’t like any firm American bottom lines. A declaration of “this way or no way” becomes very problematic.	Don’t like any firm American bottom lines. Could essentially box in the administration …it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage.	?

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Pajamas Media.

U.S. Double-Deals On Durban

Barack Obama just added double-dealing to his foreign policy repertoire. On Friday, administration officials led many Jewish leaders to believe that it had decided to boycott the United Nation's "anti-racism" conference known as Durban II. At the same time, however, human rights organizations were being led to believe that the administration was not pulling out and was looking for a way to "re-engage."

Durban II, scheduled for Geneva in April, is the U.N.'s attempt at a rerun of the 2001 global anti-Semitic hate fest held in Durban, South Africa.

After sowing confusion over the phone lines, the State Department chose late Friday night to put the real deal in print. Their release reads: "the current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable," and "the United States will not ... participate in a conference based on this text," but we will "re-engage if a document that meets [our] criteria becomes the basis for deliberations." A new version must be: "shorter," "not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration," "not single out any one country or conflict," and "not embrace the troubling concept of "defamation of religion."

And by the way, it continued, the U.S. will "participate" for the first time in the U.N. Human Rights Council.

All of this leaves the American people not knowing whether they're coming or going.

It does open a window, however, into Obama's gerrymandering. On one phone line with Assistant Secretary of State Karen Stewart were Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.N. Foundation, the UNA-USA Association and the Arab American Institute, among others. On the other line with National Security Council member Samantha Power were Jewish organizations. The dangerous message was that an Arab advocacy group does human rights, while Jewish organizations do Jews.

The Durban Declaration claims that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism; with Israel the only U.N. state charged with racism. The end game, as 2001 attendee Yasser Arafat made plain, is to analogize Israel to apartheid South Africa, pile on political isolation and sanctions and defeat Israel politically, if not militarily. The purpose of Durban II, as decided in August 2007 with the consent of the European Union, is to "foster the implementation of the Durban Declaration." In January of this year, the E.U. agreed to "reaffirm" the Durban Declaration "as it was adopted at the 2001 World Conference." Durban II cannot be salvaged; its very raison d'être includes demonizing Israel.

Some Europeans and Australia had been teetering on the edge of following Canada and Israel in boycotting the conference. But they were waiting for Obama to walk with them. Rather than encouraging these like-minded states, America's mixed message has sent human rights organizations and states scurrying. They are looking to inject some creative ambiguity into "not reaffirming in toto"--or as Stewart put it, "not unequivocally reaffirming"--the Durban Declaration. Instead of leadership and clarity of convictions, the U.S. has started a race to the bottom of the diplomatic barrel.

The prospect irritated Human Rights Watch, the American U.N. Association and the U.N. Foundation, which all let Stewart know they would have preferred to cut Israel loose now as a fair cost of engagement. Peggy Hicks from HRW complained that insisting on "no reference to a single country or conflict is very problematic and destructive to the Durban Review process." Susan Myers of the U.N. Foundation worried that the move "boxed in the administration" and "undercut the ability of the U.S. to re-engage."

In fact, Obama's four deal-breakers do not include many other troubling provisions still on Durban II's negotiating table. These include: questioning the veracity of the Holocaust, a variety of attacks on freedom of expression in addition to "defamation of religion," and incendiary claims of "Islamophobia"--the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all Muslims.

The administration's decision to slip in the Human Rights Council as a consolation prize for Durban enthusiasts is an attempt to downplay a major move. State Department officials intimated that they intend not only to observe but to run for a seat--subject to the "likelihood of successful elections." Council members and human rights gurus, like China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are sure to welcome the instant legitimacy provided by U.S. participation. The Council--controlled by the Organization of the Islamic Conference--has adopted more condemnations of Israel than all other 191 U.N. states combined, while terminating human rights investigations on the likes of Iran, Cuba and Belarus. Obama's move denies the opportunity to leverage the prospect of American membership to insist on reform.

Whether Obama actually stays away from Durban II is most likely to depend on his cost-benefit analysis of sacrificing Israel vs. heeding the siren's call to engage. My guess is he'll take the loss in the engagement column on Durban and the Israel column on the Council. Who said the human rights business had anything to do with human rights?

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Forbes.

Why is the U.S. still entertaining Durban II? Obama should have nixed UN's hatefest by now

Durban II - the UN "anti-racism" conference scheduled for April 20, 2009 in Geneva - is fast approaching. Well aware that the U.S. could undermine the credibility of this global human rights hoax instantaneously by deciding not to go, the Obama administration has still not announced its intentions. Canada and Israel have pulled out and, at the highest levels, Israel has asked President Obama not to attend. What lies behind the U.S.'s delay?

For one, Obama is making new friends. The administration's decision last week to participate in planning meetings for Durban II was very well received by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

On February 21, 2009, the OIC "welcomed" the move as a "positive development." OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said it "would be widely perceived by the Muslim world as a credible signal of the new U.S. Administration's goodwill and desire to introduce a fresh, fair and objective approach to the . . . Middle East peace process as well as to rejuvenate the United States' positive image throughout the Muslim nations."

Since both the Durban Declaration from 2001 and the current draft declaration for Durban II claim that Palestinian Arabs are victims of Israeli racism, U.S. agreement would certainly rejuvenate America's relationship with Islamic states. Apparently, the President is tantalized by the prospect.

The second reason for the delay seems to be that Obama's new cabinet-level UN Ambassador Susan Rice is flexing her muscles. From Rice's perspective, Obama's commitment to multilateralism means embracing everything UN in sight, starting with joining the UN Human Rights Council. The idea is akin to diving headlong into the UN's equivalent of the shallow end.

Recognizing the council's irreparable flaws, the Bush administration refused to run for a seat on the UN body, which was first created in 2006. Since that time, the council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other states in the world combined. Aside from Israel-bashing, in its short life the council has terminated human rights investigations into such model citizens as Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran and Uzbekistan. Last March it trashed its only freedom of expression resolution, and in June of last year its president ruled criticism of human rights outrages made in the name of Islam off limits in council sessions.

The Human Rights Council, however, also serves as the preparatory committee for Durban II. Pro-Durbanites argue that in order to join the council at election time in May, the U.S. should first impress new-found friends in the OIC at the Durban conference a few weeks earlier. Never mind the fact that a U.S. vote has no chance whatsoever to change actual outcomes at the council, where the OIC holds the balance of power.

A third element in the delay in rejecting Durban attendance, which cannot be discounted, appears to be the stance of a few members of the American Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee (AJC) has chosen not to call for an American pullout from Durban II. On February 23, 2009 David Harris, Executive Director of the AJC, explained it to the Jerusalem Post this way: "Our position on Durban II is clear. We have publicly praised France and the Netherlands, among other countries, for insisting on clear red lines and threatening to withdraw if they are breached. We believe the United States shouldn't attend the Conference under the present circumstances." Despite expressing serious concerns about Durban II, the AJC position deliberately falls short of a flat-out call on Obama to stay away.

Maintaining an emphasis on future prospects for Durban II, just weeks away from the start date, seems to be at odds with both AJC reports and the Israeli assessment. Everybody knows that the European Union red lines for Durban II - which included "singling out one region of the world" and attacks on free speech in the name of "defamation of religions" - were breached long ago. The AJC's own UN monitoring body, UN Watch, reported the breach had occurred in October 28, 2008, in a report aptly called "Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft Declaration."

In fact, on the same day Harris made the carefully-worded statement containing no request on the Administration to pull out now - purportedly because circumstances may change for the better - Israel's Ambassador to Geneva Roni Leshno Yaar said: "I expect the text to get only worse on all issues which are important for Western democracy." Pro-Durban II advocates in the Obama administration are using the appearance of this American Jewish organization operating at odds with the Israeli government as cover.

Not only are "present circumstances" sufficient to justify staying away and discrediting Durban II, they have deteriorated. On Tuesday the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, released her "contribution" to the conference. Since the High Commissioner will serve as Durban II's Secretary-General, her views carry serious weight.

Pillay's report made numerous detailed recommendations but was ominously silent on many fronts. For instance, she failed to advocate that it would be wrong to single out any state in the Durban II declaration. She did not recommend that current draft condemnations of Israel be removed. She knew that the right of Jews to return to Israel - the self-determination of the Jewish people - is said to be racist in current draft provisions. And yet this human rights authority figure said nothing about it. She did announce, however: "We must reaffirm the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action without reservation." That's the same Declaration that says Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism.

The Obama Administration has everything it needs to decide the matter. While the Bush administration did not participate directly in Durban II planning, it carefully monitored the dozens of preparatory meetings since they began in August 2007. And now the State Department has added last week's four days of "engagement."

The administration, therefore, knows that Durban II will provide: a global megaphone for anti-semites in the name of combating racism and xenophobia, a forum for religious extremists to play-act as guardians of the freedom of religion, a stage for state sponsors of terrorism to fuel the sentiment that counter-terrorism activities are racist plots - and a vehicle for dictators to champion limitations on free speech in the name of human dignity.

With only a few days of scheduled planning meetings left before the conference, it is decision time for President Obama. Whose side will he be on?

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in The New York Daily News.