Pages: 1 2
A partial boycott occurred inside the conference room itself. Delegates “from at least thirty countries” got up and left in protest soon after Ahmadinejad began his speech. True to form, Ahmadinejad later called the controversy “a Zionist plot.” Arriving back at Tehran’s airport, he probably had his spirits lifted, though, when he heard the “Death To Israel” chants of those on hand to greet him.
Canada again led the way in boycotting Durban III, whose purpose is to commemorate the adoption of the DDPA ten years ago. Last November, the Harper government was the first to say it would not send a delegation and added it would like to see the Durban process dropped altogether. Jason Kenny, a Conservative cabinet minister, said last June the conferences were “basically irredeemable” and only served as a “sick joke and sullies the reputation of the UN.”
“Navi Pillay [the UN high commissioner for human rights in charge of the Durban conferences] and her crew should stop the process and realize that the poison at Durban I has placed the entire process under a permanent cloud,” Kenny said. “A conference that gives a platform to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to advocate genocide is a sick joke.”
Fourteen other countries, including the United States, have followed suit so far and also will not participate in New York, since they are now aware that the Durban conferences are about attacking Israel and not about human rights. Most of the boycotters are Western democracies. Anne Bayefsky notes that all three Western countries on the UN’s Security Council — France, Great Britain and the United States — will also boycott Durban III, calling it “a historic step of tremendous importance.”
“The Palestinians – and Yasser Arafat in particular – were behind Durban I and its message,” Bayefsky said. “This is a major defeat of their message of rejectionism and a refutation that anti-Semitism is a legitimate political tool period.”
At Bayefsky’s anti-Durban conference, Mike Huckabee and the Bush administration’s UN ambassador, John Bolton, are expected to address the event’s participants. Unlike the Durban III conference over at the UN, at the anti-Durban event, one will not have to experience the height of absurdity in the form of lectures on human rights from some of their most preeminent abusers.
With this defeat of rejectionism and the growing irrelevance of the Durban conferences among the world’s most advanced nations, one would expect the Durban hate-fests to soon be consigned to the dustbin of history. But the hatred for the Jewish state and its main supporter, America, runs so deep and is so sinister, there is little hope of that, especially with the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference extending its influence in the UN.
So with more Durban conferences sure to follow New York’s, their opponents should shift the focus to the participants’, especially the OIC states’, human rights records, pointing out the rampant racism in Muslim countries. A logical starting point would be the 300,000 black Africans killed in Darfur, and the 500,000 black Africans still enslaved in Mauritania. By doing so, the world’s real racism problems can then begin to be revealed, as well as the world’s true racists.
Pages: 1 2