Durban Review Summary: July 16, 2008
“From Durban I to Durban II: Preventing Poisonous Anti-Semitism“August 1, 2008, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Alfred H. Moses
In his May 27, 2008 address to the Jewish International Leadership Conference in Geneva, Ambassador Moses, Chair of UN Watch, reviews the history of anti-Semitism, leading up to Durban I. He refers to Durban I as a Passion Play, portraying the Palestinians as victims of the Israeli crucifier. He assigns much responsibility for this outcome to the NGO Forum. “Coupling Israel with racism as was done at Durban is a clear attempt by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize Israel and ultimately to undermine its security.” Moses emphasizes the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in no way based on racial issues, and therefore has no place on the agenda of a conference against racism. As a result of the final declaration focusing disproportionately on Israel, the concerns of victims of true racism worldwide were not addressed and their situation has remained unchanged. “Durban was a lost opportunity in the fight against racism.” Moses calls on participants in the upcoming Durban Review Conference to avoid a similar outcome in 2009. “There can be no repeat of the anti-Semitism displayed at Durban. It has no place anywhere, but most certainly not at a follow-up conference to combat racism and intolerance. This message has to be delivered forcefully, not only to Europe and elsewhere but also to the conference’s chief sponsors in Africa who have the greatest stake in the outcome of the Durban process. The same message needs to be conveyed to the Muslim world.”
“Durban II: Trashing human rights: Islamists target free speech at U.N. parley”
July 14, 2008, The Washington Times, Ed Royce
In this Op-Ed, Royce surveys the antisemitic propaganda activities of Durban I, resulting in the United States’ withdrawal from the conference. Anticipating a similar outcome, the United States has withheld its contribution to the UN intended to fund the 2009 Durban Review Conference. Royce believes that Durban II may turn out to be even more extreme than Durban I, with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) setting its agenda and promoting restrictions on freedom of expression, under the claim of Islamophobia. “Like the first Durban conference, some of the worst human-rights violators will serve on Durban II’s panel [Libya, chair, Iran, Pakistan and Egypt]. Participating members were selected by the gravely disappointing U.N. Commission on Human Rights - the same commission that has passed light condemnations of the regimes in Burma and Sudan. Its passion is democratic Israel, which has been condemned 15 times over the past two years.” Royce concludes that the best way for the United States to handle this situation is by refusing to participate in the Durban Review Conference.
Durban Review Conference Logo Released:
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
“The Review Conference 2009 logo is based on the 2001 World Conference Against Racism emblem, which is an artistic interpretation of the “Yin Yang”, the traditional Chinese black and white symbol representing the two opposing but complementing fundamental forces of life. The multiple shades of gray and artistic movement emphasize the diverse geographic, cultural and racial origins of human beings.
The updated logo aims to convey the message that not only is the Review Conference a look back at what has been accomplished since 2001, but also a new way forward. The logo design may be accompanied by the slogan “United Against Racism: Dignity and Justice for All.””
It remains to be seen whether the Durban Review Conference will actually accomplish these goals and promote these noble ideals, rather than focusing exclusively on the demonization of Israel, like its predecessor.
