The U.N. anti-racism conference in Geneva adopted a consensus resolution yesterday that demands action against racism and xenophobia. The resolution is not without controversy, however, and this rather lengthy post is meant to serve as a review of some of the key issues surrounding the controversy that developed it. First, a little history.
U.N. Declares Freedom from Racism a Fundamental Human Right
The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed in 1948 largely due to the efforts of Eleanor Roosevelt (pictured here holding a copy of the declaration, image in the public domain from Wikimedia), includes in it language that reads:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. (Article 2).
That commitment to human rights in general, and racial equality in particular led to a series of conferences sponsored by the U.N. on racism, the third of which was the first U.N. World Conference Against Racism in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. This conference is widely referred to by the shorthand “Durban,” or the “Durban Racism Conference.” That first conference was intensely controversial for the kind of extreme antisemitism it attracted, as the Christian Science Monitor recounts in a recent article:
Some pro-Palestinian supporters passed out fliers containing a photograph of Hitler captioned, “What if I had won? There would be no Israel and no Palestinian bloodshed.” Thousands of NGO delegates approved a document that branded Israel guilty of genocide, apartheid, and other war crimes.Then-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson found the forum recommendations so toxic she refused to “forward” them on to the governments.
Yet, as the CSM goes on to point out, often forgotten is the fact that the gathered diplomats stripped out the most incendiary anti-Israel language even though it did make reference to “the plight of the Palestinian people,” a reference which many objected to as anti-Israel if not a veiled antisemitic attack.
Antisemitism & Racism: Disaster from Disaster
Given this context of overt and extreme antisemitism at the first Durban conference, the second conference had a lot of disadvantages at the start. The second conference, known as the Durban Review Conference (April 20-24, 2009), is still in process and yet many have already declared it a “disaster,” such as
“There has only ever been one United Nations conference on racism before and it ended in disaster. The second begins in it.”
Part of what prompts Ms. Philp to call the Durban Review “a disaster from disaster” is the extensive boycott by many of the invited nations, led by the U.S.:
“The boycott, begun by the United States and Israel, has snowballed so far across the Western world that any official international consensus on dealing with racism and xenophobia now looks near pointless. “
It’s true that the U.S. has led the way in undermining the Durban Review conference, and to the extent that this has been about taking a stand against antisemitism this is a very good thing.
In fact, the U.S. deciding to boycott the Durban Review was responding to the 2001 Durban resolution. Here’s the CSM article again on this issue:
“In a statement released Saturday, the US State Department cited the 2001 Durban text in explaining its withdrawal from this conference. That document “singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians,” it said. And since the draft document for this meeting is based on the previous meeting’s, the US could not participate.”
And, as if there needed to be any more confirmation of the overt antisemitic intentions of some of the key players involved at the Durban Review, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech that was more a hate-filled screed than a stand against racism. Clearly, what Ahmadinejad and other hate-mongers have done is seize upon this opportunity to fight racism in order to advance their antisemitic, (not to mention homophobic – but that’s another post -) and hate-filled agenda. You can begin to see why some would call this conference a “disaster,” but I’m not quite ready to write it off.
Protesting & Monitoring the Geneva Conference
Fortunately, Ahmadinejad’s intolerance did not go without protest and a number of world leaders, as well as NGOs and unaffiliated citizens, walked out of his speech (image of unidentified protesters in Geneva courtesy of DurbanReview).
In addition to the protests, some people have been closely monitoring the Geneva Conference. For example, Andre Oboler launched on a news service April 2nd 2009 about the conference called DurbanReview (http://www.durbanreview.org/). Durban Review is a volunteer project supported by a number of NGOs with people on the ground in Geneva and Oboler coordinating information and news gathering several time zones away in Australia.
One of the useful bits at DurbanReview is the piece on the sponsoring nations, aka “string pullers,” and Gregg Rickman’s piece on what’s problematic about this roster.
Hope for a Stand Against Racism and Antisemitism?
As Matt notes, the conference started on Hitler’s birthday – certainly a bit of inauspicious scheduling on someone’s part – and yet he writes that despite that he’s heartened by the protests to antisemitism:
If people and nations are unwilling to accept antisemitism, there might be a chance to keep it from spreading. Perhaps the antisemites of the world will be radicalized, but if enough nations are willing, we can deal with that.
I agree, I do think there’s hope in that. And, I think that the example of being at the conference, and thus, being able to walk out on Ahmadinejad’s speech is more powerful than not attending the conference altogether. As Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, points out:
Nations that attended this conference in good faith proved that it’s possible to reaffirm the global commitment to fight racism, despite efforts to derail the process. The adoption of this document by consensus only a day after Ahmadinejad’s divisive speech is a clear message against intolerance.
To me, part of the real disaster here is that the extremists like Ahmadinejad have given the West, and particularly the U.S., a very good excuse to stay away from the conference and to continue the pattern of not participating in the global fight to combat racism. Perhaps foolishly, I remain ever hopeful that this can change and the U.S. can, eventually, step up and do the right thing when it comes to fighting racism not just here but around the world. And, the Geneva Conference still provides such an opportunity.
Following the passing of the resolution, de Rivero called for the governments that boycotted the UN racism conference to now endorse the conference declaration and thereby demonstrate their commitment to fight racism. If the U.S. wants to stand against antisemitism and racism, it will heed this call and endorse the conference declaration.
Updated: You can download the Durban Review Conference Outcome Document here (.PDF).
Thanks Jessie for the post! Be sure to keep us updated on the results of the conference.
Thanks, Jessie. It’s always nice to see anti-racists include antisemitism in their fight. (And nice to get name-checked!) Hopefully, the boycott and walkout will lead to a better process able to deal more honestly with all kinds of racism. One note, though: the US didn’t lead the boycott. By the time the Obama administration decided not to attend (under Bush, we were the 4th nation to decline, but under Obama the US reversed it’s stance twice) at least 5 or 6 nations, including the symbolically significant Germany, had announced they wouldn’t attend.
>including the symbolically significant Germany
I think that Germany also bowed to the pressure from Israel, Germany is not able to find a neutral political way today towards Israel.
Hi siss, Matt, jwbe ~ thanks for your comments. I appreciate the corrective note, Matt. I’ve been following the news about the conference(s) for some time, but crafting it into a coherent narrative for this post took some work and I no doubt left a few things out. I look forward to other comments, corrections or additions to the post.
Anti-semitism needs to be address and is rightfully included in racism.
That said, is Israel not “guilty of genocide, apartheid, and other war crimes?”
KState ~ I think the U.S. is leading the way in war crimes these days and certainly has a long history of practicing apartheid and genocide against Native Americans, Japanese Americans and African Americans. The problem, I think, is that Israel gets singled out and held to a (much) higher standard on these issues than any other nation (such as the U.S.). When that sort of pattern continues then it starts to seem like antisemitism (not to suggest that’s what you were doing).
The other thing that Andre (mentioned above in the post) said to me via email earlier is that the U.S. often uses this overemphasis on Israel’s role to distract attention from the way that America’s historic practice of slavery, for example, might be implicated in the passage of the resolution by lending support to the case for reparations.
I get it now, thanks. I just think the Palestinians get a raw deal. They had nothing to do with the Holocaust. You know?
And I agree with Andre.
How is Israel not guilty of apartheid? And the UN resolutions regarding the occupation?
Talk about double standards.
Crazy azz Ahmadinejad’s speech contained truths that cannot be debated. Oh but it’s so much easier to focus on his crazy azz (and, yes, he’s an anti-semite… as funny a term as that is).
And, really? European countries walking out on his speech when he talks about the Holocaust happened in Europe. WOW! Now that’s saying something.
As for the crazy man’s “divisive” rhetoric that just happened to be 100% true regarding the creation of the state of Israel with those same European countries’ fingerprints all over it… But maybe identifying the undeniable source of the conflict is anti-semitic. (And it would be the source with or w/o idiots like Ahmadinejad.)
Let an African-American propose the idea of a homeland in mainland USA, like the Nation of Islam has… (Hell, we can’t even get any traction on a new social contract/Constitution, let alone Reparations).
Hmm… And how ironic. The U.S. history with Native Americans is brought up in the same conversation as Israel and the illegal occupation. I guess the U.S. is justified to stay in Iraq (correction: continue to occupy Iraq with military force) indefinitely as long as there’s the excuse of anti-American sentiments… especially anti-American sentiments decrying the occupation.
“When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.
“The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible – and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible. We also knew that it would end one day; here there is no end in sight. The end of the tunnel is blacker than black.
“Under apartheid, whites and blacks met in certain places. The Israelis and the Palestinians do not meet any longer at all. The separation is total. It seems to me that the Israelis would like the Palestinians to disappear. There was never anything like that in our case. The whites did not want the blacks to disappear. I saw the settlers in Silwan [in East Jerusalem] – people who want to expel other people from their place.”
Mondli Makhanya, editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000976.html
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996697.html
Nquest – Don’t get it twisted, I’m not defending Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, and I never said that Israel “wasn’t guilty” of various human rights abuses. I agree with KState’s assessment that the “Palestinians get a raw deal” (to put it mildly). However, I’m trying to make a more nuanced point: that the U.N. conference on racism got derailed by the desire to pile on Israel. Whether or not that piling on is antisemitism is a subject I’m not willing to get drawn into, but I think there’s a complicated way in which racism and antisemitism (and nationalism) get interwoven in these discussions. I just wonder if it’s possible to have a discussion of global racism and antisemitism without it becoming exclusively a discussion about Israel-Palestine. That conflict almost never gets placed within the context of the Nazi regime that set in motion much of the current disputes.
I wonder if some countries, especially ours, don’t want that discussion without it becoming exclusively about Israel-Palestine. Lots of countries have lots to lose, our country most especially. Not to mention Canada and Australia – and that’s just when it comes to the rights of indigenous people. Then, of course, protecting the rights of minorities is a huge issue, which is ironic. The US claims to be past racism, but rejects the notion that anti-racism delcarations should be made.
And, there is some question of whether or not racism plays a role in the way foreign aid works. So, these meetings are important and I find it difficult to believe that it’s Ahmedinajed’s rants that are holding things up.
Kstate: im curious to know more about [“And, there is some question of whether or not racism plays a role in the way foreign aid works.”]
>Durban Review, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech that was more a hate-filled screed than a stand against racism. Clearly, what Ahmadinejad and other hate-mongers have done is seize upon this opportunity to fight racism in order to advance their antisemitic, (not to mention homophobic – but that’s another post -) and hate-filled agenda.
.
Can you please quote the anti-semitic and homophobic parts of his speech?
A shift in language (and also in thought) occurred after World War II. Verbiage about racial superiority, the tutelage of backward peoples, and people not tread to rule themselves went into the wastebasket. Self-rule and decolonization became universl principles. The West exchanged the old racist coinage for a new currency. “Uncivilized” became “underdeveloped.” “Savage peoples” became the “third world.” There was a genuine change of heart away from racism and toward respect for equality, BUT A PATERNALISTIC AND COERCIVE STRAIN SURVIVED. [emphasis mine] –
|
|
The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good by William Easterly, the Penguin Press, New York: 2006, p24
It would have been more accurate to say there is some question as to the role racism plays in foreign aid. I’m not saying it’s a large part. It’s not. But there is some racism, however benevolent, in international foreign aid. The book isn’t about racism in foreign aid, it just says the big wigs of foreign aid operate under some strain of racism.
Now, if you wanna talk about how much money the US gives to whom under “foreign aid,” that’s another question. Especially since, at least before the global economy collapsed, an increase in trade with Africa of 5% could result in the decrease of US foreign aid 50%. I can’t remember where I read that.
Don’t worry, siss, I’m not seeing the racism phantom behind every bush. . . .Just behind the bushes where it exists.
And I better be clear about this – I’m not saying people are being racist in giving money. No. I’m saying the way foreign aid operates, the demands made on recipient nations, what the West thinks it can accomplish in the Rest, etc, has some racist strains.
Hi jwbe, you asked for quotes from Ahmadinejad’s speech? Here is a link to the Text of Ahmadinejad’s speech in full.
Various parts are problematic for different reasons. He accuses those who boycotted of being racists. He pains Iran a leader in the area of human rights (any one the least bit familiar with the human rights field will find this either amusing or shocking). Etc.
In terms of antisemitism specifically:
1) He attacks Zionism as racism, “Global Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuse religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces” – the Jewish world will take offense at that for having their human right to self determination called racism. Religious Zionists (there is section of society who define their identity as being religious Jews and passionate Zionists) will take double offense at having their religious conviction belittled.
2) he blames “Zionists” for the war in Iraq “Was the military action against Iraq not planned by the Zionists and their allies” this promotes a conspiracy theory about so called Jewish power, a theme he touched upon a number of times.
3) “Global Zionism… However, it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world.” – this is the continuation of the above and is another conspiracy theory push.
4) “They mobilize all their resources, including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime” – this directly follows from the above. It is more about conspiracies of Jews controling the world, and now introduces that old favourite of the Jews controling the media.
5) “Global Zionism personifies racism… Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism”. Not quite sure if that could be said to be a call to genocide, he uses Zionism as both an idea and in place of Jews, and in place of Israel. Actually I believe even if he only means to destroy cultural Zionism, that would technically still be a form of cultural genocide.
6) “There is no doubt that you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference” – this makes you wonder what he thinks the goals of the conference were. Luckily he explained that as soon as he got back to Tehran (along with complaining about Iran not being given the respect it deserves – a reference to people walking out on his talk).
This is just a very quick analysis… I’m sure a more detailed analysis will be done by someone in the near future. Various governments did their own analysis and made statements objecting in the strongest possible terms to the speech. The UN Secretary-General has a word with the Iranian right before he spoke, and the written text released before he spoke was even worse than what was actually said. That text is also linked to when you look at the text linked to above.
The racism in US foreign policy is much deeper than what appears on the surface. It involves a white racial framing of the world, with white (mostly male) views, beliefs, images, emotions, and interpretations determining how our foreign policy operates with regard to other countries, esp. the majority of people on the planet who are not white. White-run international organizations look at the world from this white racial frame and only occasionally make any effort to look at problems, issues, etc, from anything but this white-framed viewpoint. Thus, actions out of the frame tend to be done from the white point of view, with white interests, goals, and profits clearly in mind. Racism, thus, is a type of white arrogance about our power and actions being correct and best for the world.
Thanks for the clarification and the suggested reading KState.
@Andre.
Ok. Do you know why he was allowed to speak?
Siss, you’re welcome.
Joe, thanks for further explanation.
RE: Andre’s #5
.
I guess we can charge any and everyone who talk about Islamic “terrorists” as wanting to perpetrate genocide, physical or cultural-religious, against people who practice Islam.
.
Also, we’re supposed to just ignore this impression from actual real-life circumstances:
.
“…The level of the apartheid [in Israel], the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.
The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all…
It seems to me that the Israelis would like the Palestinians to disappear.”
.
And that didn’t just come from out of nowhere.
.
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads…”
.
“… in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them… Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380984
.
Like I said, mentioning the U.S. history with Native Americans is quite ironic.
The racism in US foreign policy is much deeper than what appears on the surface. It involves a white racial framing of the world, with white (mostly male) views, beliefs, images, emotions, and interpretations determining how our foreign policy operates
.
Speaking about framing and the irony involved when we consider the parallels between the Palestinian-Israeli situation and the history of the U.S. colonial/nation relationship with Native Americans…
.
Today, I think most people would consider Whites arguing that Native Americans must acknowledge their “right to exist” [on lands Native Americans populated/used] absurd.
jwbe, he is a Head of State. Within the UN context I believe that gives him a right to speak. Once he has stood up to speak the chair of the session could rule what he was saying out of order and tell him to refrain from using racist language during his speech. If he failed to follow the chair’s instructions he could be made to sit down without being allowed to finish what he had to say. If he refused his mic could be turned off and he could be escorted out by security. I’m basing this on my unerstanding of the usual UN procedures.
Had the above happened, I’m confident the Iranian propaganda office has a plan lined up for attacking the UN are denying his freedom of speech, a “fundamental human right”. (Even in the US it is not an absolute unconditional right.) Some of this proaganda was used anyway when he got back to Teheran and addressed a lawyers conference there. His point there seemed to be that walking out on him, or protesting against what he said was not showing him and Iran proper respect.
On the one hand he wants to use freedom of speech to say he has a right to stand at the podium makign racist statements, and on the other he wants to remove the freedom of speech and expression from others who disagree with him as that is not showing his due respect. The guy is a smart operator. He’s also just smart. He has an Engineering degree, an MSc and a PhD. He also seems to have a background in military intelligence. His brand of racism isn’t racism due to ignorance, it is the sort of planned racism used by states throughout history. The sort of racism in fact that led to the creation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
You ask a good question and open up an interesting discussion of the use Iran is making of Racism and Homophobia in order to advance a new (really a return to an old) world order.
Although I don’t agree 100% with every word – in particular, I think he excuses Ahmadinejad’s speech more than he should – I think this article in the Guardian brings up an important alternative view of the conference. First of all, I think he’s right to say that the connection between zionism and racism shouldn’t be dismissed without discussion as anti-Semitic. And secondly, there’s something very gross about a bunch of white-dominated nations deciding to boycott the anti-racism conference.
I’m certainly concerned with anti-Semitism at Durban, and I’m glad a strong stand was made against anti-Semitism. But it bothers me that the racist treatment of Palestinians at Durban is seemingly being ignored. There was not one officially allowed Palestinian speaker this year, but other speakers, like Alan Dershowitz, were allowed to take the stage to spread vicious anti-Palestinian racism.
@Andre
while I don’t agree with all what Ahmadinejad is saying for me the European outrage is faked. Bigots. In an alleged support for Israel they walk out also because they don’t want to listen to truths which are about Europe/the West. To call A.’s entire speech racist is white/European entitlement. The West that also doesn’t want to hear anything about paying reparations.
Perhaps for us of the West it never or hardly ever occurs that we act like terrorists and that those affected are also trying to defend themselves. It only doesn’t feel so good that now we are sometimes the target.
The West bombs Iraq and Afghanistan and kills millions of innocent people but we have the nerv to be so afraid of terrorism.
And I also think that the West and most of all Germany must find a way to no longer support Israel without this fear of being called anti-semitic. Jews weren’t the only victims of Nazi Germany, there are about 5 million others, Black Germans and Roma for example and nobody talks about them. This is convenient silence and also a denial of the true face of the Holocaust.
.
>On the one hand he wants to use freedom of speech to say he has a right to stand at the podium makign racist statements, and on the other he wants to remove the freedom of speech and expression from others who disagree with him as that is not showing his due respect.
.
And the West wants to use free speech to further promote its racist language against the Middle East and Islam. Which country will the West invade as the next one with some pretext? Iran?
Do Americans actually believe that “the world” is waiting for American democracy or is jealous of your way of live?
and just as a reminder, the US can threaten other nations, like HRC did:
.
‘Jerusalem, April 22: Ahead of a crucial primary in Pennsylvania, Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has said that if she were in the White House and Tehran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, Washington would ‘totally obliterate’ Iran. […]”I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the President, we will attack Iran,” she replied adding, “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them”. ‘
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Hillary-Clinton-threatens-to-wipe-out-Iran/300130/
.
also as a reminder, the US is the only nation that up to now actually dropped atomic bombs. Sometimes I really have the impression that many white Americans, also so-called anti-racists don’t even have an idea of who you truly are or you make the assumption that the rest of the world should just forget, I don’t know.
@Jwbe:
.
Here is another view at the Sunday Times, it explains both agrees with you that much of the Western attitude (and the UN’s) was faked (not those who boycotted, but those who walked out) and explained in fairly good detail the racism in the speech. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6169424.ece
.
As to other victims of the Holocaust, no one denies that, but the Nazi persecution of the Jews was different to the persecution of other groups. It is not even a matter of numbers, though the number of Jews killed is staggering both in absolute figures (six million) and in terms of the percentage of Europe’s Jews (about 1/3 of the total). It is the systeamtic the process and high priority the Nazi’s gave their “final solution” for the Jews that is the standout fact. The Nazi’s goal was the extermination, genocide, of the Jews – nothing less. They even built a couple of museums to the “extinct race”. The reason for gass chambers was that it was scientifically calculated to be cheaper than bullets. Prior to this they used to line them up and try kill as many as possible with one bullet.
.
Holocaust scholars are not in agreement on whether “Holocaust” should be exclusive to the Jewish persecution and attempted genocide, or whether it should include groups like the Roma and Sinti, homosexuals, the disabled, etc. I have personally been involved in running civic memorial events (along with Roma, homosexuals, trade unionists, etc) where the agree wording was “Jewish victims of the Holocaust and other victims of Nazi persecution including…” this was met with broad aproval. I have also (another year) has to explain why the attitude “we focused on the Jews last year, this year lets focus on the persecution of homosexuals!” (as part of a gay pride push) was unacceptable.
.
On the article in question, it completly misses the point. Those countries that sayed away have some of the best human rights records in the world. That is not to say they are perfect, far from it, but you must compare it to the lack of basic human rights in many of the countries who stayed in. Do you honestly believe Iran was there out of concern for human rights? Or China? Or Sudan? Or Zimbabwe? Funny how those countries that come to mind are not “white” or put more simply, they are not European or former colonies of the Europeans. There is a reason for this… it is related to a shared culture from European history and the Elightenment. This is I think more reasonable than a claim of “white/non-white” racism which is to be honest rather contrived.
>Holocaust scholars are not in agreement on whether “Holocaust” should be exclusive to the Jewish persecution and attempted genocide,
.
I am not a scholar, just a German who believes that not telling the entire history is also not learning from history. Paying reparations to Jews but not to other victims doesn’t make sense in a human way of understanding, those who suffered and died in KZ’s etc felt the same pain. Not truly recognizing non-Jewish victims also leads to a social and political exclusion up to today. Ask an average German what he knows about Black Germany and you will get silence as an answer. Ask about German colonies and the genocide in Namibia – the same. Ask about Sinti and Roma, many don’t know that they even exist.
Not honestly dealing with the Holocaust also causes the distorted view in Germany that PoC can’t be German, but ‘must be’ foreigners.
.
>Those countries that sayed away have some of the best human rights records in the world. That is not to say they are perfect, far from it, but you must compare it to the lack of basic human rights in many of the countries who stayed in.
.
What does it mean? That countries like Germany do not even want to recognize racism. That the picture we want to represent to the world, because we know that we are being ‘watched’ because of our past, isn’t in accordance of what we really are. The “not so perfect countries” still discriminate within their borders and benefit from the exploitation of people in third countries. The ‘far away’ racism we benefit from and participate in and also keep alive by our trade rules. And many will never even know that many people have to suffer and to die so that we are able to live the way we do. Allegedly progressive. There is modern-day slavery in probably every Western nation – but we don’t talk about it. There is the exploitation of “illegal” immigrants and nobody talks about it. There is police brutality and abuse in prisons, discrimination on a daily basis against People of Color within these “better” countries and I think the only thing we in the West have truly learned is to hide it better or if we find a target, like Iraq, Afghanistan and many others we first dehumanize them and with that we can appear as if we are truly concernded about human rights and their rights. We aren’t. Look at the “war on terror” and what we are doing in the name of it. Look at the true story of bio-fuels and what natural damage and human tragedy this ‘alternative’ causes in third countries. Look at powerful Western companies and how they are able to keep child labor in third countries alive.
Etc.
Whatever the “Enlightment” has brought to us Western nations, it definitely wasn’t humanity and respecting human rights.
@Jwbe:
.
You missed my point…. other victims of Nazi persecution are commemorated, but the term Holocaust has a very specific meaning for very specific reasons. I encourage you to get a deeper understanding of the Holocaust if you are interested in the topic… it would make things much clearer.
.
The reparations as well is not compensation for those that were murdered, it is in part designed to return the value of assets stolen from Jewish people by the Nazi and in part designed to help the immediate survivors. The initiative came from the German end, and at the Israeli end many voices in the Knesset saw it as blood money and wanted to refuse it. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/reparations.html
.
The confiscation of goods started well before the death camps. When Jews went into the ghetto their houses, possessions etc were taken by the (Nazi) German state. When they left the ghetto they were told to take only their most valuable items and were only allowed one case each. These were taken from them and they never saw them again. Those goods to were added to the Nazi asset pile. Much of the money ended up in Swiss bank accounts, and the banks faught a long battle to try keep it.
.
In terms of Western values and human rights, I must simply disagree with you. We agree their are problems, but disagree on the solution. I don’t believe a conference that attacks the West while ignoring things like discrimination against the Dalits in India, the hanging of homosexuals in Iran, or current slavery in parts of Africa is useful. It allows those countries with some of the worst rights records to undermine the UN in an effort to attack the West.
.
If it was an EU conference and aimed at improving the situation in Europe, that would be another matter. It is the difference between constructive critisism and political use of a racism conference for purposes that have little to do with human rights. Many of those involved were involved only to keep ctisitism of themselves off the agenda. E.g. China which used a long list of procedural motions to stop an NGO bringing up the issue of Tibet. The chair after a minute of this simply told the speaker to sit down. See “The Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples network”: http://www.durbanreview.org/reporting/?p=347
Many of those involved were involved only to keep ctisitism of themselves off the agenda.
.
And the countries with the “best human rights”, the U.S. for example, involved themselves to the extent to which they could keep criticism of themselves (and their friends) off the agenda and then figured they (the U.S., in particular) wouldn’t be involved for the very same reasons.
.
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 19 — The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, pressing foreign governments to drop reparation demands for slavery and to desist from singling out Israel for criticism in a draft declaration to be presented at a U.N. conference in April.
.
@Andre
>You missed my point…. other victims of Nazi persecution are commemorated, but the term Holocaust has a very specific meaning for very specific reasons.
.
I wrote:
I am not a scholar, just a German who believes that not telling the entire history is also not learning from history. Paying reparations to Jews but not to other victims doesn’t make sense in a human way of understanding, those who suffered and died in KZ’s etc felt the same pain. Not truly recognizing non-Jewish victims also leads to a social and political exclusion up to today.
.
>at the Israeli end many voices in the Knesset saw it as blood money and wanted to refuse it. See:
.
I know that, your point?
.
>We agree their are problems, but disagree on the solution
.
which solution did I offer?
@Andre
>That is not to say they are perfect, far from it, but you must compare it to the lack of basic human rights in many of the countries who stayed in. Do you honestly believe Iran was there out of concern for human rights? Or China? Or Sudan? Or Zimbabwe? Funny how those countries that come to mind are not “white” or put more simply, they are not European or former colonies of the Europeans. There is a reason for this… it is related to a shared culture from European history and the Elightenment. This is I think more reasonable than a claim of “white/non-white” racism which is to be honest rather contrived.
.
I am not sure what you truly want to say with that but first Zimbabwe was a former European colony and as far as I know also Sudan.
Second, you seem to believe that European countries ‘are concerned’ about human rights because of the Enlightenment. Funny how that works, the E. was before and during the time of colonizing, enslavement, genocides. All committed by Europeans.
I did not come here to jump into the great discussion above—rather I just wanted to post an article on the Palestinian/Israeli issues/relations and the U.S.’s involvement/role, etc. While older, I thought some might still find it interesting (and wasn’t quite sure where to put it—this seemed like an appropriate place):
http://www.counterpunch.org/laila1216.html
(and here’s some Cat Stevens for anybody in need of a good tune)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TWd3skb-Rw
Yes, both Sudan and Zimbabwe were colonies. And Europe(ans) care as much about human rights as anyone else. Stop spreading the racist ideology that Europeans/white folks are just salt of the earth people and the everyone else is dirt.