More on Durban II

The EU gives in to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)....

THE CULMINATION of this carcinogenic process was last month's kick-off of a two-year plan to prepare and convene a Durban Review Conference in 2009 - Durban II. On the bureau or executive of the Conference preparatory committee are Libya as chair, Cuba as rapporteur, and Iran as a vice-chair.

Such UN human rights authority figures began by deciding that the first substantive session of the Durban II festivities would coincide with almost the entire Jewish holiday of Pessah, thus inhibiting Jews worldwide from attending.

Over the course of the week the European Union engaged in a gentlemanly tug-of-war with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the African regional group - which is controlled by the OIC - over a range of terms and conditions.

In the end, in an all-too-familiar pattern of behavior, the European Union threw in the towel - or in UN-speak "joined consensus." In addition to agreeing that Passover was a good date to hold a conference dedicated to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, they came up with the following:

The objectives of Durban II will no longer be limited to Durban "review," but will now be anything the OIC believes "include[s] assessing contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."

Pakistan crowed about the new agenda: the phrase "contemporary forms… allows for exhaustive discussion, to find ways to fight new forms to fight against racial profiling in the name of the fight against terrorism."

Or, as Egypt put the African group's greatest concern, the "aftermath" of 9/11 "saw a new and dangerous phenomenon in incitement to racial and religious hatred… [T]he highly defamatory cartoons published by a Danish newspaper… deeply hurt over a billion Muslims around the world, and threatened social harmony and peace, both nationally and internationally."

In other words, the goal of Durban II will be to increase mass hysteria over allegations of global Islamophobia perpetrated by those fighting terrorism or publishing cartoons in an obscure Danish paper.

AFTER THE train left the station, European Union diplomats shrugged off the results, claiming there was nothing they could have done. True, just doing the math makes it obvious that a controlling interest in the UN Human Rights Council, (which doubles as the Durban preparatory committee), is held by the OIC.

They compose a majority on each of the African and Asian regional groups, who in turn hold the balance of power. But instead of insisting on a vote and making clear their opposition, the Europeans lent Durban II their support and decided to go along for the ride.

It will be an expensive trip. It was revealed last week that $10.25 million was spent on Durban I, much of it coming from the EU. Instead of insisting, therefore, on some degree of control over the planning of Durban II, the Europeans capitulated at every step.

The OIC insisted that only two UN investigators be issued specific invitations to provide Durban II with recommendations for combating racism. The two preferred investigators were the UN rapporteur on racism and related intolerance (who produces an annual report dedicated to Islamophobia) and the rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. The EU then "demanded" a specific invitation be issued to the UN rapporteur on freedom of expression.

In response, here is what passes for human rights dialogue at the UN. Egypt, on behalf of the Africans, said: "The lack of freedom of expression, although condemnable, is not linked to racism... This reference is political in nature and not grounded in objectivity nor in technicality." Iran was even more to the point: "The special rapporteur on freedom of expression… is not acceptable."

THE FINAL result? There is no reference to freedom of expression, though the investigator on this subject may eventually squeak through the door as an "other."